Lisa Nainggolan

HELSINKI, FINLAND — A new gene for early-onset Parkinson’s disease has been identified, a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.

A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.

“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted. 

“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Managing Patient Expectations

Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia. 

In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.

In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.

While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland. 

The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted. 

“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”

Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations. 
 

Clinical Relevance on the Way?

While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.

For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease. 

This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”

This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein. 

She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.

“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted. 

“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised. 

“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.

“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset. 

Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — A new gene for early-onset Parkinson’s disease has been identified, a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.

A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.

“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted. 

“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Managing Patient Expectations

Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia. 

In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.

In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.

While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland. 

The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted. 

“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”

Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations. 
 

Clinical Relevance on the Way?

While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.

For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease. 

This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”

This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein. 

She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.

“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted. 

“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised. 

“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.

“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset. 

Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — A new gene for early-onset Parkinson’s disease has been identified, a discovery that experts believe will have important clinical implications in the not-too-distant future.

A variant in PMSF1, a proteasome regulator, was identified in 15 families from 13 countries around the world, with 22 affected individuals.

“These families were ethnically diverse, and in all of them, the variant in PMSF1 correlated with the neurologic phenotype. We know this is very clear cut — the genotype/phenotype correlation — with the patients carrying the missense mutation having ‘mild’ symptoms, while those with the progressive loss-of-function variant had the most severe phenotype,” she noted. 

“Our findings unequivocally link defective PSMF1 to early-onset PD and neurodegeneration and suggest mitochondrial dysfunction as a mechanistic contributor,” study investigator Francesca Magrinelli, MD, PhD, of University College London (UCL) Queen Square Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, told delegates at the 2024 Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Managing Patient Expectations

Those “mildly” affected had an early-onset Parkinson’s disease starting between the second and fifth decade of life with pyramidal tract signs, dysphasia, psychiatric comorbidity, and early levodopa-induced dyskinesia. 

In those with the intermediate type, Parkinson’s disease symptoms start in childhood and include, among other things, global hypokinesia, developmental delay, cerebellar signs, and in some, associated epilepsy.

In most cases, there was evidence on brain MRI of a hypoplasia of the corpus callosum, Dr. Magrinelli said. In the most severely affected individuals, there was perinatal lethality with neurologic manifestations.

While it may seem that the genetics of Parkinson’s disease is an academic exercise for the most part, it won’t be too much longer before it yields practical information that will inform how patients are treated, said Parkinson’s disease expert Christine Klein, MD, of the Institute of Neurogenetics and Department of Neurology, University of Lübeck, Helsinki, Finland. 

The genetics of Parkinson’s disease are complicated, even within a single family. So, it’s very important to assess the pathogenicity of different variants, Dr. Klein noted. 

“I am sure that you have all had a Parkinson’s disease [gene] panel back, and it says, ‘variant of uncertain significance.’ This is the worst thing that can happen. The lab does not know what it means. You don’t know what it means, and you don’t know what to tell the patient. So how do you get around this?”

Dr. Klein said that before conducting any genetic testing, clinicians should inform the patient that they may have a genetic variant of uncertain significance. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it does help physicians manage patient expectations. 
 

Clinical Relevance on the Way?

While it may seem that all of the identified variants that predict Parkinson’s disease which, in addition to PSMF1, include the well-established LRRK2 and GBA1, may look the same, this is not true when patient history is taken into account, said Dr. Klein.

For example, age-of-onset of Parkinson’s disease can differ between identified variants, and this has led to “a paradigm change” whereby a purely genetic finding is called a disease. 

This first occurred in Huntington’s disease, when researchers gave individuals at high genetic risk of developing the illness, but who currently had no clinical symptoms, the label of “Stage Zero disease.”

This is important to note “because if we get to the stage of having drugs that can slow down, or even prevent, progression to Parkinson’s disease, then it will be key to have patients we know are going to develop it to participate in clinical trials for such agents,” said Dr. Klein. 

She cited the example of a family that she recently encountered that had genetic test results that showed variants of unknown significance, so Dr. Klein had the family’s samples sent to a specialized lab in Dundee, Scotland, for further analysis.

“The biochemists found that this variant was indeed pathogenic, and kinase-activating, so this is very helpful and very important because there are now clinical trials in Parkinson’s disease with kinase inhibitors,” she noted. 

“If you think there is something else [over and above the finding of uncertain significance] in your Parkinson’s disease panel, and you are not happy with the genetic report, send it somewhere else,” Dr. Klein advised. 

“We will see a lot more patients with genetic Parkinson’s disease in the future,” she predicted, while citing two recent preliminary clinical trials that have shown some promise in terms of neuroprotection in patients with early Parkinson’s disease.

“It remains to be seen whether there will be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said, but it may soon be possible to find treatments that delay, or even prevent, Parkinson’s disease onset. 

Dr. Magrinelli reported receiving speaker’s honoraria from MJFF Edmond J. Safra Clinical Research Fellowship in Movement Disorders (Class of 2023), MJFF Edmond J. Safra Movement Disorders Research Career Development Award 2023 (Grant ID MJFF-023893), American Parkinson Disease Association (Research Grant 2024), and the David Blank Charitable Foundation. Dr. Klein reported being a medical advisor to Retromer Therapeutics, Takeda, and Centogene and speakers’ honoraria from Desitin and Bial.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say. 

“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.

The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned. 

Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said. 

In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age. 

Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”

To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets. 

It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway. 
 

Start With Folic Acid

One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy. 

When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.

The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid. 

“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy. 
 

Choosing the Right ASM 

The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring. 

Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.

“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.

The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added. 

This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.

Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.

Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.

On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.

“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said. 
 

Dose Optimization 

Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.

He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.

To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.

The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.

Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say. 

“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.

The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned. 

Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said. 

In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age. 

Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”

To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets. 

It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway. 
 

Start With Folic Acid

One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy. 

When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.

The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid. 

“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy. 
 

Choosing the Right ASM 

The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring. 

Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.

“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.

The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added. 

This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.

Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.

Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.

On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.

“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said. 
 

Dose Optimization 

Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.

He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.

To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.

The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.

Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.

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

HELSINKI, FINLAND — When it comes to caring for women with epilepsy who become pregnant, there is a great deal of room for improvement, experts say. 

“Too many women with epilepsy receive information about epilepsy and pregnancy only after pregnancy. We can do better,” Torbjörn Tomson, MD, PhD, senior professor of neurology and epileptology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told delegates attending the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology 2024.

The goal in epilepsy is to maintain seizure control while minimizing exposure to potentially teratogenic medications, Dr. Tomson said. He added that pregnancy planning in women with epilepsy is important but also conceded that most pregnancies in this patient population are unplanned. 

Overall, it’s important to tell patients that “there is a high likelihood of an uneventful pregnancy and a healthy offspring,” he said. 

In recent years, new data have emerged on the risks to the fetus with exposure to different antiseizure medications (ASMs), said Dr. Tomson. This has led regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, to issue restrictions on the use of some ASMs, particularly valproate and topiramate, in females of childbearing age. 

Session chair Marte Bjørk, MD, PhD, of the Department of Neurology of Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, questioned whether the latest recommendations from regulatory authorities have “sacrificed seizure control at the expense of teratogenic safety.”

To an extent, this is true, said Dr. Tomson, “as the regulations prioritize fetal health over women’s health.” However, “we have not seen poorer seizure control with newer medications” in recent datasets. 

