Suchergebnisse

Are children and adolescents relevant disease vectors when it comes to the transmission of SARS-CoV-2? Moreover, do they play a role as relevant disease vectors in a school or kindergarten setting? These questions could not be sufficiently answered at the beginning of the pandemic. Consequently, schools and childcare facilities were closed to stop the spread of SARS-CoV‑2. Over the past few months, researchers have gained a more detailed understanding of the overall pandemic situation. The SARS-CoV‑2 infection rate in children below 10 years of age in 2020 has been substantially lower than in adults. In addition, it showed that children had a milder course of disease. Although a majority of the analyses performed in schools and childcare facilities revealed that the virus is transmitted in these facilities, these transmissions did not, however, have a considerable influence on the overall rate of new infections. Despite these findings, German politicians continue to advocate for the closure of childcare facilities, including schools, to fight the pandemic, whereas many specialist societies such as the German Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (DGPI) have emphasized that such closures should be the measure of last resort in combating the pandemic. The same message is also conveyed by a German evidence-based S3 guideline established by an interdisciplinary expert group that had already put forward clear recommendations for high incidences in the general population at the beginning of February 2021, indicating that school closures were only required in exceptional cases. In this article, we would like to outline the situation based on the currently available data, try to predict the future, and discuss the circumstances necessary to realize normal classroom teaching without accepting the risk of an uncontrolled spread of SARS-CoV‑2.

Dieses Positionspapier basiert auf der langjährigen klinischen Erfahrung und grundlagen-wissenschaftlichen Forschung der Autoren zur Diagnose und Behandlung von Kindern und Jugendlichen mit einem präsymptomatischen Frühstadium des Typ-1-Diabetes. Der Nutzen sowie potenzielle Nachteile der Früherkennung von Typ-1-Diabetes durch ein Inselautoantikörper-Screening werden kritisch diskutiert. Zudem werden die Perspektiven einer Verzögerung des Ausbruchs der klinischen Stoffwechselerkrankung durch eine Teplizumab-Behandlung adressiert. Wir sehen heute die Chance einer relevanten Verbesserung der therapeutischen Möglichkeiten und der Lebensperspektive betroffener Kinder und Jugendlicher. Wichtige nächste Schritte für die Implementierung eines Inselautoantikörper-Screenings in Deutschland sind die Fortbildung der Kinder- und Jugendärzte, die über das Screening aufklären sollen, die Etablierung von wenigen überregionalen Laboratorien, die die Testung durchführen, und die Ausweitung regionaler Kapazitäten für Schulung und Betreuung der Kinder mit einem Frühstadium des Typ-1-Diabetes.

This position paper is based on the authors' many years of clinical experience and basic science research on the diagnosis and treatment of children and adolescents with a presymptomatic early stage of type 1 diabetes. The benefits as well as potential disadvantages of early detection of type 1 diabetes by islet autoantibody screening are critically discussed. In addition, the perspectives of delaying the onset of the clinical metabolic disease through treatment with teplizumab are addressed. Today, we see the chance of a relevant improvement in the therapeutic options and life perspectives of affected children and adolescents. Important next steps for the implementation of islet autoantibody screening in Germany are the training of pediatricians who should inform families about the screening, the establishment of a few transregional laboratories that carry out the test, and the expansion of regional capacities for the training and care of children with an early stage of type 1 diabetes.