Clinical Psychiatry News

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

School antibullying programs may have small effect sizes but a valuable population impact, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

A meta-analysis of 69 randomized trials with more than 111,600 participants found that school antibullying programs had a statistically significant effect on reducing bullying and improving mental health.

The investigators estimated population effect numbers for the interventions, such as the number of students needed to participate in an antibullying program to prevent one case of bullying.

Assuming a bullying prevalence of 15%, “an average antibullying intervention needs to include 207 people to prevent 1 case of bullying perpetration or 140 people to prevent 1 case of bullying exposure,” reported David Fraguas, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health at Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, and colleagues. To improve mental health, the average antibullying program needs to include 107 people, the results indicate.

Few trials assessed the same antibullying program, so the researchers examined antibullying programs as a whole. Still, “not all antibullying programs are efficacious,” and “effectiveness may vary in different settings,” they noted.
 

Public health implications

Schools frequently implement programs to address bullying, which research suggests is a prevalent, modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders and therefore a “major public health concern,” the authors said. Studies have suggested that antibullying programs may be effective, though the evidence has been unclear.

“I see teens with mental health issues frequently in my practice, and often during their assessment, these patients and parents disclose a history of bullying at school or online,” said Kelly A. Curran, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. “The impact of bullying on these teens is obvious – from the mental health issues to school absenteeism and dropouts to long-term health consequences. Often, parents ask for guidance on how to ‘make it stop’ or for help working with the teen’s school. It’s hard in these cases as a clinician to know what to recommend – while it’s clear that the bullying is contributing to the teen’s health issues, giving evidenced-based guidance on bullying has been difficult.”

Relative to control groups

To assess the population impact of antibullying interventions, Dr. Fraguas and collaborators conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They identified 69 trials that included 56,511 participants in intervention groups and 55,148 in control groups. Five of the trials tested interventions targeting cyberbullying.

Participants ranged in age from 4 to 17 years, and the weighted average age was 11 years. The durations of the interventions ranged from 1 week to more than 2 years, with an average duration of 29.4 weeks.

“Antibullying interventions showed statistically significant effectiveness compared with control groups on all assessed bullying-related outcomes after the intervention,” the researchers reported. “The effect sizes were mostly statistically significant and small ... with high statistical heterogeneity and risk of publication bias. Antibullying interventions also showed statistically significant effectiveness in improving mental health problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) at study endpoint, with small effect size.”

Consistent with prior research, results varied by region. For example, interventions in Europe, where 31 of the trials were conducted, significantly decreased bullying exposure and attitudes that encourage bullying, whereas interventions in North America, where 19 of the trials were conducted, did not. In addition, European trials found greater effect sizes for the outcome measure of increasing attitudes that discourage bullying, compared with North American trials. The regional differences could reflect different programs or study designs, or differences in “social, educational, or cultural context,” the authors said.
 

‘Substantial’ impact

Together, the findings suggest that “universal antibullying interventions have a substantial population impact,” Dr. Fraguas and coauthors wrote. “To put these results into context, the [population impact number] is 35,450 for taking aspirin to avoid 1 death during the 6 months after a first nonhemorrhagic stroke, and the [population impact number] is 324 for human papillomavirus vaccination in girls to prevent cervical cancer.”

Furthermore, the interventions appear to be safe, they said. None of the trials in the meta-analysis reported an increase in bullying perpetration or bullying exposure at the end of the study or during follow-up, and mental health improved in all trials that assessed that outcome.
 

Pediatricians may be seen as resource

“From our survey work among parents all across Chicago, we know that almost one-half of all parents with children in school are concerned that their children get bullied,” said Matthew M. Davis, MD chair of the department of pediatrics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and professor of pediatrics, medicine, medical social sciences, and preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Among those parents, about one-half sought help from a teacher and about one-third asked a school administrator or school social worker for help. That means that schools are, by far, the go-to source for help when parents are worried about bullying.”

The survey of 1,642 parents in Chicago also found that 20% of parents with concerns sought help from mental health care providers, and 16% sought help from their pediatricians.

“Pediatricians can provide psychosocial support for their patients who are being bullied,” Dr. Davis said. “They can also talk with patients and their parents/guardians about how to team up with school personnel to address the bullying in the school environment.”

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund from the European Commission. It also was supported by Madrid Regional Government, European Union programs, Fundación Familia Alonso, Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, and Fundación Mutua Madrileña.

Dr. Fraguas disclosed consulting for or receiving fees from Angelini, Eisai, IE4Lab, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grant support from Fundación Alicia Koplowitz and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, as well as government and foundation grants. Dr. Curran is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. Dr. Davis had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

School antibullying programs may have small effect sizes but a valuable population impact, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

A meta-analysis of 69 randomized trials with more than 111,600 participants found that school antibullying programs had a statistically significant effect on reducing bullying and improving mental health.

The investigators estimated population effect numbers for the interventions, such as the number of students needed to participate in an antibullying program to prevent one case of bullying.