It’s about good planning, said Dr. Bjork, who is responsible for the clinical guidelines for treatment of epilepsy in pregnancy in Norway. 
 

Start With Folic Acid

One simple measure is to ensure that all women with epilepsy of childbearing age are prescribed low-dose folic acid, Dr. Tomson said — even those who report that they are not considering pregnancy. 

When it comes to folic acid, recently published guidelines on ASM use during pregnancy are relatively straightforward, he said.

The data do not show that folic acid reduces the risk for major congenital malformations, but they do show that it improves neurocognitive outcomes in children of mothers who received folic acid supplements prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Dr. Tomson said the new American Academy of Neurology (AAN) guidelines recommend a dosage of 0.4 mg/d, which balances the demonstrated benefits of supplementation and potential negative consequences of high doses of folic acid. 

“Consider 0.4 mg of folic acid for all women on ASMs that are of childbearing potential, whether they become pregnant or not,” he said. However, well-designed, preferably randomized, studies are needed to better define the optimal folic acid dosing for pregnancy in women with epilepsy. 
 

Choosing the Right ASM 

The choice of the most appropriate ASM in pregnancy is based on the potential for an individual drug to cause major congenital malformations and, in more recent years, the likelihood that a woman with epilepsy is using any other medications associated with neurodevelopmental disorders in offspring. 

Balanced against this must be the effect of pregnancy on seizure control, and the maternal and fetal risks associated with seizures during pregnancy.

“There are ways to optimize seizure control and to reduce teratogenic risks,” said Dr. Tomson, adding that the new AAN guidelines provide updated evidence-based conclusions on this topic.

The good news is that “there has been almost a 40% decline in the rate of major congenital malformations associated with ASM use in pregnancy, in parallel with a shift from use of ASMs such as carbamazepine and valproate to lamotrigine and levetiracetam.” The latter two medications are associated with a much lower risk for such birth defects, he added. 

This is based on the average rate of major congenital malformations in the EURAP registry that tracks the comparative risk for major fetal malformations after ASM use during pregnancy in over 40 countries. The latest reporting from the registry shows that this risk has decreased from 6.1% in 1998-2004 to 3.7% in 2015-2022.

Taking valproate during pregnancy is associated with a significantly increased risk for neurodevelopmental outcomes, including autism spectrum disorder. However, the jury is still out on whether topiramate escalates the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders, because findings across studies have been inconsistent.

Overall, the AAN guidance, and similar advice from European regulatory authorities, is that valproate is associated with high risk for major congenital malformations and neurodevelopmental disorders. Topiramate has also been shown to increase the risk for major congenital malformations. Consequently, these two anticonvulsants are generally contraindicated in pregnancy, Dr. Tomson noted.

On the other hand, levetiracetam, lamotrigine, and oxcarbazepine seem to be the safest ASMs with respect to congenital malformation risk, and lamotrigine has the best documented safety profile when it comes to the risk for neurodevelopmental disorders.

Although there are newer ASMs on the market, including brivaracetam, cannabidiol, cenobamate, eslicarbazepine acetate, fenfluramine, lacosamide, perampanel, and zonisamide, at this juncture data on the risk potential of these agents are insufficient.

“For some of these newer meds, we don’t even have a single exposure in our large databases, even if you combine them all. We need to collect more data, and that will take time,” Dr. Tomson said. 
 

Dose Optimization 

Dose optimization of ASMs is also important — and for this to be accurate, it’s important to document an individual’s optimal ASM serum levels before pregnancy that can be used as a baseline target during pregnancy. However, Dr. Tomson noted, this information is not always available.

He pointed out that, with many ASMs, there can be a significant decline in serum concentration levels during pregnancy, which can increase seizure risk.

To address the uncertainty surrounding this issue, Dr. Tomson recommended that physicians consider future pregnancy when prescribing ASMs to women of childbearing age. He also advised discussing contraception with these patients, even if they indicate they are not currently planning to conceive.

The data clearly show the importance of planning a pregnancy so that the most appropriate and safest medications are prescribed, he said.

Dr. Tomson reported receiving research support, on behalf of EURAP, from Accord, Angelini, Bial, EcuPharma, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, GW Pharma, Hazz, Sanofi, Teva, USB, Zentiva, and SF Group. He has received speakers’ honoraria from Angelini, Eisai, and UCB. Dr. Bjørk reports receiving speakers’ honoraria from Pfizer, Eisai, AbbVie, Best Practice, Lilly, Novartis, and Teva. She has received unrestricted educational grants from The Research Council of Norway, the Research Council of the Nordic Countries (NordForsk), and the Norwegian Epilepsy Association. She has received consulting honoraria from Novartis and is on the advisory board of Eisai, Lundbeck, Angelini Pharma, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Bjørk also received institutional grants from marked authorization holders of valproate.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule that would greatly limit the concentration of endocrine-disrupting “forever” chemicals in drinking water. 

The EPA on Tuesday announced the proposed National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for six polyfluoroalkyl substances, more commonly known as PFAS, which are human-made chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. Such substances are also widely used in cosmetics and food packaging.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

The Endocrine Society, which represents more than 18,000 doctors who treat hormone disorders, says it fully supports the new EPA proposal. It explains that these substances, also known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, “do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time. They pose health dangers at incredibly low levels and have been linked to endocrine disorders such as cancer, thyroid disruption, and reproductive difficulties.”

“This is the first time the government has regulated a new chemical in drinking water in more than 30 years,” the society notes, adding, this “will require major water treatment upgrades at utilities across the country.”

Robert F. Powelson, president and CEO of the National Association of Water Companies, says addressing the PFAS in the nation’s water supply will cost “billions of dollars.”

“It’s a burden that under the current structure will disproportionately fall on water and wastewater customers in small communities and low-income families,” Mr. Powelson says in a statement. He says the onus should instead fall on “the polluters” – those who manufacture and use PFAS chemicals, who “should be held directly responsible for the clean-up costs.” 

Although the EPA is proposing a health-based maximum contaminant level goal of zero for these chemicals in drinking water, it acknowledges that this is unenforceable and so has set what it considers an enforceable level, or maximum contaminant level (MCL), of 4 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). 

A different standard has been proposed for the remaining four chemicals: perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) – known together as GenX chemicals – perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), and perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS).

Officials from the EPA told The Washington Post that these proposed limits would be as strong or stronger than limits from about a dozen states that have set their own drinking water standards in recent years. 

“The experts here felt this was the level of stringency required to protect public health, and that the law would allow for us,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told the newspaper. “This is a transformative action that we’re taking.”

The EPA is requesting public comment on the proposed regulation and will hold a public hearing on May 4, which members of the public can register to attend and comment on the rule proposal. The last day to register is April 28. 

The EPA wants to finalize regulation by the end of 2023, although delays are common on new rules. 

If it is fully implemented, “the rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses,” the EPA statement says.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

Eli Lilly will cut prices for most of its insulins in the United States by 70% and cap out-of-pocket costs for insulin at $35 per month, the company announced on March 1.

“Lilly is taking these actions to make it easier to access Lilly insulin and help Americans who may have difficulty navigating a complex healthcare system that may keep them from getting affordable insulin,” the company said in a statement.

iStock/ThinkStock

The $35 price cap is effective immediately at participating retail pharmacies for people with commercial insurance. Those without insurance can go to InsulinAffordability.com and download the Lilly Insulin Value Program savings card to receive Lilly insulins for $35 per month.

