MDedge Pediatrics

The currently available two-dose COVID-19 vaccines were not effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant, as determined on the basis of data from more than 800,000 Omicron-infected individuals.

Early laboratory data suggested a substantially lower neutralizing antibody response to the Omicron variant, compared with both the original COVID-19 strain and the Delta variant, write Nick Andrews, PhD, of the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, London, and colleagues.

Vaccines have shown high levels of effectiveness against symptomatic disease and severe disease and death resulting from the original COVID-19 virus and the Alpha variant and modest effectiveness against the Beta and Delta variants, they say.

“Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against reinfection and vaccine effectiveness against infection; therefore, reduced vaccine effectiveness against the omicron variant is anticipated on the basis of these early laboratory findings,” they explain.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers identified 886,774 adults aged 18 years and older who had been infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 who had been infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 symptomatic control patients who tested negative for COVID-19 between Nov. 27, 2021, and Jan. 12, 2022. The participants had been vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, plus a booster given at least 175 days after a second dose, after Sept. 13, 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization at weeks 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25 or longer after the second dose, and at 2-4, 5-9, and 10 or more weeks after boosters.

Omicron infections that occurred starting 14 or more days after a booster occurred a median of 39 days after the booster.

“Vaccine effectiveness was lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta variant at all intervals after vaccination and for all combinations of primary courses and booster doses investigated,” the researchers write.

Individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had almost no protection against symptomatic disease caused by Omicron from 20-24 weeks after the second dose. For individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2, effectiveness was 65.5% 2-4 weeks after the second dose, but effectiveness declined to 15.4% after 15-19 weeks and to 8.8% after 25 or more weeks. For individuals who received two doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness was 75.1% after 2-4 weeks, but effectiveness declined to 14.9% after 25 or more weeks.

Boosters created a short-term improvement in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant, but this effect also declined over time.

Among individuals who received primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 39.6% after 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 70.1% at 2-4 weeks and decreased to 60.9% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 45.7% at 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 73.9% at 2-4 weeks, then declined to 64.4% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness increased to 64.9% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster and 66.3% 2-4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster.

The study findings were limited by potential confounding from study participants who had traveled and may have had different levels of vaccine coverage and by the inability to break down estimates on the basis of age and clinical risk that might affect vaccine effectiveness, the researchers note. Other limitations include a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness for a longer period after boosters, they say.

However, the results are consistent with neutralization data for the Omicron variant in studies from the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Germany, they write. “Our findings support maximizing coverage with third doses of vaccine in highly vaccinated populations such as in the United Kingdom. Further follow-up will be needed to assess protection against severe disease and the duration of protection after booster vaccination,” they conclude.
 

Focus on severe disease prevention

Paul Offit, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, addressed the topic of vaccine effectiveness in an op-ed published on March 4 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is adapted from the op-ed, with his permission.

“The goal of the COVID vaccine – as is true for all vaccines – is to prevent serious illness,” Dr. Offit wrote.

“For most people with normal immune systems, two doses of mRNA vaccines appear to do exactly that. But not everyone,” wrote Dr. Offit, who serves as director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and also serves on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. “Three doses are required to induce high levels of protection against serious illness for people over 65 years of age or for people with other conditions that make them vulnerable, which can be anything from being overweight to having cancer. For people who are immune compromised, four doses might be required,” he noted.

Frequent vaccine boosting, although it may help prevent milder cases of COVID-19, such as those seen with the Omicron variant, is impractical, Dr. Offit emphasized. Instead, a newer, variant-specific vaccine might be needed if a variant emerges that overrides the protection against severe disease currently afforded by the available vaccines, he said. “But we’re not there yet. For now, we are going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible to prevent mild COVID without frequent boosting. So, let’s learn to accept that the goal of COVID vaccines is to prevent severe and not mild illness and stop talking about frequent boosting. Otherwise, we will never be able to live our lives as before,” he wrote.

The study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency. The researchers and Dr. Offit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The currently available two-dose COVID-19 vaccines were not effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant, as determined on the basis of data from more than 800,000 Omicron-infected individuals.

Early laboratory data suggested a substantially lower neutralizing antibody response to the Omicron variant, compared with both the original COVID-19 strain and the Delta variant, write Nick Andrews, PhD, of the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, London, and colleagues.

Vaccines have shown high levels of effectiveness against symptomatic disease and severe disease and death resulting from the original COVID-19 virus and the Alpha variant and modest effectiveness against the Beta and Delta variants, they say.

“Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against reinfection and vaccine effectiveness against infection; therefore, reduced vaccine effectiveness against the omicron variant is anticipated on the basis of these early laboratory findings,” they explain.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers identified 886,774 adults aged 18 years and older who had been infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 who had been infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 symptomatic control patients who tested negative for COVID-19 between Nov. 27, 2021, and Jan. 12, 2022. The participants had been vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, plus a booster given at least 175 days after a second dose, after Sept. 13, 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization at weeks 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25 or longer after the second dose, and at 2-4, 5-9, and 10 or more weeks after boosters.

Omicron infections that occurred starting 14 or more days after a booster occurred a median of 39 days after the booster.

“Vaccine effectiveness was lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta variant at all intervals after vaccination and for all combinations of primary courses and booster doses investigated,” the researchers write.

Individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had almost no protection against symptomatic disease caused by Omicron from 20-24 weeks after the second dose. For individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2, effectiveness was 65.5% 2-4 weeks after the second dose, but effectiveness declined to 15.4% after 15-19 weeks and to 8.8% after 25 or more weeks. For individuals who received two doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness was 75.1% after 2-4 weeks, but effectiveness declined to 14.9% after 25 or more weeks.

Boosters created a short-term improvement in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant, but this effect also declined over time.

Among individuals who received primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 39.6% after 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 70.1% at 2-4 weeks and decreased to 60.9% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 45.7% at 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 73.9% at 2-4 weeks, then declined to 64.4% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness increased to 64.9% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster and 66.3% 2-4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster.

The study findings were limited by potential confounding from study participants who had traveled and may have had different levels of vaccine coverage and by the inability to break down estimates on the basis of age and clinical risk that might affect vaccine effectiveness, the researchers note. Other limitations include a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness for a longer period after boosters, they say.

However, the results are consistent with neutralization data for the Omicron variant in studies from the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Germany, they write. “Our findings support maximizing coverage with third doses of vaccine in highly vaccinated populations such as in the United Kingdom. Further follow-up will be needed to assess protection against severe disease and the duration of protection after booster vaccination,” they conclude.
 

Focus on severe disease prevention

Paul Offit, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, addressed the topic of vaccine effectiveness in an op-ed published on March 4 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is adapted from the op-ed, with his permission.

“The goal of the COVID vaccine – as is true for all vaccines – is to prevent serious illness,” Dr. Offit wrote.

“For most people with normal immune systems, two doses of mRNA vaccines appear to do exactly that. But not everyone,” wrote Dr. Offit, who serves as director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and also serves on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. “Three doses are required to induce high levels of protection against serious illness for people over 65 years of age or for people with other conditions that make them vulnerable, which can be anything from being overweight to having cancer. For people who are immune compromised, four doses might be required,” he noted.

Frequent vaccine boosting, although it may help prevent milder cases of COVID-19, such as those seen with the Omicron variant, is impractical, Dr. Offit emphasized. Instead, a newer, variant-specific vaccine might be needed if a variant emerges that overrides the protection against severe disease currently afforded by the available vaccines, he said. “But we’re not there yet. For now, we are going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible to prevent mild COVID without frequent boosting. So, let’s learn to accept that the goal of COVID vaccines is to prevent severe and not mild illness and stop talking about frequent boosting. Otherwise, we will never be able to live our lives as before,” he wrote.

The study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency. The researchers and Dr. Offit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The currently available two-dose COVID-19 vaccines were not effective in preventing symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron variant, as determined on the basis of data from more than 800,000 Omicron-infected individuals.

Early laboratory data suggested a substantially lower neutralizing antibody response to the Omicron variant, compared with both the original COVID-19 strain and the Delta variant, write Nick Andrews, PhD, of the United Kingdom Health Security Agency, London, and colleagues.

Vaccines have shown high levels of effectiveness against symptomatic disease and severe disease and death resulting from the original COVID-19 virus and the Alpha variant and modest effectiveness against the Beta and Delta variants, they say.

“Neutralizing antibodies correlate with protection against reinfection and vaccine effectiveness against infection; therefore, reduced vaccine effectiveness against the omicron variant is anticipated on the basis of these early laboratory findings,” they explain.

In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers identified 886,774 adults aged 18 years and older who had been infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 who had been infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 symptomatic control patients who tested negative for COVID-19 between Nov. 27, 2021, and Jan. 12, 2022. The participants had been vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer–BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, plus a booster given at least 175 days after a second dose, after Sept. 13, 2021.

Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization at weeks 2-4, 5-9, 10-14, 15-19, 20-24, and 25 or longer after the second dose, and at 2-4, 5-9, and 10 or more weeks after boosters.