Assuming a bullying prevalence of 15%, “an average antibullying intervention needs to include 207 people to prevent 1 case of bullying perpetration or 140 people to prevent 1 case of bullying exposure,” reported David Fraguas, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health at Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, and colleagues. To improve mental health, the average antibullying program needs to include 107 people, the results indicate.

Few trials assessed the same antibullying program, so the researchers examined antibullying programs as a whole. Still, “not all antibullying programs are efficacious,” and “effectiveness may vary in different settings,” they noted.
 

Public health implications

Schools frequently implement programs to address bullying, which research suggests is a prevalent, modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders and therefore a “major public health concern,” the authors said. Studies have suggested that antibullying programs may be effective, though the evidence has been unclear.

“I see teens with mental health issues frequently in my practice, and often during their assessment, these patients and parents disclose a history of bullying at school or online,” said Kelly A. Curran, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. “The impact of bullying on these teens is obvious – from the mental health issues to school absenteeism and dropouts to long-term health consequences. Often, parents ask for guidance on how to ‘make it stop’ or for help working with the teen’s school. It’s hard in these cases as a clinician to know what to recommend – while it’s clear that the bullying is contributing to the teen’s health issues, giving evidenced-based guidance on bullying has been difficult.”

Relative to control groups

To assess the population impact of antibullying interventions, Dr. Fraguas and collaborators conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They identified 69 trials that included 56,511 participants in intervention groups and 55,148 in control groups. Five of the trials tested interventions targeting cyberbullying.

Participants ranged in age from 4 to 17 years, and the weighted average age was 11 years. The durations of the interventions ranged from 1 week to more than 2 years, with an average duration of 29.4 weeks.

“Antibullying interventions showed statistically significant effectiveness compared with control groups on all assessed bullying-related outcomes after the intervention,” the researchers reported. “The effect sizes were mostly statistically significant and small ... with high statistical heterogeneity and risk of publication bias. Antibullying interventions also showed statistically significant effectiveness in improving mental health problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) at study endpoint, with small effect size.”

Consistent with prior research, results varied by region. For example, interventions in Europe, where 31 of the trials were conducted, significantly decreased bullying exposure and attitudes that encourage bullying, whereas interventions in North America, where 19 of the trials were conducted, did not. In addition, European trials found greater effect sizes for the outcome measure of increasing attitudes that discourage bullying, compared with North American trials. The regional differences could reflect different programs or study designs, or differences in “social, educational, or cultural context,” the authors said.
 

‘Substantial’ impact

Together, the findings suggest that “universal antibullying interventions have a substantial population impact,” Dr. Fraguas and coauthors wrote. “To put these results into context, the [population impact number] is 35,450 for taking aspirin to avoid 1 death during the 6 months after a first nonhemorrhagic stroke, and the [population impact number] is 324 for human papillomavirus vaccination in girls to prevent cervical cancer.”

Furthermore, the interventions appear to be safe, they said. None of the trials in the meta-analysis reported an increase in bullying perpetration or bullying exposure at the end of the study or during follow-up, and mental health improved in all trials that assessed that outcome.
 

Pediatricians may be seen as resource

“From our survey work among parents all across Chicago, we know that almost one-half of all parents with children in school are concerned that their children get bullied,” said Matthew M. Davis, MD chair of the department of pediatrics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and professor of pediatrics, medicine, medical social sciences, and preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Among those parents, about one-half sought help from a teacher and about one-third asked a school administrator or school social worker for help. That means that schools are, by far, the go-to source for help when parents are worried about bullying.”

The survey of 1,642 parents in Chicago also found that 20% of parents with concerns sought help from mental health care providers, and 16% sought help from their pediatricians.

“Pediatricians can provide psychosocial support for their patients who are being bullied,” Dr. Davis said. “They can also talk with patients and their parents/guardians about how to team up with school personnel to address the bullying in the school environment.”

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund from the European Commission. It also was supported by Madrid Regional Government, European Union programs, Fundación Familia Alonso, Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, and Fundación Mutua Madrileña.

Dr. Fraguas disclosed consulting for or receiving fees from Angelini, Eisai, IE4Lab, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grant support from Fundación Alicia Koplowitz and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, as well as government and foundation grants. Dr. Curran is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. Dr. Davis had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

School antibullying programs may have small effect sizes but a valuable population impact, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

A meta-analysis of 69 randomized trials with more than 111,600 participants found that school antibullying programs had a statistically significant effect on reducing bullying and improving mental health.

The investigators estimated population effect numbers for the interventions, such as the number of students needed to participate in an antibullying program to prevent one case of bullying.

Assuming a bullying prevalence of 15%, “an average antibullying intervention needs to include 207 people to prevent 1 case of bullying perpetration or 140 people to prevent 1 case of bullying exposure,” reported David Fraguas, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health at Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, and colleagues. To improve mental health, the average antibullying program needs to include 107 people, the results indicate.

Few trials assessed the same antibullying program, so the researchers examined antibullying programs as a whole. Still, “not all antibullying programs are efficacious,” and “effectiveness may vary in different settings,” they noted.
 