The company says it will cut the list price of its nonbranded Insulin Lispro Injection 100 units/mL to $25 a vial, effective May 1, 2023. The list price of the branded Humalog (insulin lispro injection) 100 units/mL will be cut by 70%, effective in the fourth quarter of 2023.

Lilly is among the three main companies that manufacture insulin, along with Novo Nordisk and Sanofi, that have come under fire over the cost of insulin in the US. Studies have shown that up to 25% of people with type 1 diabetes ration insulin because of costs, putting their health and often their lives in jeopardy.

Prices in the United States are around 10 times higher than in other countries. California is the latest state to say it plans to sue these big three companies over the high price of insulin and has announced plans to make its own cheaper versions.

Asked at a telephone press briefing if the lawsuit prompted the company’s move, Lilly chair and CEO David A. Ricks said: “Of course there are complaints against the industry and the company. We see those as completely unfounded. However, we can probably all agree that patients should have a consistent and lower-cost experience at the pharmacy counter, and that’s what today’s announcement is about. We’re doing this completely voluntarily because it’s time and it’s the right thing to do.”

On hearing the company announcement, Laura Nally, MD, a pediatric endocrinologist living with type 1 diabetes, @drnallypants, tweeted: “YES. After years of advocacy, the list price of Lispro/Humalog is now similar to what it was in the late 1990s. Cheers to all the #pwd [people with diabetes] who have advocated through #insulin4all! But we still have work to do to improve access to other diabetes medications & supplies.”

#insulin4all is a worldwide campaign to ensure that people with type 1 diabetes have access to affordable insulin and other supplies needed to manage the condition, such as glucose strips. It is supported, among others, by the advocacy group T1International.

Also giving his reaction to the Lilly announcement, Chuck Henderson, CEO of the American Diabetes Association, said: “We applaud Eli Lilly for taking the important step to limit cost-sharing for its insulin, and we encourage other insulin manufacturers to do the same.

“While we have been able to help achieve significant progress on the issue of insulin affordability, including Medicare’s new out-of-pocket cost cap on insulin, state copay caps, and patient assistance developments from insulin manufacturers, we know that our work is not done,” he added.

“ADA will work to ensure that Eli Lilly’s patient assistance program is benefiting patients as intended and continue the fight so that everyone who needs insulin has access.”

And Endocrine Society chief medical officer Robert Lash, MD, said: “Lilly’s move to apply a $35/month cap for people with private insurance will be a significant improvement for adults and children with diabetes who use Lilly’s products.

“We encourage all insulin manufacturers to join in the effort to reduce out-of-pocket costs for people who need insulin.”

Lilly will also launch a new insulin biosimilar, Rezvoglar (insulin glargine-aglr) injection, which is similar to and interchangeable with insulin glargine (Lantus). The cost will by $92 for a five pack of KwikPens, a 78% discount, compared with the cost of Lantus, beginning April 1, 2023.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, for the additional indication of treating obesity in adolescents aged 12 years and older.

This is defined as those with an initial body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex (based on CDC growth charts). Semaglutide must be administered along with lifestyle intervention of a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

When Wegovy was approved for use in adults with obesity in June 2021, it was labeled a “game changer.”

The new approval is based on the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly 2.4 mg of semaglutide in adolescents 12- to <18 years old with obesity, the drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced in a press release.

In STEP TEENS, reported at Obesity Week 2022 in November, and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, adolescents with obesity treated with semaglutide for 68 weeks had a 16.1% reduction in BMI compared with a 0.6% increase in BMI in those receiving placebo. Both groups also received lifestyle intervention. Mean weight loss was 15.3 kg (33.7 pounds) among teens on semaglutide, while those on placebo gained 2.4 kg (5.3 pounds).

At the time, Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH, codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota – who was not involved with the research – told this news organization the results were “mind-blowing ... we are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity.

Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist, as is a related agent, also from Novo Nordisk, liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection, which was approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older in December 2020. Wegovy is the first weekly subcutaneous injection approved for use in adolescents.

Other agents approved for obesity in those older than 12 in the United States include the combination phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) in June 2022, and orlistat (Alli). Phentermine is approved for those aged 16 and older.  

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, for the additional indication of treating obesity in adolescents aged 12 years and older.

This is defined as those with an initial body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex (based on CDC growth charts). Semaglutide must be administered along with lifestyle intervention of a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

When Wegovy was approved for use in adults with obesity in June 2021, it was labeled a “game changer.”

The new approval is based on the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly 2.4 mg of semaglutide in adolescents 12- to <18 years old with obesity, the drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced in a press release.

In STEP TEENS, reported at Obesity Week 2022 in November, and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, adolescents with obesity treated with semaglutide for 68 weeks had a 16.1% reduction in BMI compared with a 0.6% increase in BMI in those receiving placebo. Both groups also received lifestyle intervention. Mean weight loss was 15.3 kg (33.7 pounds) among teens on semaglutide, while those on placebo gained 2.4 kg (5.3 pounds).

At the time, Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH, codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota – who was not involved with the research – told this news organization the results were “mind-blowing ... we are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity.

Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist, as is a related agent, also from Novo Nordisk, liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection, which was approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older in December 2020. Wegovy is the first weekly subcutaneous injection approved for use in adolescents.

Other agents approved for obesity in those older than 12 in the United States include the combination phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) in June 2022, and orlistat (Alli). Phentermine is approved for those aged 16 and older.  

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved semaglutide 2.4 mg (Wegovy), a once-weekly subcutaneous injection, for the additional indication of treating obesity in adolescents aged 12 years and older.

This is defined as those with an initial body mass index at or above the 95th percentile for age and sex (based on CDC growth charts). Semaglutide must be administered along with lifestyle intervention of a reduced calorie meal plan and increased physical activity.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

When Wegovy was approved for use in adults with obesity in June 2021, it was labeled a “game changer.”

The new approval is based on the results of the STEP TEENS phase 3 trial of once-weekly 2.4 mg of semaglutide in adolescents 12- to <18 years old with obesity, the drug’s manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, announced in a press release.

In STEP TEENS, reported at Obesity Week 2022 in November, and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine, adolescents with obesity treated with semaglutide for 68 weeks had a 16.1% reduction in BMI compared with a 0.6% increase in BMI in those receiving placebo. Both groups also received lifestyle intervention. Mean weight loss was 15.3 kg (33.7 pounds) among teens on semaglutide, while those on placebo gained 2.4 kg (5.3 pounds).

At the time, Claudia K. Fox, MD, MPH, codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota – who was not involved with the research – told this news organization the results were “mind-blowing ... we are getting close to bariatric surgery results” in these adolescent patients with obesity.

Semaglutide is a GLP-1 agonist, as is a related agent, also from Novo Nordisk, liraglutide (Saxenda), a daily subcutaneous injection, which was approved for use in adolescents aged 12 and older in December 2020. Wegovy is the first weekly subcutaneous injection approved for use in adolescents.

Other agents approved for obesity in those older than 12 in the United States include the combination phentermine and topiramate extended-release capsules (Qsymia) in June 2022, and orlistat (Alli). Phentermine is approved for those aged 16 and older.  