Omicron infections that occurred starting 14 or more days after a booster occurred a median of 39 days after the booster.

“Vaccine effectiveness was lower for the Omicron variant than for the Delta variant at all intervals after vaccination and for all combinations of primary courses and booster doses investigated,” the researchers write.

Individuals who received two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 had almost no protection against symptomatic disease caused by Omicron from 20-24 weeks after the second dose. For individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2, effectiveness was 65.5% 2-4 weeks after the second dose, but effectiveness declined to 15.4% after 15-19 weeks and to 8.8% after 25 or more weeks. For individuals who received two doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness was 75.1% after 2-4 weeks, but effectiveness declined to 14.9% after 25 or more weeks.

Boosters created a short-term improvement in vaccine effectiveness against the Omicron variant, but this effect also declined over time.

Among individuals who received primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 39.6% after 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 70.1% at 2-4 weeks and decreased to 60.9% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, then declined to 45.7% at 10 or more weeks. After an mRNA-1273 booster, vaccine effectiveness increased to 73.9% at 2-4 weeks, then declined to 64.4% at 5-9 weeks.

Among individuals who received primary doses of mRNA-1273, vaccine effectiveness increased to 64.9% 2-4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster and 66.3% 2-4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster.

The study findings were limited by potential confounding from study participants who had traveled and may have had different levels of vaccine coverage and by the inability to break down estimates on the basis of age and clinical risk that might affect vaccine effectiveness, the researchers note. Other limitations include a lack of data on vaccine effectiveness for a longer period after boosters, they say.

However, the results are consistent with neutralization data for the Omicron variant in studies from the United Kingdom, South Africa, and Germany, they write. “Our findings support maximizing coverage with third doses of vaccine in highly vaccinated populations such as in the United Kingdom. Further follow-up will be needed to assess protection against severe disease and the duration of protection after booster vaccination,” they conclude.
 

Focus on severe disease prevention

Paul Offit, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, addressed the topic of vaccine effectiveness in an op-ed published on March 4 in The Philadelphia Inquirer. The following is adapted from the op-ed, with his permission.

“The goal of the COVID vaccine – as is true for all vaccines – is to prevent serious illness,” Dr. Offit wrote.

“For most people with normal immune systems, two doses of mRNA vaccines appear to do exactly that. But not everyone,” wrote Dr. Offit, who serves as director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and also serves on the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccine Advisory Committee. “Three doses are required to induce high levels of protection against serious illness for people over 65 years of age or for people with other conditions that make them vulnerable, which can be anything from being overweight to having cancer. For people who are immune compromised, four doses might be required,” he noted.

Frequent vaccine boosting, although it may help prevent milder cases of COVID-19, such as those seen with the Omicron variant, is impractical, Dr. Offit emphasized. Instead, a newer, variant-specific vaccine might be needed if a variant emerges that overrides the protection against severe disease currently afforded by the available vaccines, he said. “But we’re not there yet. For now, we are going to have to realize that it is virtually impossible to prevent mild COVID without frequent boosting. So, let’s learn to accept that the goal of COVID vaccines is to prevent severe and not mild illness and stop talking about frequent boosting. Otherwise, we will never be able to live our lives as before,” he wrote.

The study was supported by the U.K. Health Security Agency. The researchers and Dr. Offit have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have identified markers in saliva that are differentially expressed in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances.

These findings mark the beginning of an understanding of the biological differences separating kids with ASD with and without GI disturbances, study investigator David Q. Beversdorf, MD, professor of radiology, neurology and psychology, department of psychological sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, told this news organization.

“The hope is this will lead us in future to markers that help guide targeted precision treatments of gastrointestinal disorders” in children with autism, with the ultimate goal of improving their quality of life, said Dr. Beversdorf.

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Anxiety a key driver?

GI disorders, particularly constipation, are common in children with ASD. Previous research by Dr. Beversdorf and colleagues suggests that anxiety may be driving the relationship between gut disturbances and autism.

Research shows some children with ASD respond well to traditional treatments such as laxatives, while others do not. However, the reasons for this are unclear.

“It would be great to know who those great responders are,” said Dr. Beversdorf. “Subtyping and using biomarkers might be biologically meaningful” because this could identify distinct groups.

The case-control study included 898 children aged 18-73 months recruited from outpatient pediatric clinics affiliated with seven academic medical centers across the United States. The average age of the sample was 44 months and participants were mainly White (76%), non-Hispanic (89%), and male (73%).

The children fell into three neurodevelopmental categories: ASD (n = 503), non-ASD developmental delay (DD, n = 205), and typical development (TD, n = 190).

ASD was diagnosed using standardized assessment tools including the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale, second edition (ADOS-2). DD participants had delays in gross motor skills, fine motor skills, language, or cognitive development but did not meet criteria for ASD.

Including children with DD could address whether biological markers are specific to autism or to developmental disorders in general, noted Dr. Beversdorf.

TD participants, recruited at the time of their annual well-child visit, did not exhibit developmental delays.
 

Links to GI disturbance, behavior

Researchers subdivided participants into those with GI disturbances (n = 184) and those without these disturbances (n = 714). This was based on medical record review and parental report of disorders such as constipation, reflux, chronic diarrhea or abdominal pain, and food intolerance.

As expected, investigators found more children with ASD reported GI disturbance (22%) than with TD (10%). In children with ASD, rates of constipation (11%) and reflux (6%) were higher than rates among those with TD (3% and 0.5%, respectively).

However, rates of GI disturbances in children with ASD were similar to those with DD.

Investigators used a swab to obtain a saliva sample from participants in a nonfasting state. Saliva is a feasible and often favored source for sampling GI-related biology. Unlike stool microbiome, the saliva microbiome can be repeatedly sampled on demand and has shown resilience to antibiotics.

Researchers examined numerous RNAs, which are “incredibly biologically relevant,” said Dr. Beversdorf.

Investigators compared levels of 1,821 micro-transcriptome features across neurodevelopmental status and the presence or absence of GI disorders.

They also examined micro-transcriptome levels among GI subgroups (constipation, reflux, food intolerance, other GI condition, no GI condition). In addition, they identified RNAs that differed among children taking three common GI medications. These included probiotics, reflux medication, or laxatives.

The investigators found five piwi-interacting RNAs, which are small noncoding RNA molecules and three microbial RNAs in saliva that displayed an interaction between developmental status and GI disturbance. Fifty-seven salivary RNAs differed between GI subgroups, with microRNA differences found between food intolerance and reflux groups being the most common.

The analysis identified 12 microRNAs that displayed relationships with GI disturbance, behavior, and GI medication use.
 

First exploration

However, Dr. Beversdorf cautioned about the medication finding. “I can’t speak confidently about what we see there because with each group you get much, much smaller sample sizes with each individual treatment approach.”

The researchers looked at downstream targets of the 12 microRNAs and found involvement with 13 physiologic pathways. These included long-term depression, metabolism, and digestion pathways.

The metabolism and digestion pathways make sense, but it’s unclear why an addiction-related pathway would be involved, said Dr. Beversdorf. However, he noted children with autism do display obsessive features.

Experts don’t know if RNA changes are a cause of, or a response to, GI problems. “It could be the pain of constipation is triggering, say, these addiction pathway changes,” said Dr. Beversdorf.

The study is the “first exploration” into possible specific targets for treating GI disturbances in autism, said Dr. Beversdorf. “We hope these biomarkers will eventually give us an indication of which patients are going to respond to the individual approach to treating their constipation, their diarrhea, or whatever it is.”

The investigators plan to study whether RNA biomarkers determine which patients respond to different treatments targeting constipation, said Dr. Beversdorf.

A study limitation was that GI disturbances were not assessed by physicians. In addition, the term “GI disturbance” groups together loosely related pathology occurring in the GI tract, although there are important physiologic differences between conditions such as constipation and reflux.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Researchers have identified markers in saliva that are differentially expressed in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances.

These findings mark the beginning of an understanding of the biological differences separating kids with ASD with and without GI disturbances, study investigator David Q. Beversdorf, MD, professor of radiology, neurology and psychology, department of psychological sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, told this news organization.

“The hope is this will lead us in future to markers that help guide targeted precision treatments of gastrointestinal disorders” in children with autism, with the ultimate goal of improving their quality of life, said Dr. Beversdorf.

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Anxiety a key driver?

GI disorders, particularly constipation, are common in children with ASD. Previous research by Dr. Beversdorf and colleagues suggests that anxiety may be driving the relationship between gut disturbances and autism.

Research shows some children with ASD respond well to traditional treatments such as laxatives, while others do not. However, the reasons for this are unclear.

“It would be great to know who those great responders are,” said Dr. Beversdorf. “Subtyping and using biomarkers might be biologically meaningful” because this could identify distinct groups.

The case-control study included 898 children aged 18-73 months recruited from outpatient pediatric clinics affiliated with seven academic medical centers across the United States. The average age of the sample was 44 months and participants were mainly White (76%), non-Hispanic (89%), and male (73%).