Public health implications

Schools frequently implement programs to address bullying, which research suggests is a prevalent, modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders and therefore a “major public health concern,” the authors said. Studies have suggested that antibullying programs may be effective, though the evidence has been unclear.

“I see teens with mental health issues frequently in my practice, and often during their assessment, these patients and parents disclose a history of bullying at school or online,” said Kelly A. Curran, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. “The impact of bullying on these teens is obvious – from the mental health issues to school absenteeism and dropouts to long-term health consequences. Often, parents ask for guidance on how to ‘make it stop’ or for help working with the teen’s school. It’s hard in these cases as a clinician to know what to recommend – while it’s clear that the bullying is contributing to the teen’s health issues, giving evidenced-based guidance on bullying has been difficult.”

Relative to control groups

To assess the population impact of antibullying interventions, Dr. Fraguas and collaborators conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They identified 69 trials that included 56,511 participants in intervention groups and 55,148 in control groups. Five of the trials tested interventions targeting cyberbullying.

Participants ranged in age from 4 to 17 years, and the weighted average age was 11 years. The durations of the interventions ranged from 1 week to more than 2 years, with an average duration of 29.4 weeks.

“Antibullying interventions showed statistically significant effectiveness compared with control groups on all assessed bullying-related outcomes after the intervention,” the researchers reported. “The effect sizes were mostly statistically significant and small ... with high statistical heterogeneity and risk of publication bias. Antibullying interventions also showed statistically significant effectiveness in improving mental health problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) at study endpoint, with small effect size.”

Consistent with prior research, results varied by region. For example, interventions in Europe, where 31 of the trials were conducted, significantly decreased bullying exposure and attitudes that encourage bullying, whereas interventions in North America, where 19 of the trials were conducted, did not. In addition, European trials found greater effect sizes for the outcome measure of increasing attitudes that discourage bullying, compared with North American trials. The regional differences could reflect different programs or study designs, or differences in “social, educational, or cultural context,” the authors said.
 

‘Substantial’ impact

Together, the findings suggest that “universal antibullying interventions have a substantial population impact,” Dr. Fraguas and coauthors wrote. “To put these results into context, the [population impact number] is 35,450 for taking aspirin to avoid 1 death during the 6 months after a first nonhemorrhagic stroke, and the [population impact number] is 324 for human papillomavirus vaccination in girls to prevent cervical cancer.”

Furthermore, the interventions appear to be safe, they said. None of the trials in the meta-analysis reported an increase in bullying perpetration or bullying exposure at the end of the study or during follow-up, and mental health improved in all trials that assessed that outcome.
 

Pediatricians may be seen as resource

“From our survey work among parents all across Chicago, we know that almost one-half of all parents with children in school are concerned that their children get bullied,” said Matthew M. Davis, MD chair of the department of pediatrics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and professor of pediatrics, medicine, medical social sciences, and preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Among those parents, about one-half sought help from a teacher and about one-third asked a school administrator or school social worker for help. That means that schools are, by far, the go-to source for help when parents are worried about bullying.”

The survey of 1,642 parents in Chicago also found that 20% of parents with concerns sought help from mental health care providers, and 16% sought help from their pediatricians.

“Pediatricians can provide psychosocial support for their patients who are being bullied,” Dr. Davis said. “They can also talk with patients and their parents/guardians about how to team up with school personnel to address the bullying in the school environment.”

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund from the European Commission. It also was supported by Madrid Regional Government, European Union programs, Fundación Familia Alonso, Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, and Fundación Mutua Madrileña.

Dr. Fraguas disclosed consulting for or receiving fees from Angelini, Eisai, IE4Lab, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grant support from Fundación Alicia Koplowitz and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, as well as government and foundation grants. Dr. Curran is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. Dr. Davis had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

I started reading “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir” by Michael F. Myers, MD, with high expectations and enthusiasm. Dr. Myers is a Canadian psychiatrist who has devoted his career to caring for physicians in his half-time private practice; he turns all other comers away.

This career path began in 1962 during his first year in medical school when Dr. Myers returned to his apartment after Thanksgiving break to be greeted with tragic news: One of the young men he shared the apartment with had died of suicide. The tragedy marked him – along with the silence about what had transpired – and he would later look back to realize it was the beginning of his journey to becoming a psychiatrist, one who cares for other physicians.

The book is filled with patient vignettes, gentle musings that Dr. Myers recounts with warmth, adding what he has learned from them.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

I started reading “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir” by Michael F. Myers, MD, with high expectations and enthusiasm. Dr. Myers is a Canadian psychiatrist who has devoted his career to caring for physicians in his half-time private practice; he turns all other comers away.

This career path began in 1962 during his first year in medical school when Dr. Myers returned to his apartment after Thanksgiving break to be greeted with tragic news: One of the young men he shared the apartment with had died of suicide. The tragedy marked him – along with the silence about what had transpired – and he would later look back to realize it was the beginning of his journey to becoming a psychiatrist, one who cares for other physicians.