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

Florida’s two main medical bodies have voted to stop gender-affirming treatment of children, including the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, other than in minors who are already receiving such care.

The move, which is unprecedented, makes Florida one of several U.S. states to restrict gender-affirming care for adolescents, but the first to do so via an administrative process, through the actions of its Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine.

“I appreciate the integrity of the Boards for ruling in the best interest of children in Florida despite facing tremendous pressure to permit these unproven and risky treatments,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement.

In a statement, The Endocrine Society criticizes the decision as “blatantly discriminatory” and not based on medical evidence.

During a meeting on Oct. 28 that involved testimonies from doctors, parents of transgender children, detransitioners, and patients, board members referred to similar changes in Europe, where some countries have pushed psychotherapy instead of surgery or hormone treatment.

Then, on Nov. 4, the boards each set slightly different instructions, with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voting to restrict care for new patients but allowing an exception for children enrolled in clinical studies, which “must include long-term longitudinal assessments of the patients’ physiologic and psychologic outcomes,” according to the Florida Department of Health.

The Board of Medicine did not allow the latter.

The proposed rules are open to public comment before finalization.

Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban on gender-affirming care, with Republican lawmakers in 2021 overriding GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of the legislation. Alabama Republicans in 2022 approved legislation to outlaw gender-affirming medications for transgender youths. Both laws have been paused amid unfolding legal battles, according to Associated Press.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed a bill in October that bars federal funds earmarked for the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from being used for gender reassignment treatments for minors. Gov. Stitt also called for the legislature to ban some of those gender reassignment treatments statewide when it returns in February.

Top Tennessee Republicans also have vowed to push for strict antitransgender policies. The state already bans doctors from providing gender-confirming hormone treatment to prepubescent minors. To date, no one has legally challenged the law as medical experts maintain no doctor in Tennessee does so.

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

Florida’s two main medical bodies have voted to stop gender-affirming treatment of children, including the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, other than in minors who are already receiving such care.

The move, which is unprecedented, makes Florida one of several U.S. states to restrict gender-affirming care for adolescents, but the first to do so via an administrative process, through the actions of its Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine.

“I appreciate the integrity of the Boards for ruling in the best interest of children in Florida despite facing tremendous pressure to permit these unproven and risky treatments,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement.

In a statement, The Endocrine Society criticizes the decision as “blatantly discriminatory” and not based on medical evidence.

During a meeting on Oct. 28 that involved testimonies from doctors, parents of transgender children, detransitioners, and patients, board members referred to similar changes in Europe, where some countries have pushed psychotherapy instead of surgery or hormone treatment.

Then, on Nov. 4, the boards each set slightly different instructions, with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voting to restrict care for new patients but allowing an exception for children enrolled in clinical studies, which “must include long-term longitudinal assessments of the patients’ physiologic and psychologic outcomes,” according to the Florida Department of Health.

The Board of Medicine did not allow the latter.

The proposed rules are open to public comment before finalization.

Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban on gender-affirming care, with Republican lawmakers in 2021 overriding GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of the legislation. Alabama Republicans in 2022 approved legislation to outlaw gender-affirming medications for transgender youths. Both laws have been paused amid unfolding legal battles, according to Associated Press.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed a bill in October that bars federal funds earmarked for the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from being used for gender reassignment treatments for minors. Gov. Stitt also called for the legislature to ban some of those gender reassignment treatments statewide when it returns in February.

Top Tennessee Republicans also have vowed to push for strict antitransgender policies. The state already bans doctors from providing gender-confirming hormone treatment to prepubescent minors. To date, no one has legally challenged the law as medical experts maintain no doctor in Tennessee does so.

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

Florida’s two main medical bodies have voted to stop gender-affirming treatment of children, including the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery, other than in minors who are already receiving such care.

The move, which is unprecedented, makes Florida one of several U.S. states to restrict gender-affirming care for adolescents, but the first to do so via an administrative process, through the actions of its Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine.

“I appreciate the integrity of the Boards for ruling in the best interest of children in Florida despite facing tremendous pressure to permit these unproven and risky treatments,” Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, said in a statement.

In a statement, The Endocrine Society criticizes the decision as “blatantly discriminatory” and not based on medical evidence.

During a meeting on Oct. 28 that involved testimonies from doctors, parents of transgender children, detransitioners, and patients, board members referred to similar changes in Europe, where some countries have pushed psychotherapy instead of surgery or hormone treatment.

Then, on Nov. 4, the boards each set slightly different instructions, with the Board of Osteopathic Medicine voting to restrict care for new patients but allowing an exception for children enrolled in clinical studies, which “must include long-term longitudinal assessments of the patients’ physiologic and psychologic outcomes,” according to the Florida Department of Health.

The Board of Medicine did not allow the latter.

The proposed rules are open to public comment before finalization.

Arkansas was the first state to enact such a ban on gender-affirming care, with Republican lawmakers in 2021 overriding GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s veto of the legislation. Alabama Republicans in 2022 approved legislation to outlaw gender-affirming medications for transgender youths. Both laws have been paused amid unfolding legal battles, according to Associated Press.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, signed a bill in October that bars federal funds earmarked for the University of Oklahoma Medical Center from being used for gender reassignment treatments for minors. Gov. Stitt also called for the legislature to ban some of those gender reassignment treatments statewide when it returns in February.

Top Tennessee Republicans also have vowed to push for strict antitransgender policies. The state already bans doctors from providing gender-confirming hormone treatment to prepubescent minors. To date, no one has legally challenged the law as medical experts maintain no doctor in Tennessee does so.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Long-awaited global transgender care guidelines have dropped, with no recommendations regarding age limits for treatment and surgery in teenagers but acknowledging the complexity of dealing with such adolescents amid lack of longitudinal research on the impact of transitioning gender.

The World Professional Association of Transgender Health published its latest standards of care (SOC8) as it opens its annual meeting on Sept. 16 in Montreal.

Origovisualis/Getty Images

These are “the most comprehensive set of guidelines ever produced to assist health care professionals around the world in support of transgender and gender diverse adults, adolescents, and children who are taking steps to live their lives authentically,” wrote WPATH President Walter Bouman, MD, PhD, and WPATH President-Elect Marci Bowers, MD, in a news release.

The SOC8 is the first update to guidance on the treatment of transgender individuals in 10 years and appears online in the International Journal of Transgender Health.

For the first time, the association wrote a chapter dedicated to transgender and gender-diverse adolescents – distinct from the child chapter.
 

The complexity of treating adolescents

WPATH officials said that this was owed to exponential growth in adolescent referral rates, more research on adolescent gender diversity–related care, and the unique developmental and care issues of this age group.

Until recently, there was limited information regarding the prevalence of gender diversity among adolescents. Studies from high-school samples indicate much higher rates than was earlier thought, with reports of up to 1.2% of participants identifying as transgender and up to 2.7% or more (for example, 7%-9%) experiencing some level of self-reported gender diversity, WPATH said.

The new chapter “applies to adolescents from the start of puberty until the legal age of majority (in most cases 18 years),” it stated.

However, WPATH did not go as far as to recommend lowering the age at which youth can receive cross-sex hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries, as earlier decreed in a draft of the guidelines. That draft suggested that young people could receive hormone therapy at age 14 years and surgeries for double mastectomies at age 15 years and for genital reassignment at age 17 years.