The children fell into three neurodevelopmental categories: ASD (n = 503), non-ASD developmental delay (DD, n = 205), and typical development (TD, n = 190).

ASD was diagnosed using standardized assessment tools including the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale, second edition (ADOS-2). DD participants had delays in gross motor skills, fine motor skills, language, or cognitive development but did not meet criteria for ASD.

Including children with DD could address whether biological markers are specific to autism or to developmental disorders in general, noted Dr. Beversdorf.

TD participants, recruited at the time of their annual well-child visit, did not exhibit developmental delays.
 

Links to GI disturbance, behavior

Researchers subdivided participants into those with GI disturbances (n = 184) and those without these disturbances (n = 714). This was based on medical record review and parental report of disorders such as constipation, reflux, chronic diarrhea or abdominal pain, and food intolerance.

As expected, investigators found more children with ASD reported GI disturbance (22%) than with TD (10%). In children with ASD, rates of constipation (11%) and reflux (6%) were higher than rates among those with TD (3% and 0.5%, respectively).

However, rates of GI disturbances in children with ASD were similar to those with DD.

Investigators used a swab to obtain a saliva sample from participants in a nonfasting state. Saliva is a feasible and often favored source for sampling GI-related biology. Unlike stool microbiome, the saliva microbiome can be repeatedly sampled on demand and has shown resilience to antibiotics.

Researchers examined numerous RNAs, which are “incredibly biologically relevant,” said Dr. Beversdorf.

Investigators compared levels of 1,821 micro-transcriptome features across neurodevelopmental status and the presence or absence of GI disorders.

They also examined micro-transcriptome levels among GI subgroups (constipation, reflux, food intolerance, other GI condition, no GI condition). In addition, they identified RNAs that differed among children taking three common GI medications. These included probiotics, reflux medication, or laxatives.

The investigators found five piwi-interacting RNAs, which are small noncoding RNA molecules and three microbial RNAs in saliva that displayed an interaction between developmental status and GI disturbance. Fifty-seven salivary RNAs differed between GI subgroups, with microRNA differences found between food intolerance and reflux groups being the most common.

The analysis identified 12 microRNAs that displayed relationships with GI disturbance, behavior, and GI medication use.
 

First exploration

However, Dr. Beversdorf cautioned about the medication finding. “I can’t speak confidently about what we see there because with each group you get much, much smaller sample sizes with each individual treatment approach.”

The researchers looked at downstream targets of the 12 microRNAs and found involvement with 13 physiologic pathways. These included long-term depression, metabolism, and digestion pathways.

The metabolism and digestion pathways make sense, but it’s unclear why an addiction-related pathway would be involved, said Dr. Beversdorf. However, he noted children with autism do display obsessive features.

Experts don’t know if RNA changes are a cause of, or a response to, GI problems. “It could be the pain of constipation is triggering, say, these addiction pathway changes,” said Dr. Beversdorf.

The study is the “first exploration” into possible specific targets for treating GI disturbances in autism, said Dr. Beversdorf. “We hope these biomarkers will eventually give us an indication of which patients are going to respond to the individual approach to treating their constipation, their diarrhea, or whatever it is.”

The investigators plan to study whether RNA biomarkers determine which patients respond to different treatments targeting constipation, said Dr. Beversdorf.

A study limitation was that GI disturbances were not assessed by physicians. In addition, the term “GI disturbance” groups together loosely related pathology occurring in the GI tract, although there are important physiologic differences between conditions such as constipation and reflux.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

Researchers have identified markers in saliva that are differentially expressed in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who have gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances.

These findings mark the beginning of an understanding of the biological differences separating kids with ASD with and without GI disturbances, study investigator David Q. Beversdorf, MD, professor of radiology, neurology and psychology, department of psychological sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, told this news organization.

“The hope is this will lead us in future to markers that help guide targeted precision treatments of gastrointestinal disorders” in children with autism, with the ultimate goal of improving their quality of life, said Dr. Beversdorf.

The study was published online Jan. 20 in Frontiers in Psychiatry.
 

Anxiety a key driver?

GI disorders, particularly constipation, are common in children with ASD. Previous research by Dr. Beversdorf and colleagues suggests that anxiety may be driving the relationship between gut disturbances and autism.

Research shows some children with ASD respond well to traditional treatments such as laxatives, while others do not. However, the reasons for this are unclear.

“It would be great to know who those great responders are,” said Dr. Beversdorf. “Subtyping and using biomarkers might be biologically meaningful” because this could identify distinct groups.

The case-control study included 898 children aged 18-73 months recruited from outpatient pediatric clinics affiliated with seven academic medical centers across the United States. The average age of the sample was 44 months and participants were mainly White (76%), non-Hispanic (89%), and male (73%).

The children fell into three neurodevelopmental categories: ASD (n = 503), non-ASD developmental delay (DD, n = 205), and typical development (TD, n = 190).

ASD was diagnosed using standardized assessment tools including the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale, second edition (ADOS-2). DD participants had delays in gross motor skills, fine motor skills, language, or cognitive development but did not meet criteria for ASD.

Including children with DD could address whether biological markers are specific to autism or to developmental disorders in general, noted Dr. Beversdorf.

TD participants, recruited at the time of their annual well-child visit, did not exhibit developmental delays.
 

Links to GI disturbance, behavior

Researchers subdivided participants into those with GI disturbances (n = 184) and those without these disturbances (n = 714). This was based on medical record review and parental report of disorders such as constipation, reflux, chronic diarrhea or abdominal pain, and food intolerance.

As expected, investigators found more children with ASD reported GI disturbance (22%) than with TD (10%). In children with ASD, rates of constipation (11%) and reflux (6%) were higher than rates among those with TD (3% and 0.5%, respectively).

However, rates of GI disturbances in children with ASD were similar to those with DD.

Investigators used a swab to obtain a saliva sample from participants in a nonfasting state. Saliva is a feasible and often favored source for sampling GI-related biology. Unlike stool microbiome, the saliva microbiome can be repeatedly sampled on demand and has shown resilience to antibiotics.

Researchers examined numerous RNAs, which are “incredibly biologically relevant,” said Dr. Beversdorf.

Investigators compared levels of 1,821 micro-transcriptome features across neurodevelopmental status and the presence or absence of GI disorders.

They also examined micro-transcriptome levels among GI subgroups (constipation, reflux, food intolerance, other GI condition, no GI condition). In addition, they identified RNAs that differed among children taking three common GI medications. These included probiotics, reflux medication, or laxatives.

The investigators found five piwi-interacting RNAs, which are small noncoding RNA molecules and three microbial RNAs in saliva that displayed an interaction between developmental status and GI disturbance. Fifty-seven salivary RNAs differed between GI subgroups, with microRNA differences found between food intolerance and reflux groups being the most common.

The analysis identified 12 microRNAs that displayed relationships with GI disturbance, behavior, and GI medication use.
 

First exploration

However, Dr. Beversdorf cautioned about the medication finding. “I can’t speak confidently about what we see there because with each group you get much, much smaller sample sizes with each individual treatment approach.”

The researchers looked at downstream targets of the 12 microRNAs and found involvement with 13 physiologic pathways. These included long-term depression, metabolism, and digestion pathways.

The metabolism and digestion pathways make sense, but it’s unclear why an addiction-related pathway would be involved, said Dr. Beversdorf. However, he noted children with autism do display obsessive features.

Experts don’t know if RNA changes are a cause of, or a response to, GI problems. “It could be the pain of constipation is triggering, say, these addiction pathway changes,” said Dr. Beversdorf.

The study is the “first exploration” into possible specific targets for treating GI disturbances in autism, said Dr. Beversdorf. “We hope these biomarkers will eventually give us an indication of which patients are going to respond to the individual approach to treating their constipation, their diarrhea, or whatever it is.”

The investigators plan to study whether RNA biomarkers determine which patients respond to different treatments targeting constipation, said Dr. Beversdorf.

A study limitation was that GI disturbances were not assessed by physicians. In addition, the term “GI disturbance” groups together loosely related pathology occurring in the GI tract, although there are important physiologic differences between conditions such as constipation and reflux.

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health.

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

A prescription, digital therapeutic shows measurable brain changes that correlate with improved attention control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Investigators found children who used the video game-based therapy (EndeavorRx) experienced increased brain activity related to attention function, as measured by EEG, which correlated with improvements in objective behavioral measures of attention.

Courtesy University of California, San Francisco

“While the previous multicenter trials show attention improvement for children using EndeavorRx, this is the first study to look at the brain activity in children with a primary concern of ADHD,” principal investigator Elysa Marco, MD, clinical executive for neurodevelopmental medicine at Cortica Healthcare, San Rafael, Calif., said in news release.

“It is exciting to see measurable improvement on the EEGs that correlates with the behavioral benefits,” said Dr. Marco.

The study was recently published online in PLOS ONE. 
 

Measurable changes

As previously reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved EndeavorRx in June 2020 as a prescription video game–based therapeutic device for children aged 8-12 years with primarily inattentive or combined-type ADHD, who have a demonstrated attention issue.