The book is filled with patient vignettes, gentle musings that Dr. Myers recounts with warmth, adding what he has learned from them.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

I started reading “Becoming a Doctors’ Doctor: A Memoir” by Michael F. Myers, MD, with high expectations and enthusiasm. Dr. Myers is a Canadian psychiatrist who has devoted his career to caring for physicians in his half-time private practice; he turns all other comers away.

This career path began in 1962 during his first year in medical school when Dr. Myers returned to his apartment after Thanksgiving break to be greeted with tragic news: One of the young men he shared the apartment with had died of suicide. The tragedy marked him – along with the silence about what had transpired – and he would later look back to realize it was the beginning of his journey to becoming a psychiatrist, one who cares for other physicians.

The book is filled with patient vignettes, gentle musings that Dr. Myers recounts with warmth, adding what he has learned from them.

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore. Dr. Miller has no conflicts of interest.

The January 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology had an article that stated that the current U.S. spending on emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs for patients with functional neurological disorders is $1.2 billion and climbing. That doesn’t include, obviously, the costs of treating functional disorders in other specialties.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The January 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology had an article that stated that the current U.S. spending on emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs for patients with functional neurological disorders is $1.2 billion and climbing. That doesn’t include, obviously, the costs of treating functional disorders in other specialties.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

The January 2021 issue of JAMA Neurology had an article that stated that the current U.S. spending on emergency room (ER) and inpatient costs for patients with functional neurological disorders is $1.2 billion and climbing. That doesn’t include, obviously, the costs of treating functional disorders in other specialties.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

Maternal autoimmune diseases significantly increased the risk of ADHD in children, based on data from a large cohort study of more than 800,000 mothers and children and a subsequent meta-analysis.

“There is growing evidence that immune-related cells and proteins play a role in brain development and function and that maternal immune activation, including infection, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation during pregnancy, increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children,” wrote Timothy C. Nielsen, MPH, of the University of Sydney, and colleagues.

Previous research has examined a link between maternal autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders in children, but associations with ADHD have not been well studied, they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 831,718 mothers and their 831,718 singleton infants in Australia. A total of 12,787 infants were born to mothers with an autoimmune diagnosis; 12,610 of them were matched to 50,440 control infants. ADHD was determined based on prescription for a stimulant treatment or a hospital diagnosis; children with a first ADHD event younger than 3 years were excluded.

In the total cohort of 63,050 infants, the presence of any maternal autoimmune disease was associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.30) as was the presence of several specific conditions: type 1 diabetes (HR, 2.23), psoriasis (HR, 1.66), and rheumatic fever or rheumatic carditis (HR, 1.75).

In addition, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the current study and four additional studies that yielded similar results. In the meta-analysis, the risk of ADHD was significantly associated with any maternal autoimmune disease in two studies (HR, 1.20); with maternal type 1 diabetes in four studies (HR, 1.53); with maternal hyperthyroidism in three studies (HR 1.15); and with maternal psoriasis in two studies (HR, 1.31).

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) had the highest HR and was the most often studied condition. However, “the observed association may also be related to nonimmune aspects of T1D, such as glycemic control, as nonautoimmune diabetes has been associated with ADHD among children,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of outpatient and primary care records to identify maternal autoimmune disease, and lack of data on any medication used to managed diseases during pregnancy, as well as a lack of data on children with ADHD who might not have been treated with medication, the researchers noted. In addition, “given differences in study design and definitions, the pooled HRs presented in the meta-analysis need to be treated cautiously.”

However, the results were strengthened by the hybrid study design and large study population, and were generally consistent with previous research supporting an effect of maternal immune function on fetal neurodevelopment, they noted.

“Our study provides justification for future studies that examine the effect of maternal autoimmune diseases, including biomarkers, condition severity, and management in pregnancy and in the periconception period, on neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” they concluded.

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

The current study, with its hybrid design, adds support to the evidence of an association between any maternal autoimmune disease and ADHD in children, as well as an association between the specific conditions of type 1 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and psoriasis in mothers and ADHD in children, Søren Dalsgaard, MD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Importantly, Nielsen et al. emphasized in their article that, for the many different autoimmune diseases, different underlying mechanisms for the associations with disorders of the central nervous system were likely. They mentioned that, for T1D, low glycemic control may play a role, as type 2 diabetes has been associated with ADHD,” said Dr. Dalsgaard.

“Overall, these mechanisms are thought to include shared genetic and environmental risk factors or direct effects of maternal autoantibodies or cytokines crossing the placenta and altering the fetal immune response, which in turns leads to changes in the central nervous system,” Dr. Dalsgaard explained. However, the current study and previous studies have not identified the mechanisms to explain the association between ADHD in children and maternal autoimmune disease.

“To understand more about these associations, future studies should include researchers and data from different scientific disciplines, such as epidemiology, animal modeling, genetics, and neuroimmunology,” he concluded.
 

Association is not causality

Overall, the study findings add to the evidence of a correlation between autoimmune diseases and neurologic disease, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. “Anything that might contribute to behavioral problems is worth investigating.” However, it is important to remember that association is not causation.

“There is some literature and evidence that autoimmune disease is associated with mental health issues, but the mechanisms of action are unknown,” said Dr. Lessin. ADHD is highly heritable, so the association may be caused by a similar genetic predisposition, or it may be something related to autoimmunity that is impacting the fetus by passing through the placenta.

The current study’s strengths include the large size and hybrid design, but limitations such as the identification of ADHD based on medication prescriptions may have led to underreporting, and identifying maternal autoimmune disease via inpatient hospital diagnosis could have selected for more severe disease, he said.

From a clinical standpoint, the study suggests a correlation that should be noted in a family history and potentially used to inform a diagnosis, especially in cases of type 1 diabetes where the association was strongest, Dr. Lessin said. The findings also support the value of further research to look for mechanisms that might explain whether the association between autoimmune disease and ADHD is autoimmune system causality or shared genetic susceptibility.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Blood Authority Australia and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr. Dalsgaard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin disclosed serving as editor of the ADHD toolkit for the American Academy of Pediatrics and coauthor of the current ADHD clinical guidelines. He also serves in advisory capacity to Cognoa, a company involved in diagnosis of autism, and Corium/KemPharm, companies involved in the development of ADHD treatments.

Maternal autoimmune diseases significantly increased the risk of ADHD in children, based on data from a large cohort study of more than 800,000 mothers and children and a subsequent meta-analysis.

“There is growing evidence that immune-related cells and proteins play a role in brain development and function and that maternal immune activation, including infection, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation during pregnancy, increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children,” wrote Timothy C. Nielsen, MPH, of the University of Sydney, and colleagues.

Previous research has examined a link between maternal autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders in children, but associations with ADHD have not been well studied, they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 831,718 mothers and their 831,718 singleton infants in Australia. A total of 12,787 infants were born to mothers with an autoimmune diagnosis; 12,610 of them were matched to 50,440 control infants. ADHD was determined based on prescription for a stimulant treatment or a hospital diagnosis; children with a first ADHD event younger than 3 years were excluded.

In the total cohort of 63,050 infants, the presence of any maternal autoimmune disease was associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.30) as was the presence of several specific conditions: type 1 diabetes (HR, 2.23), psoriasis (HR, 1.66), and rheumatic fever or rheumatic carditis (HR, 1.75).

In addition, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the current study and four additional studies that yielded similar results. In the meta-analysis, the risk of ADHD was significantly associated with any maternal autoimmune disease in two studies (HR, 1.20); with maternal type 1 diabetes in four studies (HR, 1.53); with maternal hyperthyroidism in three studies (HR 1.15); and with maternal psoriasis in two studies (HR, 1.31).

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) had the highest HR and was the most often studied condition. However, “the observed association may also be related to nonimmune aspects of T1D, such as glycemic control, as nonautoimmune diabetes has been associated with ADHD among children,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of outpatient and primary care records to identify maternal autoimmune disease, and lack of data on any medication used to managed diseases during pregnancy, as well as a lack of data on children with ADHD who might not have been treated with medication, the researchers noted. In addition, “given differences in study design and definitions, the pooled HRs presented in the meta-analysis need to be treated cautiously.”

However, the results were strengthened by the hybrid study design and large study population, and were generally consistent with previous research supporting an effect of maternal immune function on fetal neurodevelopment, they noted.

“Our study provides justification for future studies that examine the effect of maternal autoimmune diseases, including biomarkers, condition severity, and management in pregnancy and in the periconception period, on neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” they concluded.

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

The current study, with its hybrid design, adds support to the evidence of an association between any maternal autoimmune disease and ADHD in children, as well as an association between the specific conditions of type 1 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and psoriasis in mothers and ADHD in children, Søren Dalsgaard, MD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Importantly, Nielsen et al. emphasized in their article that, for the many different autoimmune diseases, different underlying mechanisms for the associations with disorders of the central nervous system were likely. They mentioned that, for T1D, low glycemic control may play a role, as type 2 diabetes has been associated with ADHD,” said Dr. Dalsgaard.

“Overall, these mechanisms are thought to include shared genetic and environmental risk factors or direct effects of maternal autoantibodies or cytokines crossing the placenta and altering the fetal immune response, which in turns leads to changes in the central nervous system,” Dr. Dalsgaard explained. However, the current study and previous studies have not identified the mechanisms to explain the association between ADHD in children and maternal autoimmune disease.

“To understand more about these associations, future studies should include researchers and data from different scientific disciplines, such as epidemiology, animal modeling, genetics, and neuroimmunology,” he concluded.
 

Association is not causality

Overall, the study findings add to the evidence of a correlation between autoimmune diseases and neurologic disease, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. “Anything that might contribute to behavioral problems is worth investigating.” However, it is important to remember that association is not causation.