The exception was phalloplasty – surgery to construct a penis in female-to-male individuals – which WPATH stressed should not be performed under the age of 18 years owing to its complexity.

Now, the final SOC8 emphasizes that each transgender adolescent is unique, and decisions must be made on an individual basis, with no recommendations on specific ages for any treatment. This could be interpreted in many ways.

The SOC8 also acknowledges the “very rare” regret of individuals who have transitioned to the opposite gender and then changed their minds.

“[Health care] providers may consider the possibility an adolescent may regret gender-affirming decisions made during adolescence, and a young person will want to stop treatment and return to living in the birth-assigned gender role in the future. Providers may discuss this topic in a collaborative and trusting manner with the adolescent and their parents/caregivers before gender-affirming medical treatments are started,” it states.

WPATH, in addition, stressed the importance of counseling and supporting regretting patients, many who “expressed difficulties finding help during their detransition process and reported their detransition was an isolating experience during which they did not receive either sufficient or appropriate support.”

Although it doesn’t put a firm figure on the rate of regret overall, in its chapter on surgery, WPATH estimates that 0.3%-3.8% of transgender individuals regret gender-affirming surgery.

SOC8 also acknowledges “A pattern of uneven ratios by assigned sex has been reported in gender clinics, with assigned female-at-birth patients initiating care 2.5-7.1 times more frequently” than patients who were assigned male at birth.

And WPATH states in SOC8 that another phenomenon is the growing number of adolescents seeking care who had not previously experienced or expressed gender diversity during their childhood years.

It goes on to cite the 2018 paper of Lisa Littman, MD, MPH, now president of the Institute for Comprehensive Gender Dysphoria Research. Dr. Littman coined the term, “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” to describe this phenomenon; SOC8 refrains from using this phrase, but does acknowledge: “For a select subgroup of young people, susceptibility to social influence impacting gender may be an important differential to consider.”

SOC8 recommends that before any medical or surgical treatment is considered, health care professionals “undertake a comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment of adolescents who present with gender identity-related concerns and seek medical/surgical transition-related care.”

And it specifically mentions that transgender adolescents “show high rates of autism spectrum disorder/characteristics,” and notes that “other neurodevelopmental presentations and/or mental health challenges may also be present, (e.g., ADHD, intellectual disability, and psychotic disorders).”

Who uses WPATH to guide care? This is ‘a big unknown’

WPATH is an umbrella organization with offshoots in most Western nations, such as USPATH in the United States, EPATH in Europe, and AUSPATH and NZPATH in Australia and New Zealand.

However, it is not the only organization to issue guidance on the care of transgender individuals; several specialties take care of this patient population, including, but not limited to: pediatricians, endocrinologists, psychiatrists, psychologists and plastic surgeons.

The extent to which any health care professional, or professional body, follows WPATH guidance is extremely varied.

“There is nothing binding clinicians to the SOC, and the SOC is so broad and vague that anyone can say they’re following it but according to their own biases and interpretation,” Aaron Kimberly, a trans man and mental health clinician from the Gender Dysphoria Alliance, said in an interview.

In North America, some clinics practice full “informed consent” with no assessment and prescriptions at the first visit, Mr. Kimberly said, whereas others do comprehensive assessments.

“I think SOC should be observed. It shouldn’t just be people going rogue,” Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist in Berkeley, Calif., former president of USPATH, and former member of WPATH, who is herself transgender, said in an interview. “The reason there are standards of care is because hundreds of scientists have weighed in – is it perfect? No. We have a long way to go. But you can’t just ignore whatever it is that we know and let people make their own decisions.”

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

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

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

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

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

Some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics say its association leadership is blocking discussion about a resolution asking for a “rigorous systematic review” of gender-affirming care guidelines.

At issue is 2018 guidance that states children can undergo hormonal therapy after they are deemed appropriate candidates following a thorough mental health evaluation.

Critics say minors under age 18 may be getting “fast-tracked” to hormonal treatment too quickly or inappropriately and can end up regretting the decision and facing medical conditions like sterility.

Five AAP members, which has a total membership of around 67,000 pediatricians in the United States and Canada, this year penned Resolution 27, calling for a possible update of the guidelines following consultation with stakeholders that include mental health and medical clinicians, parents, and patients “with diverse views and experiences.”

Those members and others in written comments on a members-only website accuse the AAP of deliberately silencing debate on the issue and changing resolution rules. Any AAP member can submit a resolution for consideration by the group’s leadership at its annual policy meeting.

This year, the AAP sent an email to members stating it would not allow comments on resolutions that had not been “sponsored” by one of the group’s 66 chapters or 88 internal committees, councils, or sections.

That’s why comments were not allowed on Resolution 27, said Mark Del Monte, the AAP’s CEO. A second attempt to get sponsorship during the annual leadership forum, held earlier this month in Chicago, also failed, he noted. Mr. Del Monte told this news organization that changes to the resolution process are made every year and that no rule changes were directly associated with Resolution 27.

But one of the resolution’s authors said there was sponsorship when members first drafted the suggestion. Julia Mason, MD, a board member for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine and a pediatrician in private practice in Gresham, Ore., says an AAP chapter president agreed to second Resolution 27 but backed off after attending a different AAP meeting. Dr. Mason did not name the member.

On Aug. 10, AAP President Moira Szilagyi, MD, PhD, wrote in a blog on the AAP website – after the AAP leadership meeting in Chicago – that the lack of sponsorship “meant no one was willing to support their proposal.”

The AAP Leadership Council’s 154 voting entities approved 48 resolutions at the meeting, all of which will be referred to the AAP Board of Directors for potential, but not definite, action as the Board only takes resolutions under advisement, Mr. Del Monte notes.

In an email allowing members to comment on a resolution (number 28) regarding education support for caring for transgender patients, 23 chose to support Resolution 27 instead.

“I am wholeheartedly in support of Resolution 27, which interestingly has been removed from the list of resolutions for member comment,” one comment read. “I can no longer trust the AAP to provide medical evidence-based education with regard to care for transgender individuals.” 

“We don’t need a formal resolution to look at the evidence around the care of transgender young people. Evaluating the evidence behind our recommendations, which the unsponsored resolution called for, is a routine part of the Academy’s policy-writing process,” wrote Dr. Szilagyi in her blog.

Mr. Del Monte says that “the 2018 policy is under review now.”

So far, “the evidence that we have seen reinforces our policy that gender-affirming care is the correct approach,” Mr. Del Monte stresses. “It is supported by every mainstream medical society in the world and is the standard of care,” he maintains.

Among those societies is the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which in the draft of its latest Standards of Care (SOC8) – the first new guidance on the issue for 10 years – reportedly lowers the age for “top surgery” to 15 years.

The final SOC8 will most likely be published to coincide with WPATH’s annual meeting in September in Montreal.

Opponents plan to protest outside the AAP’s annual meeting, in Anaheim in October, Dr. Mason says.

“I’m concerned that kids with a transient gender identity are being funneled into medicalization that does not serve them,” Dr. Mason says. “I am worried that the trans identity is valued over the possibility of desistance,” she adds, admitting that her goal is to have fewer children transition gender.

Last summer, AAP found itself in hot water on the same topic when it barred SEGM from having a booth at the AAP annual meeting in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

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

The past week has seen heated debate about the complex issue of how to best treat children with gender dysphoria, with further developments in a number of U.S. states and in Sweden. 