“The device is intended for use as part of a therapeutic program that may include clinician-directed therapy, medication, and/or educational programs, which further address symptoms of the disorder,” the FDA said upon approval.

In the current unblinded, single-arm study, the researchers assessed 25 children (aged 8-12 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD on neural, behavioral, and clinical metrics of attention before and after a 4-week at-home intervention.

Participants were instructed to use EndeavorRx for about 25 minutes a day at least 5 days a week for 4 weeks, as recommended by the FDA.

“EndeavorRx enhanced midline frontal theta (MFT) activity, suggesting that patients who used EndeavorRx for 4 weeks showed changes in measurable brain function,” Anil S. Jina, MD, chief medical officer of Akili Interactive, told this news organization. Dr. Jina was not involved with the study.

There was also a correlation between MFT activity and attention functioning, “suggesting that children who experienced the largest gains in MFT activity as measured by EEG also showed the greatest improvements in computerized performance tests designed to measure attention,” Dr. Jina said.

In addition, parents reported significantly fewer inattention symptoms in children after EndeavorRx treatment, as measured by the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale.
 

‘Not just another video game’

EndeavorRx has been evaluated in five clinical studies involving more than 600 children with ADHD, including the STARS-ADHD trial, a prospective, randomized, controlled study published in The Lancet Digital Health.

The STARS-ADHD trial randomly allocated 348 children to either EndeavorRx treatment or a controlled intervention, which was a word game.

The researchers reported statistically significant improvements in attentional functioning in the EndeavorRx group as rated by test of variables of attention.

“This is not just another video game,” STARS-ADHD trialist Scott H. Kollins, PhD, MS, a clinical psychologist at Duke Health’s ADHD Clinic in Durham, N.C., who helped developed it, previously told this news organization.   

The tool’s adaptive algorithms adjust and monitor task difficulty based on performance, using a video game format and rewards to engage users, he explained. EndeavorRx is a challenge to play by design.

“The treatment was programmed into the gameplay experience and designed to challenge a child’s attentional control during gameplay, requiring focus and flexibility to manage tasks at the same time,” Dr. Jina said in an interview.

“Unlike a video game that is designed only for entertainment purposes, to drive efficacy, EndeavorRx is designed to be challenging and can therefore sometimes feel repetitive, and frustrating to some children,” Dr. Jina said.

Commenting on the study, Stephen Faraone, PhD, distinguished professor of psychiatry and vice chair of research, department of psychiatry, State University of New York, Syracuse, said this study “supports the idea that EndeavorRx improves a neural measure of attention.

“The limitation is that we don’t know if this translates into clinically relevant outcomes,” cautioned Dr. Faraone, who was not associated with the current study.

“The main caveat about EndeavorRx is that it was cleared by the FDA for improving a computer-based measure of inattention, not inattentive symptoms as reported by the parents of children with ADHD,” he noted.

Several authors have disclosed financial relationships with Akili Interactive Labs, which funded the study. Dr. Faraone was an investigator on the STARS-ADHD trial.

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

A prescription, digital therapeutic shows measurable brain changes that correlate with improved attention control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Investigators found children who used the video game-based therapy (EndeavorRx) experienced increased brain activity related to attention function, as measured by EEG, which correlated with improvements in objective behavioral measures of attention.

Courtesy University of California, San Francisco

“While the previous multicenter trials show attention improvement for children using EndeavorRx, this is the first study to look at the brain activity in children with a primary concern of ADHD,” principal investigator Elysa Marco, MD, clinical executive for neurodevelopmental medicine at Cortica Healthcare, San Rafael, Calif., said in news release.

“It is exciting to see measurable improvement on the EEGs that correlates with the behavioral benefits,” said Dr. Marco.

The study was recently published online in PLOS ONE. 
 

Measurable changes

As previously reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved EndeavorRx in June 2020 as a prescription video game–based therapeutic device for children aged 8-12 years with primarily inattentive or combined-type ADHD, who have a demonstrated attention issue.

“The device is intended for use as part of a therapeutic program that may include clinician-directed therapy, medication, and/or educational programs, which further address symptoms of the disorder,” the FDA said upon approval.

In the current unblinded, single-arm study, the researchers assessed 25 children (aged 8-12 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD on neural, behavioral, and clinical metrics of attention before and after a 4-week at-home intervention.

Participants were instructed to use EndeavorRx for about 25 minutes a day at least 5 days a week for 4 weeks, as recommended by the FDA.

“EndeavorRx enhanced midline frontal theta (MFT) activity, suggesting that patients who used EndeavorRx for 4 weeks showed changes in measurable brain function,” Anil S. Jina, MD, chief medical officer of Akili Interactive, told this news organization. Dr. Jina was not involved with the study.

There was also a correlation between MFT activity and attention functioning, “suggesting that children who experienced the largest gains in MFT activity as measured by EEG also showed the greatest improvements in computerized performance tests designed to measure attention,” Dr. Jina said.

In addition, parents reported significantly fewer inattention symptoms in children after EndeavorRx treatment, as measured by the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale.
 

‘Not just another video game’

EndeavorRx has been evaluated in five clinical studies involving more than 600 children with ADHD, including the STARS-ADHD trial, a prospective, randomized, controlled study published in The Lancet Digital Health.

The STARS-ADHD trial randomly allocated 348 children to either EndeavorRx treatment or a controlled intervention, which was a word game.

The researchers reported statistically significant improvements in attentional functioning in the EndeavorRx group as rated by test of variables of attention.

“This is not just another video game,” STARS-ADHD trialist Scott H. Kollins, PhD, MS, a clinical psychologist at Duke Health’s ADHD Clinic in Durham, N.C., who helped developed it, previously told this news organization.   

The tool’s adaptive algorithms adjust and monitor task difficulty based on performance, using a video game format and rewards to engage users, he explained. EndeavorRx is a challenge to play by design.

“The treatment was programmed into the gameplay experience and designed to challenge a child’s attentional control during gameplay, requiring focus and flexibility to manage tasks at the same time,” Dr. Jina said in an interview.

“Unlike a video game that is designed only for entertainment purposes, to drive efficacy, EndeavorRx is designed to be challenging and can therefore sometimes feel repetitive, and frustrating to some children,” Dr. Jina said.

Commenting on the study, Stephen Faraone, PhD, distinguished professor of psychiatry and vice chair of research, department of psychiatry, State University of New York, Syracuse, said this study “supports the idea that EndeavorRx improves a neural measure of attention.

“The limitation is that we don’t know if this translates into clinically relevant outcomes,” cautioned Dr. Faraone, who was not associated with the current study.

“The main caveat about EndeavorRx is that it was cleared by the FDA for improving a computer-based measure of inattention, not inattentive symptoms as reported by the parents of children with ADHD,” he noted.

Several authors have disclosed financial relationships with Akili Interactive Labs, which funded the study. Dr. Faraone was an investigator on the STARS-ADHD trial.

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

A prescription, digital therapeutic shows measurable brain changes that correlate with improved attention control in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Investigators found children who used the video game-based therapy (EndeavorRx) experienced increased brain activity related to attention function, as measured by EEG, which correlated with improvements in objective behavioral measures of attention.

Courtesy University of California, San Francisco

“While the previous multicenter trials show attention improvement for children using EndeavorRx, this is the first study to look at the brain activity in children with a primary concern of ADHD,” principal investigator Elysa Marco, MD, clinical executive for neurodevelopmental medicine at Cortica Healthcare, San Rafael, Calif., said in news release.

“It is exciting to see measurable improvement on the EEGs that correlates with the behavioral benefits,” said Dr. Marco.

The study was recently published online in PLOS ONE. 
 

Measurable changes

As previously reported by this news organization, the Food and Drug Administration approved EndeavorRx in June 2020 as a prescription video game–based therapeutic device for children aged 8-12 years with primarily inattentive or combined-type ADHD, who have a demonstrated attention issue.

“The device is intended for use as part of a therapeutic program that may include clinician-directed therapy, medication, and/or educational programs, which further address symptoms of the disorder,” the FDA said upon approval.

In the current unblinded, single-arm study, the researchers assessed 25 children (aged 8-12 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD on neural, behavioral, and clinical metrics of attention before and after a 4-week at-home intervention.

Participants were instructed to use EndeavorRx for about 25 minutes a day at least 5 days a week for 4 weeks, as recommended by the FDA.

“EndeavorRx enhanced midline frontal theta (MFT) activity, suggesting that patients who used EndeavorRx for 4 weeks showed changes in measurable brain function,” Anil S. Jina, MD, chief medical officer of Akili Interactive, told this news organization. Dr. Jina was not involved with the study.

There was also a correlation between MFT activity and attention functioning, “suggesting that children who experienced the largest gains in MFT activity as measured by EEG also showed the greatest improvements in computerized performance tests designed to measure attention,” Dr. Jina said.

In addition, parents reported significantly fewer inattention symptoms in children after EndeavorRx treatment, as measured by the Vanderbilt ADHD Diagnostic Rating Scale.
 