“There is some literature and evidence that autoimmune disease is associated with mental health issues, but the mechanisms of action are unknown,” said Dr. Lessin. ADHD is highly heritable, so the association may be caused by a similar genetic predisposition, or it may be something related to autoimmunity that is impacting the fetus by passing through the placenta.

The current study’s strengths include the large size and hybrid design, but limitations such as the identification of ADHD based on medication prescriptions may have led to underreporting, and identifying maternal autoimmune disease via inpatient hospital diagnosis could have selected for more severe disease, he said.

From a clinical standpoint, the study suggests a correlation that should be noted in a family history and potentially used to inform a diagnosis, especially in cases of type 1 diabetes where the association was strongest, Dr. Lessin said. The findings also support the value of further research to look for mechanisms that might explain whether the association between autoimmune disease and ADHD is autoimmune system causality or shared genetic susceptibility.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Blood Authority Australia and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr. Dalsgaard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin disclosed serving as editor of the ADHD toolkit for the American Academy of Pediatrics and coauthor of the current ADHD clinical guidelines. He also serves in advisory capacity to Cognoa, a company involved in diagnosis of autism, and Corium/KemPharm, companies involved in the development of ADHD treatments.

Maternal autoimmune diseases significantly increased the risk of ADHD in children, based on data from a large cohort study of more than 800,000 mothers and children and a subsequent meta-analysis.

“There is growing evidence that immune-related cells and proteins play a role in brain development and function and that maternal immune activation, including infection, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation during pregnancy, increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children,” wrote Timothy C. Nielsen, MPH, of the University of Sydney, and colleagues.

Previous research has examined a link between maternal autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders in children, but associations with ADHD have not been well studied, they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 831,718 mothers and their 831,718 singleton infants in Australia. A total of 12,787 infants were born to mothers with an autoimmune diagnosis; 12,610 of them were matched to 50,440 control infants. ADHD was determined based on prescription for a stimulant treatment or a hospital diagnosis; children with a first ADHD event younger than 3 years were excluded.

In the total cohort of 63,050 infants, the presence of any maternal autoimmune disease was associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.30) as was the presence of several specific conditions: type 1 diabetes (HR, 2.23), psoriasis (HR, 1.66), and rheumatic fever or rheumatic carditis (HR, 1.75).

In addition, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the current study and four additional studies that yielded similar results. In the meta-analysis, the risk of ADHD was significantly associated with any maternal autoimmune disease in two studies (HR, 1.20); with maternal type 1 diabetes in four studies (HR, 1.53); with maternal hyperthyroidism in three studies (HR 1.15); and with maternal psoriasis in two studies (HR, 1.31).

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) had the highest HR and was the most often studied condition. However, “the observed association may also be related to nonimmune aspects of T1D, such as glycemic control, as nonautoimmune diabetes has been associated with ADHD among children,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of outpatient and primary care records to identify maternal autoimmune disease, and lack of data on any medication used to managed diseases during pregnancy, as well as a lack of data on children with ADHD who might not have been treated with medication, the researchers noted. In addition, “given differences in study design and definitions, the pooled HRs presented in the meta-analysis need to be treated cautiously.”

However, the results were strengthened by the hybrid study design and large study population, and were generally consistent with previous research supporting an effect of maternal immune function on fetal neurodevelopment, they noted.

“Our study provides justification for future studies that examine the effect of maternal autoimmune diseases, including biomarkers, condition severity, and management in pregnancy and in the periconception period, on neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” they concluded.

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

The current study, with its hybrid design, adds support to the evidence of an association between any maternal autoimmune disease and ADHD in children, as well as an association between the specific conditions of type 1 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and psoriasis in mothers and ADHD in children, Søren Dalsgaard, MD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Importantly, Nielsen et al. emphasized in their article that, for the many different autoimmune diseases, different underlying mechanisms for the associations with disorders of the central nervous system were likely. They mentioned that, for T1D, low glycemic control may play a role, as type 2 diabetes has been associated with ADHD,” said Dr. Dalsgaard.

“Overall, these mechanisms are thought to include shared genetic and environmental risk factors or direct effects of maternal autoantibodies or cytokines crossing the placenta and altering the fetal immune response, which in turns leads to changes in the central nervous system,” Dr. Dalsgaard explained. However, the current study and previous studies have not identified the mechanisms to explain the association between ADHD in children and maternal autoimmune disease.

“To understand more about these associations, future studies should include researchers and data from different scientific disciplines, such as epidemiology, animal modeling, genetics, and neuroimmunology,” he concluded.
 

Association is not causality

Overall, the study findings add to the evidence of a correlation between autoimmune diseases and neurologic disease, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. “Anything that might contribute to behavioral problems is worth investigating.” However, it is important to remember that association is not causation.

“There is some literature and evidence that autoimmune disease is associated with mental health issues, but the mechanisms of action are unknown,” said Dr. Lessin. ADHD is highly heritable, so the association may be caused by a similar genetic predisposition, or it may be something related to autoimmunity that is impacting the fetus by passing through the placenta.

The current study’s strengths include the large size and hybrid design, but limitations such as the identification of ADHD based on medication prescriptions may have led to underreporting, and identifying maternal autoimmune disease via inpatient hospital diagnosis could have selected for more severe disease, he said.

From a clinical standpoint, the study suggests a correlation that should be noted in a family history and potentially used to inform a diagnosis, especially in cases of type 1 diabetes where the association was strongest, Dr. Lessin said. The findings also support the value of further research to look for mechanisms that might explain whether the association between autoimmune disease and ADHD is autoimmune system causality or shared genetic susceptibility.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Blood Authority Australia and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr. Dalsgaard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin disclosed serving as editor of the ADHD toolkit for the American Academy of Pediatrics and coauthor of the current ADHD clinical guidelines. He also serves in advisory capacity to Cognoa, a company involved in diagnosis of autism, and Corium/KemPharm, companies involved in the development of ADHD treatments.

COVID has changed our world very rapidly. There are good changes, such as cleaner air and the ability to use telehealth widely. But there are devastating changes. As we are all aware, we have lost more than 400,000 people in America, and that number is climbing.

How can we mitigate some of the psychological effects of the pandemic? It is time to bring lessons learned on the battlefield to civilian psychiatrists and health care systems.

Despite having participated in mass casualty drills, no health system was trained or psychologically prepared for this once-in-a-century event.

The military dictum, “train like you fight; fight like you train” falls short considering the speed of viral replication, the serious flaws and disparities in our health care system revealed by COVID-19, and the public’s disturbingly variable adherence to preventive measures.

Like combat troops, health care workers put the needs of others ahead of their own. They suck up strain and step back from their own needs in favor of the mission.

Whether in combat or pandemic, leaders have valuable opportunities to promote the effectiveness of those on the front lines by caring for them. Those in charge may, themselves, be profoundly affected. While other team members focus on defined roles, leaders are forced to deal with many unknowns. They must often act without adequate information or resources.

Some of us have worked at hospitals treating many COVID patients and have been on “the front lines” for almost a year. We are asked a lot of questions, to which we often answer, "I don't know" or "there are no good choices."

All leaders work hard to model strength, but a difficult lesson that the military has had to learn is that leaders may strengthen cohesion by showing their grief, modeling self-care, drawing attention to even small successes in the face of overwhelming loss, and, when necessary, finding words for those losses.

Peer support is particularly important in high-stress situations. Mental health providers are uniquely qualified to share information, pick up on signs of severe stress, and provide support at the point of need.

Military combat stress control doctrine does, however, provide best practices that can be implemented across civilian health care systems. Its key elements are:

• Confidence in leadership at all levels – requiring visibility (“battlespace circulation”) of leaders who listen and share timely, accurate information.
• Realistic training – especially for those who, because of staff shortages, assume unfamiliar duties.
• Self-care – including regular meals, adequate sleep, and ongoing contact with family and friends. Here of course, the contact should be virtual as much as possible.
• Belief in the Mission – compassion satisfaction is a buffer against burnout.
• Esprit de corps – cohesive teams suffer significantly fewer combat stress casualties.

It is true that these principles have more often been tested in short-term crisis rather than the long slog that is COVID-19. This pandemic is more like an ongoing civil war than a distant battlefield because your home and those close to you share the risk.

There is no easy path ahead for America’s civilian health care system. These military principles, tested under fire, offer valuable opportunities in the ongoing battle against COVID-19.

Dr. Ritchie practices psychiatry in Washington. She has no disclosures.

Dr. Kudler is associate consulting professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University in Durham. N.C., and recently retired from his post as chief consultant for mental health, at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He has no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Yehuda is professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of the traumatic stress studies division at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York. She also serves as director of mental health at the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in New York. Dr. Yehuda has no disclosures.

Dr. Koffman is the senior consultant for Integrative Medicine & Behavioral Health at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, Bethesda, Md. He has no disclosures.

COVID has changed our world very rapidly. There are good changes, such as cleaner air and the ability to use telehealth widely. But there are devastating changes. As we are all aware, we have lost more than 400,000 people in America, and that number is climbing.

How can we mitigate some of the psychological effects of the pandemic? It is time to bring lessons learned on the battlefield to civilian psychiatrists and health care systems.

Despite having participated in mass casualty drills, no health system was trained or psychologically prepared for this once-in-a-century event.

The military dictum, “train like you fight; fight like you train” falls short considering the speed of viral replication, the serious flaws and disparities in our health care system revealed by COVID-19, and the public’s disturbingly variable adherence to preventive measures.

Like combat troops, health care workers put the needs of others ahead of their own. They suck up strain and step back from their own needs in favor of the mission.

Whether in combat or pandemic, leaders have valuable opportunities to promote the effectiveness of those on the front lines by caring for them. Those in charge may, themselves, be profoundly affected. While other team members focus on defined roles, leaders are forced to deal with many unknowns. They must often act without adequate information or resources.

Some of us have worked at hospitals treating many COVID patients and have been on “the front lines” for almost a year. We are asked a lot of questions, to which we often answer, "I don't know" or "there are no good choices."

All leaders work hard to model strength, but a difficult lesson that the military has had to learn is that leaders may strengthen cohesion by showing their grief, modeling self-care, drawing attention to even small successes in the face of overwhelming loss, and, when necessary, finding words for those losses.

Peer support is particularly important in high-stress situations. Mental health providers are uniquely qualified to share information, pick up on signs of severe stress, and provide support at the point of need.

Military combat stress control doctrine does, however, provide best practices that can be implemented across civilian health care systems. Its key elements are:

• Confidence in leadership at all levels – requiring visibility (“battlespace circulation”) of leaders who listen and share timely, accurate information.
• Realistic training – especially for those who, because of staff shortages, assume unfamiliar duties.
• Self-care – including regular meals, adequate sleep, and ongoing contact with family and friends. Here of course, the contact should be virtual as much as possible.
• Belief in the Mission – compassion satisfaction is a buffer against burnout.
• Esprit de corps – cohesive teams suffer significantly fewer combat stress casualties.

It is true that these principles have more often been tested in short-term crisis rather than the long slog that is COVID-19. This pandemic is more like an ongoing civil war than a distant battlefield because your home and those close to you share the risk.

There is no easy path ahead for America’s civilian health care system. These military principles, tested under fire, offer valuable opportunities in the ongoing battle against COVID-19.

Dr. Ritchie practices psychiatry in Washington. She has no disclosures.

Dr. Kudler is associate consulting professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University in Durham. N.C., and recently retired from his post as chief consultant for mental health, at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He has no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Yehuda is professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of the traumatic stress studies division at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York. She also serves as director of mental health at the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in New York. Dr. Yehuda has no disclosures.

Dr. Koffman is the senior consultant for Integrative Medicine & Behavioral Health at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, Bethesda, Md. He has no disclosures.

COVID has changed our world very rapidly. There are good changes, such as cleaner air and the ability to use telehealth widely. But there are devastating changes. As we are all aware, we have lost more than 400,000 people in America, and that number is climbing.

How can we mitigate some of the psychological effects of the pandemic? It is time to bring lessons learned on the battlefield to civilian psychiatrists and health care systems.

Despite having participated in mass casualty drills, no health system was trained or psychologically prepared for this once-in-a-century event.

The military dictum, “train like you fight; fight like you train” falls short considering the speed of viral replication, the serious flaws and disparities in our health care system revealed by COVID-19, and the public’s disturbingly variable adherence to preventive measures.

Like combat troops, health care workers put the needs of others ahead of their own. They suck up strain and step back from their own needs in favor of the mission.

Whether in combat or pandemic, leaders have valuable opportunities to promote the effectiveness of those on the front lines by caring for them. Those in charge may, themselves, be profoundly affected. While other team members focus on defined roles, leaders are forced to deal with many unknowns. They must often act without adequate information or resources.

Some of us have worked at hospitals treating many COVID patients and have been on “the front lines” for almost a year. We are asked a lot of questions, to which we often answer, "I don't know" or "there are no good choices."

All leaders work hard to model strength, but a difficult lesson that the military has had to learn is that leaders may strengthen cohesion by showing their grief, modeling self-care, drawing attention to even small successes in the face of overwhelming loss, and, when necessary, finding words for those losses.

Peer support is particularly important in high-stress situations. Mental health providers are uniquely qualified to share information, pick up on signs of severe stress, and provide support at the point of need.

Military combat stress control doctrine does, however, provide best practices that can be implemented across civilian health care systems. Its key elements are:

• Confidence in leadership at all levels – requiring visibility (“battlespace circulation”) of leaders who listen and share timely, accurate information.
• Realistic training – especially for those who, because of staff shortages, assume unfamiliar duties.
• Self-care – including regular meals, adequate sleep, and ongoing contact with family and friends. Here of course, the contact should be virtual as much as possible.
• Belief in the Mission – compassion satisfaction is a buffer against burnout.
• Esprit de corps – cohesive teams suffer significantly fewer combat stress casualties.

It is true that these principles have more often been tested in short-term crisis rather than the long slog that is COVID-19. This pandemic is more like an ongoing civil war than a distant battlefield because your home and those close to you share the risk.

There is no easy path ahead for America’s civilian health care system. These military principles, tested under fire, offer valuable opportunities in the ongoing battle against COVID-19.

Dr. Ritchie practices psychiatry in Washington. She has no disclosures.

Dr. Kudler is associate consulting professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University in Durham. N.C., and recently retired from his post as chief consultant for mental health, at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He has no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Yehuda is professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of the traumatic stress studies division at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York. She also serves as director of mental health at the James J. Peters Veterans Affairs Medical Center, also in New York. Dr. Yehuda has no disclosures.

Dr. Koffman is the senior consultant for Integrative Medicine & Behavioral Health at the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, Bethesda, Md. He has no disclosures.