In the U.S., more states have moved to prevent the use of any medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, in kids younger than the age of 18, most recently in a state Senate vote in Alabama last week, and in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott is said to have ordered state agencies to investigate reports of gender-transition procedures on children as “child abuse.”

At least one parent has, because of this, established a crowdfunding page to try to raise money to move away from Texas, fearful of being accused of child abuse if their child with gender dysphoria receives hormone therapy. And a countersuit has been filed there by the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization, on behalf of one parent said to be under investigation.

But on the flip side, parents living in more liberal states – where children under the age of 18 can often get hormones to transition without parental consent – are considering moving out of them to protect their children. These parents are concerned that their kids do not know enough about the side effects of puberty blockers, or lifetime use of cross-sex hormones and its implications, to be able to make properly informed decisions at such a young age.  

Meanwhile, Sweden has further tightened its restrictions on medical therapy to treat gender-questioning kids, with a recent announcement from its National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW), on Feb. 22, urging restraint in hormone treatment of minors with gender dysphoria following a review by the agency there that assesses health technologies, the SBU.

Based on the review results, the NBHW’s overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. The agency now says hormone treatment should only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of research, and principally, only in adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria, as opposed to those who develop it during puberty, or in their teens, as is the case with most teenagers currently presenting. 

At the same time, gender-affirming hormone treatment for adolescents who identify as transgender or nonbinary is associated with changes in depression and suicidality, according to a new U.S. survey published Feb. 25 in JAMA Network Health. 

However, experts who spoke to this news organization were critical of the study, noting it was small, conducted in just 104 youth who were an average age of 15.8 years and of whom only 63% completed the survey at the final timepoint, just 1 year after starting therapy. In addition, there was no control group, among other limitations.

“The most worrying thing is that they haven’t described the pros and cons of the treatment that they are researching. We know that there are risks inherent in using gender-affirming medicine, as with all medications,” Anna Hutchinson, DClinPsych, of the Integrated Psychology Clinic, London, told this news organization.

“For example, when people with gender dysphoria use cross-sex hormones, there is a burden of treatment that can last a lifetime, both for those who benefit from the treatment and those who detransition or regret later on,” said Dr. Hutchinson, who has extensive experience of working with young people with issues related to sexuality or gender.

“This isn’t mentioned at all, which makes the paper appear quite biased towards using one approach for managing gender dysphoria and related distress, whilst not acknowledging any risks of doing so or considering alternatives,” she noted.
 

Why were some treated with hormones while others weren’t? 

The newly published survey is by PhD student Diana M. Tordoff, MPH, of the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. Published alongside was an invited commentary by Brett Dolotina, BS, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Jack L. Turban, MD, MHS, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary gender clinic in Seattle among transgender and nonbinary adolescents and young adults seeking gender-affirming care from August 2017 to June 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2021.

Participating in the study were 104 youths aged 13-20 years (mean age, 15.8 years), 63 transmasculine (born female) individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine (born male) individuals (26.0%), 10 nonbinary or gender-fluid individuals (9.6%), and four youths who responded, “I don’t know,” or did not respond to the gender-identity question (3.8%). 

At baseline, 59 individuals (56.7%) had moderate-to-severe depression, 52 individuals (50.0%) had moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 45 individuals (43.3%) reported self-harm or suicidal thoughts. 

By the end of the study, 69 youths (66.3%) had received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls transitioning to male and estrogen for boys transitioning to female), or both interventions, while 35 youths had not received either intervention (33.7%). 

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, there were a 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

There was no association between these treatments and anxiety, however (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.51).

Dr. Hutchinson points out that nonbinary and gender fluid “are not diagnostic or clinical terms,” adding, “there is no information about how the groups were chosen or if any of them met the criteria for gender dysphoria. It seems strange to not have measured gender dysphoria, both before and after interventions, in a group of children presenting with gender dysphoria.”

She adds: “I am questioning why ‘gender-affirming’ medicine appears to be being used here as a specific intervention for depression and suicidality? [That] wouldn’t usually be the first reason to commence these particular treatments. Why didn’t they provide therapy or antidepressant medication to this group of young people, as is routine for managing mood and/or suicidality in all other patient cohorts?”  

In their commentary, Mr. Dolotina and Dr. Turban observe: “The rate of suicidality among the Tordoff et al. sample after receiving gender-affirming care was still much higher than national rates of suicidality among youth in the U.S., denoting that ... other mental health determinants must be addressed ... including gender minority stress.”
 

Small study, no control group, large loss to follow-up

Dr. Hutchinson also criticizes the small sample size of just 104 youth and “large loss to follow-up, whereby only 65 of those 104 [youth] completed the final survey in a short time [1 year].” This could indicate “that only the most satisfied kids stayed the course,” she suggests. 

And importantly, the findings on depression and suicidality rely on the experience of only five people in the no-treatment group at 12 months, she points out. 

Also, as the authors themselves acknowledge, they didn’t control for other psychiatric medicines that the participants might have been taking at baseline.

“It’s important to know more about all of this in order to draw accurate conclusions about what works, or does not, for whom,” noted Dr. Hutchinson.

Most patients, too, she notes, were females-to-males taking testosterone. Therefore, the finding that they experienced a reduction in depression might simply reflect the widely reported antidepressant effects of testosterone. 

Also expressing concern about the small sample size and “lack of a control group” is Michelle Mackness, MC, a Canadian counselor in private practice who has experience working with gender-questioning individuals, detransitioners, and those experiencing complications related to their transition. 

“Tordoff et al.’s assertion that there is a ‘robust evidence base’ supporting pediatric transition seems out-of-step with recent global developments in care policies and protocols for gender-questioning youth,” she points out.

“Neither the study authors or commentators acknowledge, let alone address, the fact that Finland, the U.K., and Sweden have recently determined that the evidence allegedly supporting medical interventions for pediatric transition is ‘inconclusive’,” she adds. 

Asked to respond, Ms. Tordoff did not directly address this question. Rather, she reiterated to this news organization: “We found that receipt of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones was associated with a 60% lower odds of depression and a 73% lower odds of suicidal thoughts by the end of our study follow-up. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses, which support the robustness of our study findings.”

She added: “These results are consistent with other recently published prospective cohort studies (please see citations provided within the manuscript).”

Parents may move states

It is this concern about the lifetime burden of treatment involved with transitioning that gives some parents of children with gender dysphoria pause for thought, especially those who live in more liberal U.S. states.

Indeed, two of America’s leading psychologists who work in this field, including one who is transgender herself, told this news organization in November they are now concerned about a lack of adequate psychological evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria before any medical treatment is considered. 

So while one parent, Violet A., last week established a GoFundMe page for her child, entitled, “Help Us Move Isa to Safety,” stating she needed to move from Texas due to Governor Abbott’s pronouncements there “to a state that won’t consider me an abuser when I seek medical care for my trans child and potentially remove her from my custody,” some parents feel the need instead to move from more liberal states.

Some tell their stories anonymously, as they don’t want to risk causing their gender-questioning children further distress, as detailed on the Genspect website.

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

The past week has seen heated debate about the complex issue of how to best treat children with gender dysphoria, with further developments in a number of U.S. states and in Sweden. 

In the U.S., more states have moved to prevent the use of any medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, in kids younger than the age of 18, most recently in a state Senate vote in Alabama last week, and in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott is said to have ordered state agencies to investigate reports of gender-transition procedures on children as “child abuse.”