‘Not just another video game’

EndeavorRx has been evaluated in five clinical studies involving more than 600 children with ADHD, including the STARS-ADHD trial, a prospective, randomized, controlled study published in The Lancet Digital Health.

The STARS-ADHD trial randomly allocated 348 children to either EndeavorRx treatment or a controlled intervention, which was a word game.

The researchers reported statistically significant improvements in attentional functioning in the EndeavorRx group as rated by test of variables of attention.

“This is not just another video game,” STARS-ADHD trialist Scott H. Kollins, PhD, MS, a clinical psychologist at Duke Health’s ADHD Clinic in Durham, N.C., who helped developed it, previously told this news organization.   

The tool’s adaptive algorithms adjust and monitor task difficulty based on performance, using a video game format and rewards to engage users, he explained. EndeavorRx is a challenge to play by design.

“The treatment was programmed into the gameplay experience and designed to challenge a child’s attentional control during gameplay, requiring focus and flexibility to manage tasks at the same time,” Dr. Jina said in an interview.

“Unlike a video game that is designed only for entertainment purposes, to drive efficacy, EndeavorRx is designed to be challenging and can therefore sometimes feel repetitive, and frustrating to some children,” Dr. Jina said.

Commenting on the study, Stephen Faraone, PhD, distinguished professor of psychiatry and vice chair of research, department of psychiatry, State University of New York, Syracuse, said this study “supports the idea that EndeavorRx improves a neural measure of attention.

“The limitation is that we don’t know if this translates into clinically relevant outcomes,” cautioned Dr. Faraone, who was not associated with the current study.

“The main caveat about EndeavorRx is that it was cleared by the FDA for improving a computer-based measure of inattention, not inattentive symptoms as reported by the parents of children with ADHD,” he noted.

Several authors have disclosed financial relationships with Akili Interactive Labs, which funded the study. Dr. Faraone was an investigator on the STARS-ADHD trial.

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

Among children and adolescents aged 5-18 years, concussion was associated with a higher risk of mental health problems, compared with age- and sex-matched children and adolescents with an orthopedic injury, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

While concussions are one of the most common head injuries in the pediatric population, the extent to which they increase the risk of new onset psychiatric disorders or subsequent psychopathology is unclear, lead author Andrée-Anne Ledoux, PhD, of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, and colleagues explained.

The researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to evaluate associations between concussion and risk of subsequent mental health issues, psychiatric hospitalizations, self-harm, or suicides in children and adolescents, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to 10 years.

The data were obtained from province-wide health administrative databases. Participants with concussion were included in an exposed group, while those with an orthopedic injury were included in a 1:2 age- and sex-matched comparison group.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 448,803 participants, including 152,321 and 296,482 children and adolescents with concussion and orthopedic injury, respectively.

The incidence rates of any mental health problem were 11,141 per 100,000 person-years in the exposed group and 7,960 per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group (difference, 3,181; 95% confidence interval, 3,073-3,291 per 100,000 person-years).

After concussion, the exposed group had a greater risk of developing a mental health issue (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.40), psychiatric hospitalization (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.41-1.53), and self-harm (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.56). In addition, there was no significant difference in death by suicide between the exposed and unexposed groups (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.90-2.61).

“Our results suggest that clinicians should assess for preexisting and new mental health symptoms throughout concussion recovery and treat mental health conditions or symptoms or refer the patient to a specialist in pediatric mental health,” wrote Dr. Ledoux and colleagues. “[Clinicians should also] assess suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviors during evaluation and follow-up visits for concussion.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective observational design. In addition, the identification of exposures using diagnostic billing codes could have introduced exposure or outcome misclassification.
 

Expert-recommended resources

“For more information, I’d recommend ‘Pedsconcussion,’ which are evidence-based living guidelines for pediatric concussion care,” Dr. Ledoux said in an interview. “Within domain 8, there are specific guidelines related to the management of mental health issues post concussion.”

Neuropsychology expert Talin Babikian, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, commented: “Studies have shown that even a single psychoeducational session early after a concussion can minimize prolonged recoveries. Ensuring all stakeholders (family, clinicians, school, coach, peers) are on the same page and providing the same information is important to build trust and a sense of safety and agency.

“We want to provide psychoeducation early in the process to avoid unnecessary fear and avoidance. We also want to curtail misattribution of everyday symptoms or symptoms related to an unrelated condition to a brain injury, which are easier to do when caught early,” Dr. Babikian added.

This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care. One author reported financial relationships with the University of Ottawa, the National Football League, Parachute Canada, and 360 Concussion Care, an interdisciplinary concussion clinic; no other conflicts of interest were reported.

Among children and adolescents aged 5-18 years, concussion was associated with a higher risk of mental health problems, compared with age- and sex-matched children and adolescents with an orthopedic injury, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

While concussions are one of the most common head injuries in the pediatric population, the extent to which they increase the risk of new onset psychiatric disorders or subsequent psychopathology is unclear, lead author Andrée-Anne Ledoux, PhD, of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, and colleagues explained.

The researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to evaluate associations between concussion and risk of subsequent mental health issues, psychiatric hospitalizations, self-harm, or suicides in children and adolescents, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to 10 years.

The data were obtained from province-wide health administrative databases. Participants with concussion were included in an exposed group, while those with an orthopedic injury were included in a 1:2 age- and sex-matched comparison group.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 448,803 participants, including 152,321 and 296,482 children and adolescents with concussion and orthopedic injury, respectively.

The incidence rates of any mental health problem were 11,141 per 100,000 person-years in the exposed group and 7,960 per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group (difference, 3,181; 95% confidence interval, 3,073-3,291 per 100,000 person-years).

After concussion, the exposed group had a greater risk of developing a mental health issue (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.40), psychiatric hospitalization (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.41-1.53), and self-harm (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.56). In addition, there was no significant difference in death by suicide between the exposed and unexposed groups (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.90-2.61).

“Our results suggest that clinicians should assess for preexisting and new mental health symptoms throughout concussion recovery and treat mental health conditions or symptoms or refer the patient to a specialist in pediatric mental health,” wrote Dr. Ledoux and colleagues. “[Clinicians should also] assess suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviors during evaluation and follow-up visits for concussion.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective observational design. In addition, the identification of exposures using diagnostic billing codes could have introduced exposure or outcome misclassification.
 

Expert-recommended resources

“For more information, I’d recommend ‘Pedsconcussion,’ which are evidence-based living guidelines for pediatric concussion care,” Dr. Ledoux said in an interview. “Within domain 8, there are specific guidelines related to the management of mental health issues post concussion.”

Neuropsychology expert Talin Babikian, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, commented: “Studies have shown that even a single psychoeducational session early after a concussion can minimize prolonged recoveries. Ensuring all stakeholders (family, clinicians, school, coach, peers) are on the same page and providing the same information is important to build trust and a sense of safety and agency.

“We want to provide psychoeducation early in the process to avoid unnecessary fear and avoidance. We also want to curtail misattribution of everyday symptoms or symptoms related to an unrelated condition to a brain injury, which are easier to do when caught early,” Dr. Babikian added.

This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care. One author reported financial relationships with the University of Ottawa, the National Football League, Parachute Canada, and 360 Concussion Care, an interdisciplinary concussion clinic; no other conflicts of interest were reported.

Among children and adolescents aged 5-18 years, concussion was associated with a higher risk of mental health problems, compared with age- and sex-matched children and adolescents with an orthopedic injury, according to a cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.

While concussions are one of the most common head injuries in the pediatric population, the extent to which they increase the risk of new onset psychiatric disorders or subsequent psychopathology is unclear, lead author Andrée-Anne Ledoux, PhD, of the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, and colleagues explained.

The researchers conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study to evaluate associations between concussion and risk of subsequent mental health issues, psychiatric hospitalizations, self-harm, or suicides in children and adolescents, with follow-up ranging from 1 month to 10 years.

The data were obtained from province-wide health administrative databases. Participants with concussion were included in an exposed group, while those with an orthopedic injury were included in a 1:2 age- and sex-matched comparison group.
 

Results

The study cohort comprised 448,803 participants, including 152,321 and 296,482 children and adolescents with concussion and orthopedic injury, respectively.

The incidence rates of any mental health problem were 11,141 per 100,000 person-years in the exposed group and 7,960 per 100,000 person-years in the unexposed group (difference, 3,181; 95% confidence interval, 3,073-3,291 per 100,000 person-years).

After concussion, the exposed group had a greater risk of developing a mental health issue (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.37-1.40), psychiatric hospitalization (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.41-1.53), and self-harm (aHR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.56). In addition, there was no significant difference in death by suicide between the exposed and unexposed groups (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.90-2.61).

“Our results suggest that clinicians should assess for preexisting and new mental health symptoms throughout concussion recovery and treat mental health conditions or symptoms or refer the patient to a specialist in pediatric mental health,” wrote Dr. Ledoux and colleagues. “[Clinicians should also] assess suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviors during evaluation and follow-up visits for concussion.”

The researchers acknowledged that a key limitation of the study was the retrospective observational design. In addition, the identification of exposures using diagnostic billing codes could have introduced exposure or outcome misclassification.
 