At least one parent has, because of this, established a crowdfunding page to try to raise money to move away from Texas, fearful of being accused of child abuse if their child with gender dysphoria receives hormone therapy. And a countersuit has been filed there by the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization, on behalf of one parent said to be under investigation.

But on the flip side, parents living in more liberal states – where children under the age of 18 can often get hormones to transition without parental consent – are considering moving out of them to protect their children. These parents are concerned that their kids do not know enough about the side effects of puberty blockers, or lifetime use of cross-sex hormones and its implications, to be able to make properly informed decisions at such a young age.  

Meanwhile, Sweden has further tightened its restrictions on medical therapy to treat gender-questioning kids, with a recent announcement from its National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW), on Feb. 22, urging restraint in hormone treatment of minors with gender dysphoria following a review by the agency there that assesses health technologies, the SBU.

Based on the review results, the NBHW’s overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. The agency now says hormone treatment should only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of research, and principally, only in adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria, as opposed to those who develop it during puberty, or in their teens, as is the case with most teenagers currently presenting. 

At the same time, gender-affirming hormone treatment for adolescents who identify as transgender or nonbinary is associated with changes in depression and suicidality, according to a new U.S. survey published Feb. 25 in JAMA Network Health. 

However, experts who spoke to this news organization were critical of the study, noting it was small, conducted in just 104 youth who were an average age of 15.8 years and of whom only 63% completed the survey at the final timepoint, just 1 year after starting therapy. In addition, there was no control group, among other limitations.

“The most worrying thing is that they haven’t described the pros and cons of the treatment that they are researching. We know that there are risks inherent in using gender-affirming medicine, as with all medications,” Anna Hutchinson, DClinPsych, of the Integrated Psychology Clinic, London, told this news organization.

“For example, when people with gender dysphoria use cross-sex hormones, there is a burden of treatment that can last a lifetime, both for those who benefit from the treatment and those who detransition or regret later on,” said Dr. Hutchinson, who has extensive experience of working with young people with issues related to sexuality or gender.

“This isn’t mentioned at all, which makes the paper appear quite biased towards using one approach for managing gender dysphoria and related distress, whilst not acknowledging any risks of doing so or considering alternatives,” she noted.
 

Why were some treated with hormones while others weren’t? 

The newly published survey is by PhD student Diana M. Tordoff, MPH, of the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. Published alongside was an invited commentary by Brett Dolotina, BS, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Jack L. Turban, MD, MHS, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary gender clinic in Seattle among transgender and nonbinary adolescents and young adults seeking gender-affirming care from August 2017 to June 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2021.

Participating in the study were 104 youths aged 13-20 years (mean age, 15.8 years), 63 transmasculine (born female) individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine (born male) individuals (26.0%), 10 nonbinary or gender-fluid individuals (9.6%), and four youths who responded, “I don’t know,” or did not respond to the gender-identity question (3.8%). 

At baseline, 59 individuals (56.7%) had moderate-to-severe depression, 52 individuals (50.0%) had moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 45 individuals (43.3%) reported self-harm or suicidal thoughts. 

By the end of the study, 69 youths (66.3%) had received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls transitioning to male and estrogen for boys transitioning to female), or both interventions, while 35 youths had not received either intervention (33.7%). 

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, there were a 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

There was no association between these treatments and anxiety, however (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.51).

Dr. Hutchinson points out that nonbinary and gender fluid “are not diagnostic or clinical terms,” adding, “there is no information about how the groups were chosen or if any of them met the criteria for gender dysphoria. It seems strange to not have measured gender dysphoria, both before and after interventions, in a group of children presenting with gender dysphoria.”

She adds: “I am questioning why ‘gender-affirming’ medicine appears to be being used here as a specific intervention for depression and suicidality? [That] wouldn’t usually be the first reason to commence these particular treatments. Why didn’t they provide therapy or antidepressant medication to this group of young people, as is routine for managing mood and/or suicidality in all other patient cohorts?”  

In their commentary, Mr. Dolotina and Dr. Turban observe: “The rate of suicidality among the Tordoff et al. sample after receiving gender-affirming care was still much higher than national rates of suicidality among youth in the U.S., denoting that ... other mental health determinants must be addressed ... including gender minority stress.”
 

Small study, no control group, large loss to follow-up

Dr. Hutchinson also criticizes the small sample size of just 104 youth and “large loss to follow-up, whereby only 65 of those 104 [youth] completed the final survey in a short time [1 year].” This could indicate “that only the most satisfied kids stayed the course,” she suggests. 

And importantly, the findings on depression and suicidality rely on the experience of only five people in the no-treatment group at 12 months, she points out. 

Also, as the authors themselves acknowledge, they didn’t control for other psychiatric medicines that the participants might have been taking at baseline.

“It’s important to know more about all of this in order to draw accurate conclusions about what works, or does not, for whom,” noted Dr. Hutchinson.

Most patients, too, she notes, were females-to-males taking testosterone. Therefore, the finding that they experienced a reduction in depression might simply reflect the widely reported antidepressant effects of testosterone. 

Also expressing concern about the small sample size and “lack of a control group” is Michelle Mackness, MC, a Canadian counselor in private practice who has experience working with gender-questioning individuals, detransitioners, and those experiencing complications related to their transition. 

“Tordoff et al.’s assertion that there is a ‘robust evidence base’ supporting pediatric transition seems out-of-step with recent global developments in care policies and protocols for gender-questioning youth,” she points out.

“Neither the study authors or commentators acknowledge, let alone address, the fact that Finland, the U.K., and Sweden have recently determined that the evidence allegedly supporting medical interventions for pediatric transition is ‘inconclusive’,” she adds. 

Asked to respond, Ms. Tordoff did not directly address this question. Rather, she reiterated to this news organization: “We found that receipt of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones was associated with a 60% lower odds of depression and a 73% lower odds of suicidal thoughts by the end of our study follow-up. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses, which support the robustness of our study findings.”

She added: “These results are consistent with other recently published prospective cohort studies (please see citations provided within the manuscript).”

Parents may move states

It is this concern about the lifetime burden of treatment involved with transitioning that gives some parents of children with gender dysphoria pause for thought, especially those who live in more liberal U.S. states.

Indeed, two of America’s leading psychologists who work in this field, including one who is transgender herself, told this news organization in November they are now concerned about a lack of adequate psychological evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria before any medical treatment is considered. 

So while one parent, Violet A., last week established a GoFundMe page for her child, entitled, “Help Us Move Isa to Safety,” stating she needed to move from Texas due to Governor Abbott’s pronouncements there “to a state that won’t consider me an abuser when I seek medical care for my trans child and potentially remove her from my custody,” some parents feel the need instead to move from more liberal states.

Some tell their stories anonymously, as they don’t want to risk causing their gender-questioning children further distress, as detailed on the Genspect website.

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

The past week has seen heated debate about the complex issue of how to best treat children with gender dysphoria, with further developments in a number of U.S. states and in Sweden. 

In the U.S., more states have moved to prevent the use of any medical treatment, such as puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones, in kids younger than the age of 18, most recently in a state Senate vote in Alabama last week, and in Texas, where Governor Greg Abbott is said to have ordered state agencies to investigate reports of gender-transition procedures on children as “child abuse.”