Expert-recommended resources

“For more information, I’d recommend ‘Pedsconcussion,’ which are evidence-based living guidelines for pediatric concussion care,” Dr. Ledoux said in an interview. “Within domain 8, there are specific guidelines related to the management of mental health issues post concussion.”

Neuropsychology expert Talin Babikian, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, commented: “Studies have shown that even a single psychoeducational session early after a concussion can minimize prolonged recoveries. Ensuring all stakeholders (family, clinicians, school, coach, peers) are on the same page and providing the same information is important to build trust and a sense of safety and agency.

“We want to provide psychoeducation early in the process to avoid unnecessary fear and avoidance. We also want to curtail misattribution of everyday symptoms or symptoms related to an unrelated condition to a brain injury, which are easier to do when caught early,” Dr. Babikian added.

This study was supported by the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-term Care. One author reported financial relationships with the University of Ottawa, the National Football League, Parachute Canada, and 360 Concussion Care, an interdisciplinary concussion clinic; no other conflicts of interest were reported.

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

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

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

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

PHOENIX – For at least a decade, professional allergy and pediatrics societies have urged against using food IgE tests unless the patient has a history consistent with potential IgE-mediated food allergies. Yet virtually every health system offers these blood tests, and their inappropriate use – especially of panels that measure many allergens at once – remains a huge problem.

Beyond wasteful spending, excessive food IgE testing can lead patients to worry needlessly and to avoid foods they aren’t allergic to. For babies and toddlers, avoidance can drive up the risk of developing allergies to those foods later in life – a consequence that was convincingly proven by the LEAP study but has still not translated to a widespread change in practice.

“I think we all know that there’s just a lot of system-wide resistance to making these changes, and we don’t completely understand why,” Nicholas Hartog, MD, an allergist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Mich., told this news organization.

At the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology annual meeting, one of Dr. Hartog’s residents, Courtney Cotter, DO, presented a poster detailing their team’s retrospective review of food panel ordering practices across Spectrum Health, a large, multispecialty physician group in west Michigan.

The team combed Epic health records to evaluate food IgE ordering from January 2016 to December 2021. They tracked monthly figures for the number of patients who underwent food IgE tests, the percentage of tested patients for whom food panels were available, and the number of food panels and total number of food IgE tests ordered. They compared average rates from the final 3 months with rates from the first 3 months, which predated the August 2016 establishment of an academic pediatric allergy/immunology department.

Initially, Dr. Hartog and his colleagues focused on educating doctors on appropriate use of food IgE tests through informal conversations and lectures, but, he said, “It’s really difficult to change physician behavior, so sometimes we have to go about it by making it hard to do the wrong thing.”

To that end, the team tried to eliminate the food panels. However, some lab staff feared the possibility of losing revenue if physicians decided to order these tests elsewhere. After more negotiations, the laboratory agreed in December 2019 to restrict and rework food IgE testing by dropping the number of panels from nine to two and by restricting the number of foods in those panels. For example, in the basic panel, “we limited it to just four allergens, so even if you order a panel, you’re not getting 20 results,” Dr. Hartog told this news organization. “I finally found a friendly pathologist who was very on board with this positive change.”

In December 2020, the team implemented yet another strategy: Epic alerts. Each time doctors request a food panel, they receive a pop-up message stating that panel tests are not recommended and asking if they wish to proceed.

The multipronged effort had a modest impact on the number of food panels ordered per month, which dipped from 112.7 to 84.7 for the first and last 3 months of the study. Monthly totals of individual food IgE tests showed a steeper drop, decreasing from 2,379 to 1,180 in the initial and final 3-month periods – a change Dr. Hartog attributes to the revamped food panels. They estimated the cost savings at around $40 per patient, “and we were getting on average about 200 patients a month, so it adds up,” he said.

But the Epic alerts seemed to have little effect. Over the duration of the study, the monthly number of IgE tests ordered per clinician did not change. Neither did the percentage of patients evaluated with a food panel. “The alerts pop up, but people are still ordering,” Dr. Hartog said.

On the whole, the analysis shows that, “despite major efforts to educate providers and the public about these things, it is rampantly disregarded and is a huge problem for our specialty and is likely causing harm to patients,” said allergist-immunologist Gerald Lee, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta.

Dr. Lee said that a common scenario for inappropriate food IgE testing is severe eczema. Many parents request blood tests because they assume their child’s skin condition is driven by food allergies. When the child turns up positive to various foods on panel tests, which have high false-positive rates, the physician may recommend eliminating those foods to improve the skin rash – which “actually delays introduction of the food and potentially increases the risk for food allergy,” Dr. Lee said. “That was a common practice when I was in fellowship (2011) and is widely prevalent today.”

Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, agrees that food IgE panels are wasteful and harmful. However, he thinks the solution is not to tell primary care physicians and pediatricians to stop using the tests. “We’re insinuating that they’re being used inappropriately, but the problem is that these are people that are patient facing, the patients are asking a question, and the appropriate tests aren’t there,” Dr. Kim said. “A big part of that problem is that the tests we have available to us are not good enough.”

The Spectrum Health analysis did not examine ICD codes associated with the food IgE tests or track which physicians ordered the tests. A 2016 retrospective review published in Pediatrics did evaluate ordering practices by specialty and found that primary care providers ordered “significantly more food allergen panels, tests for uncommon causes of food allergy, and generate higher cost per patient compared with allergists.”

Given the immense challenges with implementing system-wide changes, sometimes it can help to educate parents and families. “When you sit down and take 2 or 3 minutes to explain why this is a bad test and that I care about your kid but just don’t want inappropriate testing, they’re okay with it. They understand,” Dr. Hartog said. “When I teach residents, I make sure to emphasize that we have these conversations all the time.”

Dr. Hartog reports financial relationships with Binding Site (speaker), Regeneron (advisory board), Genentech (advisory board), Horizon Pharmaceuticals (advisory board, consulting, speaker), Takeda (speaker, advisory board) and Pharming Healthcare (advisory board, scientific steering committee, consulting), though none related to food allergy. Dr. Lee has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; and grant support from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Immune Tolerance Network; the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health; Food Allergy Research and Education; and the Wallace Research Foundation.

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

Research suggests that physicians have suicidal thoughts at about twice the rate of the general population (7.2% vs. 4%). Now, as they bear the weight of a multiyear pandemic alongside the perpetual struggle to maintain some semblance of work-life balance, their resiliency has been stretched to the brink.

In 2022, the Medscape Physician Suicide Report surveyed more than 13,000 physicians in 29 specialties who were candid about their experiences with suicidal thoughts, how they support their besieged colleagues, and their go-to coping strategies.

Overall, 21% of physicians reported having feelings of depression. Of those, 24% had clinical depression and 64% had colloquial depression. Physicians who felt sad or blue decreased slightly, compared with the 2021 report, but the number of physicians experiencing severe depression rose 4%.

One in 10 physicians said they have thought about or attempted suicide. However, the number of physicians with suicidal thoughts dropped to 9%, down substantially from the 22% who reported similar feelings in 2020.

Still, there was a slight uptick in women physicians contemplating suicide, likely linked to their larger share of childcare and family responsibilities.

Washington University School of Medicine

“They have needed to pull double duty even more than usual, and that may have increased their sense of burnout and vulnerability to suicidal thoughts,” said Andrea Giedinghagen, MD, assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis, and coauthor of “Physician Suicide: A Call to Action
 

Fighting the stigma of seeking mental health help

Although the number of physicians attempting, but not completing suicide, has remained steady at 1% for several years, the recent passage of the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act by Congress aims to drive that figure even lower. Dr. Breen, an ED physician at New York–Presbyterian Hospital, died by suicide in April 2020. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of COVID patients, Dr. Breen was reluctant to seek mental health services for fear of being ostracized.

“Many physicians don’t seek mental health care due to fear of negative consequences in the workplace, including retribution, exclusion, loss of license, or even their job,” Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, told this news organization. “This was the experience of Dr. Lorna Breen. She was convinced that if she talked to a professional, she would lose her medical license. Perhaps if Dr. Breen was equipped with the accurate information – there is no mental health reporting requirement in her state’s medical license application – it might have saved her life.”

This same stigma was reflected in the survey, with one physician saying: “I’m afraid that if I spoke to a therapist, I’d have to report receiving psychiatric treatment to credentialing or licensing boards.” Roughly 40% of survey respondents, regardless of age, chose not to disclose their suicidal thoughts to anyone, not even a family member or suicide hotline. And just a tiny portion of physicians (10% of men and 13% of women) said that a colleague had discussed their suicidal thoughts with them.

“There is a longstanding culture of silence around physician mental health in the medical community,” said Dr. Price. “The strategies within the Act are critical to fixing this culture and making it acceptable and normalized for physicians to seek mental health care,” and for it to “become a fundamental and ongoing element of being a practicing physician.”

As part of the legislation, the Department of Health & Human Services must award grants to hospitals, medical associations, and other entities to facilitate mental health programs for providers. They must also establish policy recommendations and conduct campaigns to improve providers’ mental and behavioral health, encourage providers to seek mental health support and assistance, remove barriers to such treatment, and identify best practices to prevent suicide and promote resiliency
 

Addressing barriers to mental health

The new bill is a step in the right direction, but Dr. Price said health organizations must do more to address the six key structural barriers that are “discouraging physicians from seeking [mental health] help,” such as the inclusion of “intrusive mental health questions on medical board, hospital credentialing, and malpractice insurance applications.”

In addition, employers should allow physicians to seek out-of-network mental health services, if necessary, and not cause further humiliation by requiring them to be treated by colleagues within their hospital system. A similar proposal has recently been introduced and is gaining traction in Utah, following the suicide of ED physician Scott Jolley, MD, in 2021 after he was admitted for psychiatric care where he worked.

Diminishing the stigma surrounding physicians’ mental health encourages a more open dialogue, so if a colleague reaches out – listen. “Start by thanking the colleague for sharing the information: ‘I’m sure that wasn’t easy but I appreciate that you respect me enough to share this. Let’s talk more,’ ” said Michael F. Myers, MD, professor of clinical psychiatry at State University of New York, Brooklyn . “Then ask what you can do to help, which cuts down on the sense of isolation that colleague may feel.”

According to the survey, many physicians have developed strategies to support their happiness and mental health. Although fewer than 10% said reducing work hours or transitioning to a part-time schedule was most effective, the majority of physicians relied on spending time with family and friends (68%) – a choice that has considerable benefits.

“Close and intimate relationships are the single most protective factor for our mental health,” said Peter Yellowlees, MBBS, MD, chief wellness officer for UC Davis Health and professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Davis. “Isolation and loneliness are very important stressors, and we know that about 25% of the population reports being lonely.”

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

LAS VEGAS – Someday, pharmacogenomics will advance precision psychiatry, but in the opinion of Erika L. Nurmi, MD, PhD, routine use of genetic testing to guide clinical treatment decisions is not indicated.

“It’s misleading to rely on results of genetic tests to drive clinical treatment,” Dr. Nurmi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There’s a lot of hope and promise there. But currently, we only know the tip of the iceberg about how drugs work and the genetics influencing these effects. Current testing is probably a very poor reflection of the complexity of drug effects.”

According to Dr. Nurmi, there are at least 165 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs with pharmacogenetic information on 64 different biomarkers – 37% with CYP p450 notations. Of these, 32 psychiatric drugs have pharmacogenetic information, and most of them are dosing recommendations based on whether a patient has the variant. However, there is wide public acceptance of genetic testing in preventing the wrong drug from being used, in selecting the best drug dose, and avoiding side effects (Pharmacogenomics 2012;12[3]:197-204). “Most people have a lot of hope [for genetic testing in psychiatry],” Dr. Nurmi said. “But is the science really there? It doesn’t matter, because these companies are doing it, and you are being shown these reports from patients. Whether or not the science supports it, we’re going to have to interpret these reports and explain them to our patients – even if we don’t order them.”

Currently, she continued, clinicians practice trial and error prescribing where they might try one treatment in a class that they think that will work based on previous literature. If nothing works, they try another one. If that’s intolerable, they try a third treatment, and so on. “When we finally find the right treatment, it can take some time to get the dosing right,” Dr. Nurmi said. “So, it can take many months to get a child on the right medication. Precision treatment, on the other hand, would start off by taking a saliva or blood sample to get a printout that lets physicians know which drugs might be used with caution because they might lack efficacy at standard doses, which ones would likely have adverse effects at standard doses, and which are the best choices and what are the dosing recommendations for those choices. If we could get all the information to guide us, that would be a useful product, but right now, we don’t know enough to be able to make these determinations.”

Current evidence-based genetic testing supports a limited role for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping because most psychiatric drugs are metabolized by those two enzymes. Poor metabolizers have two dysfunctional copies of the enzyme-encoding gene. This results in increased drug plasma levels with a potentially increased rate of adverse effects.

“Intermediate and extensive metabolizers usually have a normal phenotype, but you can also have ultrarapid metabolizers who have duplications or other enhancing mutations of the CYP gene,” Dr. Nurmi said. “This can result in lower bioavailability and possibly efficacy. Psychiatrists treat poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers all the time, because the variants are very common.” An estimated 10% of White people are poor metabolizers at the CYP2D6 gene while about 7% are ultrarapid metabolizers. At the same time, an estimated 20% of Asians, Africans, and Whites are poor metabolizers at the CYP2C19 gene. “So, you’re seeing a lot of this in your practice, and you’re probably changing dosing based on genetic differences in metabolism,” she said.

The only FDA pharmacodynamic treatment guideline is for the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) with the use of carbamazepine. In a study of 44 patients with SJS, all were positive for the HLA-B*1502 variant, compared with 3% of carbamazepine-tolerant patients (Nature 2004;428[6982]:486). The frequency of carrying this variant is an estimated 1:10,000 among Whites and 1:1,000 among Asians. In 2007, the FDA recommended that patients of Asian ancestry should be screened for HLA-B*1502 prior to starting carbamazepine.

Genetic variation also predicts clinical outcome with atomoxetine use. “Most child psychiatrists I know think atomoxetine doesn’t work as a second-line nonstimulant medication for ADHD,” Dr. Nurmi said. “I’d like to convince you that why you think it doesn’t work is because of the genetics.” In a study published in 2019, Dr. Nurmi and colleagues reviewed medical literature and provided therapeutic recommendations for atomoxetine therapy based on CYP2D6 genotype (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jul;106[1]:94-102). They observed 10- to 30-fold plasma differences in drug exposure between normal metabolizers and poor metabolizers.

“Poor metabolizers therefore get more benefit, but they are also going to get more side effects,” she said. “FDA recommended doses are inadequate for normal metabolizers, so they had to make guidelines based on poor metabolizers because there would be too much risk for them at higher doses. One-third of individuals require doses above the FDA limit to achieve a therapeutic drug level.”

Dr. Nurmi warned that the existing evidence base for using these genetic tests in children “is really poor. There is no data in adults with any diagnosis other than depression, and even those studies are plagued by concerns. When you’re implementing decision support tools in your practice, the key factors are patient presentation, history and symptoms, your clinical skills, the evidence base, FDA recommendations, and patient autonomy. Appropriate incorporation of genetic data should include avoiding a medication with high toxicity (like SJS), titration planning (dose and titration speed adjustments), and choosing between medications in the same class with an indication or evidence base for the target disorder.” She added that while the benefit of current genetic testing is limited, it may help some patients feel more comfortable tolerating a medication. “For example, being able to tell someone with anxiety that their genetics suggests that they will not have side effects could be very powerful,” she said.

In a 2018 safety communication, the FDA warned the public about its concerns with companies making claims about how to use genetic test results to manage medication treatments that are not supported by recommendations in the FDA-approved drug labeling or other scientific evidence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also published a guide for patients and families.

Dr. Nurmi disclosed that she is an unpaid advisory board member for Myriad Genetics and the Tourette Association of America, a paid adviser for Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a recipient of research support from Emalex Pharmaceuticals. She has received research funding from the National Institutes Health, the International OCD Foundation, the Tourette Association of America, and the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.

LAS VEGAS – Someday, pharmacogenomics will advance precision psychiatry, but in the opinion of Erika L. Nurmi, MD, PhD, routine use of genetic testing to guide clinical treatment decisions is not indicated.

“It’s misleading to rely on results of genetic tests to drive clinical treatment,” Dr. Nurmi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There’s a lot of hope and promise there. But currently, we only know the tip of the iceberg about how drugs work and the genetics influencing these effects. Current testing is probably a very poor reflection of the complexity of drug effects.”

According to Dr. Nurmi, there are at least 165 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs with pharmacogenetic information on 64 different biomarkers – 37% with CYP p450 notations. Of these, 32 psychiatric drugs have pharmacogenetic information, and most of them are dosing recommendations based on whether a patient has the variant. However, there is wide public acceptance of genetic testing in preventing the wrong drug from being used, in selecting the best drug dose, and avoiding side effects (Pharmacogenomics 2012;12[3]:197-204). “Most people have a lot of hope [for genetic testing in psychiatry],” Dr. Nurmi said. “But is the science really there? It doesn’t matter, because these companies are doing it, and you are being shown these reports from patients. Whether or not the science supports it, we’re going to have to interpret these reports and explain them to our patients – even if we don’t order them.”

Currently, she continued, clinicians practice trial and error prescribing where they might try one treatment in a class that they think that will work based on previous literature. If nothing works, they try another one. If that’s intolerable, they try a third treatment, and so on. “When we finally find the right treatment, it can take some time to get the dosing right,” Dr. Nurmi said. “So, it can take many months to get a child on the right medication. Precision treatment, on the other hand, would start off by taking a saliva or blood sample to get a printout that lets physicians know which drugs might be used with caution because they might lack efficacy at standard doses, which ones would likely have adverse effects at standard doses, and which are the best choices and what are the dosing recommendations for those choices. If we could get all the information to guide us, that would be a useful product, but right now, we don’t know enough to be able to make these determinations.”