At least one parent has, because of this, established a crowdfunding page to try to raise money to move away from Texas, fearful of being accused of child abuse if their child with gender dysphoria receives hormone therapy. And a countersuit has been filed there by the ACLU of Texas and Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization, on behalf of one parent said to be under investigation.

But on the flip side, parents living in more liberal states – where children under the age of 18 can often get hormones to transition without parental consent – are considering moving out of them to protect their children. These parents are concerned that their kids do not know enough about the side effects of puberty blockers, or lifetime use of cross-sex hormones and its implications, to be able to make properly informed decisions at such a young age.  

Meanwhile, Sweden has further tightened its restrictions on medical therapy to treat gender-questioning kids, with a recent announcement from its National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW), on Feb. 22, urging restraint in hormone treatment of minors with gender dysphoria following a review by the agency there that assesses health technologies, the SBU.

Based on the review results, the NBHW’s overall conclusion is that the risks of puberty blocking and cross-sex hormone treatment for those under 18 currently outweigh the possible benefits for the group as a whole. The agency now says hormone treatment should only be offered in exceptional cases outside the framework of research, and principally, only in adolescents with childhood-onset gender dysphoria, as opposed to those who develop it during puberty, or in their teens, as is the case with most teenagers currently presenting. 

At the same time, gender-affirming hormone treatment for adolescents who identify as transgender or nonbinary is associated with changes in depression and suicidality, according to a new U.S. survey published Feb. 25 in JAMA Network Health. 

However, experts who spoke to this news organization were critical of the study, noting it was small, conducted in just 104 youth who were an average age of 15.8 years and of whom only 63% completed the survey at the final timepoint, just 1 year after starting therapy. In addition, there was no control group, among other limitations.

“The most worrying thing is that they haven’t described the pros and cons of the treatment that they are researching. We know that there are risks inherent in using gender-affirming medicine, as with all medications,” Anna Hutchinson, DClinPsych, of the Integrated Psychology Clinic, London, told this news organization.

“For example, when people with gender dysphoria use cross-sex hormones, there is a burden of treatment that can last a lifetime, both for those who benefit from the treatment and those who detransition or regret later on,” said Dr. Hutchinson, who has extensive experience of working with young people with issues related to sexuality or gender.

“This isn’t mentioned at all, which makes the paper appear quite biased towards using one approach for managing gender dysphoria and related distress, whilst not acknowledging any risks of doing so or considering alternatives,” she noted.
 

Why were some treated with hormones while others weren’t? 

The newly published survey is by PhD student Diana M. Tordoff, MPH, of the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues. Published alongside was an invited commentary by Brett Dolotina, BS, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Jack L. Turban, MD, MHS, of Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study was conducted at an urban multidisciplinary gender clinic in Seattle among transgender and nonbinary adolescents and young adults seeking gender-affirming care from August 2017 to June 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2020 to November 2021.

Participating in the study were 104 youths aged 13-20 years (mean age, 15.8 years), 63 transmasculine (born female) individuals (60.6%), 27 transfeminine (born male) individuals (26.0%), 10 nonbinary or gender-fluid individuals (9.6%), and four youths who responded, “I don’t know,” or did not respond to the gender-identity question (3.8%). 

At baseline, 59 individuals (56.7%) had moderate-to-severe depression, 52 individuals (50.0%) had moderate-to-severe anxiety, and 45 individuals (43.3%) reported self-harm or suicidal thoughts. 

By the end of the study, 69 youths (66.3%) had received puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones (testosterone for girls transitioning to male and estrogen for boys transitioning to female), or both interventions, while 35 youths had not received either intervention (33.7%). 

After adjustment for temporal trends and potential confounders, there were a 60% lower odds of depression (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.95) and 73% lower odds of suicidality (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65) among youths who had initiated puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones. 

There was no association between these treatments and anxiety, however (aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.51).

Dr. Hutchinson points out that nonbinary and gender fluid “are not diagnostic or clinical terms,” adding, “there is no information about how the groups were chosen or if any of them met the criteria for gender dysphoria. It seems strange to not have measured gender dysphoria, both before and after interventions, in a group of children presenting with gender dysphoria.”

She adds: “I am questioning why ‘gender-affirming’ medicine appears to be being used here as a specific intervention for depression and suicidality? [That] wouldn’t usually be the first reason to commence these particular treatments. Why didn’t they provide therapy or antidepressant medication to this group of young people, as is routine for managing mood and/or suicidality in all other patient cohorts?”  

In their commentary, Mr. Dolotina and Dr. Turban observe: “The rate of suicidality among the Tordoff et al. sample after receiving gender-affirming care was still much higher than national rates of suicidality among youth in the U.S., denoting that ... other mental health determinants must be addressed ... including gender minority stress.”
 

Small study, no control group, large loss to follow-up

Dr. Hutchinson also criticizes the small sample size of just 104 youth and “large loss to follow-up, whereby only 65 of those 104 [youth] completed the final survey in a short time [1 year].” This could indicate “that only the most satisfied kids stayed the course,” she suggests. 

And importantly, the findings on depression and suicidality rely on the experience of only five people in the no-treatment group at 12 months, she points out. 

Also, as the authors themselves acknowledge, they didn’t control for other psychiatric medicines that the participants might have been taking at baseline.

“It’s important to know more about all of this in order to draw accurate conclusions about what works, or does not, for whom,” noted Dr. Hutchinson.

Most patients, too, she notes, were females-to-males taking testosterone. Therefore, the finding that they experienced a reduction in depression might simply reflect the widely reported antidepressant effects of testosterone. 

Also expressing concern about the small sample size and “lack of a control group” is Michelle Mackness, MC, a Canadian counselor in private practice who has experience working with gender-questioning individuals, detransitioners, and those experiencing complications related to their transition. 

“Tordoff et al.’s assertion that there is a ‘robust evidence base’ supporting pediatric transition seems out-of-step with recent global developments in care policies and protocols for gender-questioning youth,” she points out.

“Neither the study authors or commentators acknowledge, let alone address, the fact that Finland, the U.K., and Sweden have recently determined that the evidence allegedly supporting medical interventions for pediatric transition is ‘inconclusive’,” she adds. 

Asked to respond, Ms. Tordoff did not directly address this question. Rather, she reiterated to this news organization: “We found that receipt of puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones was associated with a 60% lower odds of depression and a 73% lower odds of suicidal thoughts by the end of our study follow-up. We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses, which support the robustness of our study findings.”

She added: “These results are consistent with other recently published prospective cohort studies (please see citations provided within the manuscript).”

Parents may move states

It is this concern about the lifetime burden of treatment involved with transitioning that gives some parents of children with gender dysphoria pause for thought, especially those who live in more liberal U.S. states.

Indeed, two of America’s leading psychologists who work in this field, including one who is transgender herself, told this news organization in November they are now concerned about a lack of adequate psychological evaluations of youth with gender dysphoria before any medical treatment is considered. 

So while one parent, Violet A., last week established a GoFundMe page for her child, entitled, “Help Us Move Isa to Safety,” stating she needed to move from Texas due to Governor Abbott’s pronouncements there “to a state that won’t consider me an abuser when I seek medical care for my trans child and potentially remove her from my custody,” some parents feel the need instead to move from more liberal states.

Some tell their stories anonymously, as they don’t want to risk causing their gender-questioning children further distress, as detailed on the Genspect website.

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