Current evidence-based genetic testing supports a limited role for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping because most psychiatric drugs are metabolized by those two enzymes. Poor metabolizers have two dysfunctional copies of the enzyme-encoding gene. This results in increased drug plasma levels with a potentially increased rate of adverse effects.

“Intermediate and extensive metabolizers usually have a normal phenotype, but you can also have ultrarapid metabolizers who have duplications or other enhancing mutations of the CYP gene,” Dr. Nurmi said. “This can result in lower bioavailability and possibly efficacy. Psychiatrists treat poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers all the time, because the variants are very common.” An estimated 10% of White people are poor metabolizers at the CYP2D6 gene while about 7% are ultrarapid metabolizers. At the same time, an estimated 20% of Asians, Africans, and Whites are poor metabolizers at the CYP2C19 gene. “So, you’re seeing a lot of this in your practice, and you’re probably changing dosing based on genetic differences in metabolism,” she said.

The only FDA pharmacodynamic treatment guideline is for the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) with the use of carbamazepine. In a study of 44 patients with SJS, all were positive for the HLA-B*1502 variant, compared with 3% of carbamazepine-tolerant patients (Nature 2004;428[6982]:486). The frequency of carrying this variant is an estimated 1:10,000 among Whites and 1:1,000 among Asians. In 2007, the FDA recommended that patients of Asian ancestry should be screened for HLA-B*1502 prior to starting carbamazepine.

Genetic variation also predicts clinical outcome with atomoxetine use. “Most child psychiatrists I know think atomoxetine doesn’t work as a second-line nonstimulant medication for ADHD,” Dr. Nurmi said. “I’d like to convince you that why you think it doesn’t work is because of the genetics.” In a study published in 2019, Dr. Nurmi and colleagues reviewed medical literature and provided therapeutic recommendations for atomoxetine therapy based on CYP2D6 genotype (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jul;106[1]:94-102). They observed 10- to 30-fold plasma differences in drug exposure between normal metabolizers and poor metabolizers.

“Poor metabolizers therefore get more benefit, but they are also going to get more side effects,” she said. “FDA recommended doses are inadequate for normal metabolizers, so they had to make guidelines based on poor metabolizers because there would be too much risk for them at higher doses. One-third of individuals require doses above the FDA limit to achieve a therapeutic drug level.”

Dr. Nurmi warned that the existing evidence base for using these genetic tests in children “is really poor. There is no data in adults with any diagnosis other than depression, and even those studies are plagued by concerns. When you’re implementing decision support tools in your practice, the key factors are patient presentation, history and symptoms, your clinical skills, the evidence base, FDA recommendations, and patient autonomy. Appropriate incorporation of genetic data should include avoiding a medication with high toxicity (like SJS), titration planning (dose and titration speed adjustments), and choosing between medications in the same class with an indication or evidence base for the target disorder.” She added that while the benefit of current genetic testing is limited, it may help some patients feel more comfortable tolerating a medication. “For example, being able to tell someone with anxiety that their genetics suggests that they will not have side effects could be very powerful,” she said.

In a 2018 safety communication, the FDA warned the public about its concerns with companies making claims about how to use genetic test results to manage medication treatments that are not supported by recommendations in the FDA-approved drug labeling or other scientific evidence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also published a guide for patients and families.

Dr. Nurmi disclosed that she is an unpaid advisory board member for Myriad Genetics and the Tourette Association of America, a paid adviser for Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a recipient of research support from Emalex Pharmaceuticals. She has received research funding from the National Institutes Health, the International OCD Foundation, the Tourette Association of America, and the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.

LAS VEGAS – Someday, pharmacogenomics will advance precision psychiatry, but in the opinion of Erika L. Nurmi, MD, PhD, routine use of genetic testing to guide clinical treatment decisions is not indicated.

“It’s misleading to rely on results of genetic tests to drive clinical treatment,” Dr. Nurmi, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “There’s a lot of hope and promise there. But currently, we only know the tip of the iceberg about how drugs work and the genetics influencing these effects. Current testing is probably a very poor reflection of the complexity of drug effects.”

According to Dr. Nurmi, there are at least 165 Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs with pharmacogenetic information on 64 different biomarkers – 37% with CYP p450 notations. Of these, 32 psychiatric drugs have pharmacogenetic information, and most of them are dosing recommendations based on whether a patient has the variant. However, there is wide public acceptance of genetic testing in preventing the wrong drug from being used, in selecting the best drug dose, and avoiding side effects (Pharmacogenomics 2012;12[3]:197-204). “Most people have a lot of hope [for genetic testing in psychiatry],” Dr. Nurmi said. “But is the science really there? It doesn’t matter, because these companies are doing it, and you are being shown these reports from patients. Whether or not the science supports it, we’re going to have to interpret these reports and explain them to our patients – even if we don’t order them.”

Currently, she continued, clinicians practice trial and error prescribing where they might try one treatment in a class that they think that will work based on previous literature. If nothing works, they try another one. If that’s intolerable, they try a third treatment, and so on. “When we finally find the right treatment, it can take some time to get the dosing right,” Dr. Nurmi said. “So, it can take many months to get a child on the right medication. Precision treatment, on the other hand, would start off by taking a saliva or blood sample to get a printout that lets physicians know which drugs might be used with caution because they might lack efficacy at standard doses, which ones would likely have adverse effects at standard doses, and which are the best choices and what are the dosing recommendations for those choices. If we could get all the information to guide us, that would be a useful product, but right now, we don’t know enough to be able to make these determinations.”

Current evidence-based genetic testing supports a limited role for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping because most psychiatric drugs are metabolized by those two enzymes. Poor metabolizers have two dysfunctional copies of the enzyme-encoding gene. This results in increased drug plasma levels with a potentially increased rate of adverse effects.

“Intermediate and extensive metabolizers usually have a normal phenotype, but you can also have ultrarapid metabolizers who have duplications or other enhancing mutations of the CYP gene,” Dr. Nurmi said. “This can result in lower bioavailability and possibly efficacy. Psychiatrists treat poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers all the time, because the variants are very common.” An estimated 10% of White people are poor metabolizers at the CYP2D6 gene while about 7% are ultrarapid metabolizers. At the same time, an estimated 20% of Asians, Africans, and Whites are poor metabolizers at the CYP2C19 gene. “So, you’re seeing a lot of this in your practice, and you’re probably changing dosing based on genetic differences in metabolism,” she said.

The only FDA pharmacodynamic treatment guideline is for the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) with the use of carbamazepine. In a study of 44 patients with SJS, all were positive for the HLA-B*1502 variant, compared with 3% of carbamazepine-tolerant patients (Nature 2004;428[6982]:486). The frequency of carrying this variant is an estimated 1:10,000 among Whites and 1:1,000 among Asians. In 2007, the FDA recommended that patients of Asian ancestry should be screened for HLA-B*1502 prior to starting carbamazepine.

Genetic variation also predicts clinical outcome with atomoxetine use. “Most child psychiatrists I know think atomoxetine doesn’t work as a second-line nonstimulant medication for ADHD,” Dr. Nurmi said. “I’d like to convince you that why you think it doesn’t work is because of the genetics.” In a study published in 2019, Dr. Nurmi and colleagues reviewed medical literature and provided therapeutic recommendations for atomoxetine therapy based on CYP2D6 genotype (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 Jul;106[1]:94-102). They observed 10- to 30-fold plasma differences in drug exposure between normal metabolizers and poor metabolizers.

“Poor metabolizers therefore get more benefit, but they are also going to get more side effects,” she said. “FDA recommended doses are inadequate for normal metabolizers, so they had to make guidelines based on poor metabolizers because there would be too much risk for them at higher doses. One-third of individuals require doses above the FDA limit to achieve a therapeutic drug level.”

Dr. Nurmi warned that the existing evidence base for using these genetic tests in children “is really poor. There is no data in adults with any diagnosis other than depression, and even those studies are plagued by concerns. When you’re implementing decision support tools in your practice, the key factors are patient presentation, history and symptoms, your clinical skills, the evidence base, FDA recommendations, and patient autonomy. Appropriate incorporation of genetic data should include avoiding a medication with high toxicity (like SJS), titration planning (dose and titration speed adjustments), and choosing between medications in the same class with an indication or evidence base for the target disorder.” She added that while the benefit of current genetic testing is limited, it may help some patients feel more comfortable tolerating a medication. “For example, being able to tell someone with anxiety that their genetics suggests that they will not have side effects could be very powerful,” she said.

In a 2018 safety communication, the FDA warned the public about its concerns with companies making claims about how to use genetic test results to manage medication treatments that are not supported by recommendations in the FDA-approved drug labeling or other scientific evidence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry also published a guide for patients and families.

Dr. Nurmi disclosed that she is an unpaid advisory board member for Myriad Genetics and the Tourette Association of America, a paid adviser for Teva Pharmaceuticals, and a recipient of research support from Emalex Pharmaceuticals. She has received research funding from the National Institutes Health, the International OCD Foundation, the Tourette Association of America, and the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation.