MDedge Psychiatry

Use of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) for asthma management did not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric disease, based on data from more than 60,000 asthma patients.

Although LTRAs are established as an effective drug for asthma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the risk for neuropsychiatric (NP) drug reactions – including a boxed warning for montelukast (Singulair) – has raised concerns, writes Ji-Su Shim, MD, of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

However, evidence for such an association is limited, and previous studies have focused only on children and adolescents, and on a single LTRA (montelukast), the researchers say.

In a study published Dec. 1 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers used a Korean national health insurance database to identify 61,571 adult patients with asthma aged 40 years and older between Jan. 2002 and Dec. 2015 with no history of LTRA use.

The patients underwent screening examinations between Jan. 2009 and Dec. 2010, which marked the start of a follow-up period ending on Dec. 31, 2015. The median age of the study population was 61 years, and the mean follow-up period for NPs or other outcomes was approximately 47.6 months for LTRA users and 46.5 months for nonusers. Overall, 11.1% of the study population used pranlukast (Onon), 11% used montelukast, and 0.24% used zafirlukast (Accolate).

A total of 12,168 patients took an LTRA during the follow-up period. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric diseases was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.01; P = .952) in an adjusted model that included age, sex, pack-years of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, comorbid conditions, other respiratory diseases, and use of other asthma medications.

The most common NPs were dementia, mood disorders, and panic disorders, and the prevalence of each was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (75.4% vs. 76.1% for dementia, 12.7% vs. 12.8% for mood disorders, and 5.6% vs. 3.5% for panic disorders).

A subgroup analysis for associations between the duration of LTRA use and NP disease risk also showed no significant difference between LTRA users and nonusers.

“The mechanism of the development of NP symptoms by LTRAs has not been identified,” the researchers write in their discussion of the study findings. “Because most of NP side effects due to montelukast occur in few patients within 2 weeks of drug administration, it also may have relation with the presence of some genetic polymorphisms involving modification of the normal action or metabolism of LTRAs,” they explained.

The FDA’s boxed warning for montelukast noting the risk of serious mental health side effects has renewed interest in the relationship between NPs and LTRAs, the researchers noted. However, the current study findings support previous randomized controlled trials and larger studies, and the current warnings are based mainly on pharmacovigilance studies, case series, and case reports, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design, the potential for misclassification of asthma diagnosis, the exclusion of temporary NP symptoms that might prompt LTRA discontinuation, and the inability to detect possible differences in ethnicities other than Korean, the researchers note.

However, the results suggest that adverse NP symptoms should not prevent physicians from prescribing LTRAs to selected patients with asthma. Instead, the physician should accompany the prescription with “a word of caution in case any mood changes might occur,” the investigators wrote.

“Further studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are needed to reveal the association between the use of LTRAs and the risk of NP events and/or diseases,” they concluded.

Potential genetic predisposition may drive cases

The relatively rare occurrence of NP symptoms in asthma patients using LTRAs has prompted questions from the medical community on whether the relationship really exists, writes Désirée Larenas-Linnemann, MD, of Médica Sur Clinical Foundation and Hospital, Mexico City, in an accompanying editorial ).

The current study provides information about medications and possible adverse drug reactions, but “great care should be taken in the interpretation of the results from such a study,” she notes. Limitations include not only the possible misclassification of asthma and the homogeneous study population, but also the fact that some NPs, such as dementia, are already common in older adults..

Dr. Larenas-Linnemann shared a story of one of her patients, a 2½-year-old boy who began exhibiting hyperactivity and other strange behaviors while on an LRTA. The toddler’s father had previously reported “horrible nightmares, strange thoughts, and to feel upset, unsecure until he suspended the medication.” Cases such as this support a potential genetic predisposition, with drug metabolism playing a role, and clinicians should take genetic backgrounds into account, she said.

“Even though the current study did not show an association between LTRA use or duration of exposure and the occurrence of NP diseases in Korean adults with asthma, this does not imply such a relationship might be present in other age groups (children-adolescents-adults up to 50 years) or in patients with a different genetic background,” she emphasized.

However, “In the meantime, although LTRA should continue to be prescribed if indicated, an index of suspicion for possible NP effects should be maintained,” Dr. Larenas-Linnemann concluded.

“This study is timely, since the boxed warning for montelukast was issued approximately 1 year ago by the FDA,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview.

Dr. Casale said he was not surprised by the findings, “since most of the data implicating a potential link between the use of montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders have not been particularly compelling,” and much of the current information comes from case reports and retrospective studies.

“Furthermore, the data appeared to be somewhat stronger in the pediatric population,” Dr. Casale noted. “This study focused on elderly patients (mean age 61) and included two other leukotriene modifiers. The number of patients receiving montelukast was small (56), which may have also confounded the results,” he noted.

As for clinical implications, “I don’t think this study will change practice,” Dr. Casale said. “As indicated, it is in an elderly population, included only a limited number of patients receiving montelukast, and was in a Korean cohort. All of these factors could have influenced the results,” and the data may not be generalizable to patients elsewhere, including the United States, he said. “Also, the study only included patients with asthma and in the United States; the approval for rhinitis is another important indication to study,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in the form of better prospective studies examining the potential link between montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders in both the pediatric and adult populations having either asthma or rhinitis, Dr. Casale concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Casale have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larenas-Linnemann disclosed personal fees from Allakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grünenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, and Carnot, and grants from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, and the Purina Institute.

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

Use of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) for asthma management did not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric disease, based on data from more than 60,000 asthma patients.

Although LTRAs are established as an effective drug for asthma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the risk for neuropsychiatric (NP) drug reactions – including a boxed warning for montelukast (Singulair) – has raised concerns, writes Ji-Su Shim, MD, of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

However, evidence for such an association is limited, and previous studies have focused only on children and adolescents, and on a single LTRA (montelukast), the researchers say.

In a study published Dec. 1 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers used a Korean national health insurance database to identify 61,571 adult patients with asthma aged 40 years and older between Jan. 2002 and Dec. 2015 with no history of LTRA use.

The patients underwent screening examinations between Jan. 2009 and Dec. 2010, which marked the start of a follow-up period ending on Dec. 31, 2015. The median age of the study population was 61 years, and the mean follow-up period for NPs or other outcomes was approximately 47.6 months for LTRA users and 46.5 months for nonusers. Overall, 11.1% of the study population used pranlukast (Onon), 11% used montelukast, and 0.24% used zafirlukast (Accolate).

A total of 12,168 patients took an LTRA during the follow-up period. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric diseases was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.01; P = .952) in an adjusted model that included age, sex, pack-years of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, comorbid conditions, other respiratory diseases, and use of other asthma medications.

The most common NPs were dementia, mood disorders, and panic disorders, and the prevalence of each was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (75.4% vs. 76.1% for dementia, 12.7% vs. 12.8% for mood disorders, and 5.6% vs. 3.5% for panic disorders).

A subgroup analysis for associations between the duration of LTRA use and NP disease risk also showed no significant difference between LTRA users and nonusers.

“The mechanism of the development of NP symptoms by LTRAs has not been identified,” the researchers write in their discussion of the study findings. “Because most of NP side effects due to montelukast occur in few patients within 2 weeks of drug administration, it also may have relation with the presence of some genetic polymorphisms involving modification of the normal action or metabolism of LTRAs,” they explained.

The FDA’s boxed warning for montelukast noting the risk of serious mental health side effects has renewed interest in the relationship between NPs and LTRAs, the researchers noted. However, the current study findings support previous randomized controlled trials and larger studies, and the current warnings are based mainly on pharmacovigilance studies, case series, and case reports, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design, the potential for misclassification of asthma diagnosis, the exclusion of temporary NP symptoms that might prompt LTRA discontinuation, and the inability to detect possible differences in ethnicities other than Korean, the researchers note.

However, the results suggest that adverse NP symptoms should not prevent physicians from prescribing LTRAs to selected patients with asthma. Instead, the physician should accompany the prescription with “a word of caution in case any mood changes might occur,” the investigators wrote.

“Further studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are needed to reveal the association between the use of LTRAs and the risk of NP events and/or diseases,” they concluded.

Potential genetic predisposition may drive cases

The relatively rare occurrence of NP symptoms in asthma patients using LTRAs has prompted questions from the medical community on whether the relationship really exists, writes Désirée Larenas-Linnemann, MD, of Médica Sur Clinical Foundation and Hospital, Mexico City, in an accompanying editorial ).

The current study provides information about medications and possible adverse drug reactions, but “great care should be taken in the interpretation of the results from such a study,” she notes. Limitations include not only the possible misclassification of asthma and the homogeneous study population, but also the fact that some NPs, such as dementia, are already common in older adults..

Dr. Larenas-Linnemann shared a story of one of her patients, a 2½-year-old boy who began exhibiting hyperactivity and other strange behaviors while on an LRTA. The toddler’s father had previously reported “horrible nightmares, strange thoughts, and to feel upset, unsecure until he suspended the medication.” Cases such as this support a potential genetic predisposition, with drug metabolism playing a role, and clinicians should take genetic backgrounds into account, she said.

“Even though the current study did not show an association between LTRA use or duration of exposure and the occurrence of NP diseases in Korean adults with asthma, this does not imply such a relationship might be present in other age groups (children-adolescents-adults up to 50 years) or in patients with a different genetic background,” she emphasized.

However, “In the meantime, although LTRA should continue to be prescribed if indicated, an index of suspicion for possible NP effects should be maintained,” Dr. Larenas-Linnemann concluded.

“This study is timely, since the boxed warning for montelukast was issued approximately 1 year ago by the FDA,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview.

Dr. Casale said he was not surprised by the findings, “since most of the data implicating a potential link between the use of montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders have not been particularly compelling,” and much of the current information comes from case reports and retrospective studies.

“Furthermore, the data appeared to be somewhat stronger in the pediatric population,” Dr. Casale noted. “This study focused on elderly patients (mean age 61) and included two other leukotriene modifiers. The number of patients receiving montelukast was small (56), which may have also confounded the results,” he noted.

As for clinical implications, “I don’t think this study will change practice,” Dr. Casale said. “As indicated, it is in an elderly population, included only a limited number of patients receiving montelukast, and was in a Korean cohort. All of these factors could have influenced the results,” and the data may not be generalizable to patients elsewhere, including the United States, he said. “Also, the study only included patients with asthma and in the United States; the approval for rhinitis is another important indication to study,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in the form of better prospective studies examining the potential link between montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders in both the pediatric and adult populations having either asthma or rhinitis, Dr. Casale concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Casale have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larenas-Linnemann disclosed personal fees from Allakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grünenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, and Carnot, and grants from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, and the Purina Institute.

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

Use of a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA) for asthma management did not increase the risk of neuropsychiatric disease, based on data from more than 60,000 asthma patients.

Although LTRAs are established as an effective drug for asthma, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warnings of the risk for neuropsychiatric (NP) drug reactions – including a boxed warning for montelukast (Singulair) – has raised concerns, writes Ji-Su Shim, MD, of Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues.

However, evidence for such an association is limited, and previous studies have focused only on children and adolescents, and on a single LTRA (montelukast), the researchers say.

In a study published Dec. 1 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, the researchers used a Korean national health insurance database to identify 61,571 adult patients with asthma aged 40 years and older between Jan. 2002 and Dec. 2015 with no history of LTRA use.

The patients underwent screening examinations between Jan. 2009 and Dec. 2010, which marked the start of a follow-up period ending on Dec. 31, 2015. The median age of the study population was 61 years, and the mean follow-up period for NPs or other outcomes was approximately 47.6 months for LTRA users and 46.5 months for nonusers. Overall, 11.1% of the study population used pranlukast (Onon), 11% used montelukast, and 0.24% used zafirlukast (Accolate).

A total of 12,168 patients took an LTRA during the follow-up period. The hazard ratio for newly diagnosed neuropsychiatric diseases was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (hazard ratio, 1.01; P = .952) in an adjusted model that included age, sex, pack-years of smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, body mass index, comorbid conditions, other respiratory diseases, and use of other asthma medications.

The most common NPs were dementia, mood disorders, and panic disorders, and the prevalence of each was not significantly different between LTRA users and nonusers (75.4% vs. 76.1% for dementia, 12.7% vs. 12.8% for mood disorders, and 5.6% vs. 3.5% for panic disorders).

A subgroup analysis for associations between the duration of LTRA use and NP disease risk also showed no significant difference between LTRA users and nonusers.

“The mechanism of the development of NP symptoms by LTRAs has not been identified,” the researchers write in their discussion of the study findings. “Because most of NP side effects due to montelukast occur in few patients within 2 weeks of drug administration, it also may have relation with the presence of some genetic polymorphisms involving modification of the normal action or metabolism of LTRAs,” they explained.

The FDA’s boxed warning for montelukast noting the risk of serious mental health side effects has renewed interest in the relationship between NPs and LTRAs, the researchers noted. However, the current study findings support previous randomized controlled trials and larger studies, and the current warnings are based mainly on pharmacovigilance studies, case series, and case reports, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design, the potential for misclassification of asthma diagnosis, the exclusion of temporary NP symptoms that might prompt LTRA discontinuation, and the inability to detect possible differences in ethnicities other than Korean, the researchers note.

However, the results suggest that adverse NP symptoms should not prevent physicians from prescribing LTRAs to selected patients with asthma. Instead, the physician should accompany the prescription with “a word of caution in case any mood changes might occur,” the investigators wrote.

“Further studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are needed to reveal the association between the use of LTRAs and the risk of NP events and/or diseases,” they concluded.

Potential genetic predisposition may drive cases

The relatively rare occurrence of NP symptoms in asthma patients using LTRAs has prompted questions from the medical community on whether the relationship really exists, writes Désirée Larenas-Linnemann, MD, of Médica Sur Clinical Foundation and Hospital, Mexico City, in an accompanying editorial ).

The current study provides information about medications and possible adverse drug reactions, but “great care should be taken in the interpretation of the results from such a study,” she notes. Limitations include not only the possible misclassification of asthma and the homogeneous study population, but also the fact that some NPs, such as dementia, are already common in older adults..

Dr. Larenas-Linnemann shared a story of one of her patients, a 2½-year-old boy who began exhibiting hyperactivity and other strange behaviors while on an LRTA. The toddler’s father had previously reported “horrible nightmares, strange thoughts, and to feel upset, unsecure until he suspended the medication.” Cases such as this support a potential genetic predisposition, with drug metabolism playing a role, and clinicians should take genetic backgrounds into account, she said.

“Even though the current study did not show an association between LTRA use or duration of exposure and the occurrence of NP diseases in Korean adults with asthma, this does not imply such a relationship might be present in other age groups (children-adolescents-adults up to 50 years) or in patients with a different genetic background,” she emphasized.

However, “In the meantime, although LTRA should continue to be prescribed if indicated, an index of suspicion for possible NP effects should be maintained,” Dr. Larenas-Linnemann concluded.

“This study is timely, since the boxed warning for montelukast was issued approximately 1 year ago by the FDA,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview.

Dr. Casale said he was not surprised by the findings, “since most of the data implicating a potential link between the use of montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders have not been particularly compelling,” and much of the current information comes from case reports and retrospective studies.

“Furthermore, the data appeared to be somewhat stronger in the pediatric population,” Dr. Casale noted. “This study focused on elderly patients (mean age 61) and included two other leukotriene modifiers. The number of patients receiving montelukast was small (56), which may have also confounded the results,” he noted.

As for clinical implications, “I don’t think this study will change practice,” Dr. Casale said. “As indicated, it is in an elderly population, included only a limited number of patients receiving montelukast, and was in a Korean cohort. All of these factors could have influenced the results,” and the data may not be generalizable to patients elsewhere, including the United States, he said. “Also, the study only included patients with asthma and in the United States; the approval for rhinitis is another important indication to study,” he noted.

Additional research is needed in the form of better prospective studies examining the potential link between montelukast and neuropsychiatric disorders in both the pediatric and adult populations having either asthma or rhinitis, Dr. Casale concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers and Dr. Casale have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Larenas-Linnemann disclosed personal fees from Allakos, Armstrong, AstraZeneca, Chiesi, DBV Technologies, Grünenthal, GSK, Mylan/Viatris, Menarini, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Siegfried, UCB, Alakos, Gossamer, and Carnot, and grants from Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Circassia, UCB, GSK, and the Purina Institute.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers have known for some time that depression is associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but a causal link has been elusive. Now, using newly available data, they have uncovered genetic evidence of a causal role for depression in AD.

As depression typically affects those in early or midlife and dementia often occurs in later life, “it’s fascinating to see a connection between the two brain illnesses that manifest in different time windows,” coinvestigator Aliza P. Wingo, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral science, Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“If we can treat the depression early on, we may help reduce risk for dementia for our patients later in life,” Dr. Wingo said.

The findings were published online Dec. 16, 2021, in Biological Psychiatry.

Postmortem data

The investigators, who are all from the Emory University Center for Neurodegenerative Disease, wanted to clarify the genetic basis underlying the association between the established link between depression and dementia risk.

They used data from the largest and most recent genomewide association studies (GWAS). These included a 2019 analysis of depression among 807,553 individuals and a 2019 study of AD among 455,258 individuals, all of European ancestry. For sensitivity analyses, they used results from two additional AD GWAS.

The researchers also accessed postmortem brain samples from participants in the Religious Orders Study (ROS) and the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). These participants were cognitively normal at enrollment, underwent annual clinical evaluations, and agreed to donate their brains.

They also assessed brain samples donated by participants in the Banner Sun Health Research Institute longitudinal study of healthy aging, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

The brain samples allowed researchers to use deep brain proteomic data to help determine molecular links between depression and AD.

After quality control, the analysis included 8,356 proteins in 391 ROS/MAP participants and 7,854 proteins in 196 Banner participants.

Results showed a small but significant positive genetic correlation between depression and AD, suggesting the two conditions have a shared genetic basis.

The investigators also applied a framework called “Mendelian randomization” to determine causality between depression and AD.

After assessing the effect of 115 independent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from the GWAS of depression, they uncovered significant evidence “that the SNPs cause depression, which in turn cause AD,” said Dr. Wingo.
 

One-way relationship

The researchers conducted the same analysis on 61 significant SNPs from the GWAS of AD but did not find evidence to conclude AD causes depression.

“We found genetic evidence supporting a causal role of depression in AD but not vice versa,” Dr. Wingo said.

In addition, the investigators identified 75 brain transcripts (messenger RNA) and 28 brain proteins regulated by the depression-predisposing genetic variants. Of these, 46 brain transcripts and seven proteins were significantly associated with at least one AD feature – for example, beta-amyloid, tau tangles, and cognitive trajectory.

“These findings support the notion that the depression risk variants contribute to AD via regulating expression of their corresponding transcripts in the brain,” the investigators wrote.

It is only recently that large enough studies have allowed researchers sufficient power to reach these conclusions, coinvestigator Thomas Wingo, MD, said in an interview.

These additional “insights” into the relationship between depression and AD might “motivate” clinicians more to screen for and treat depressive symptoms, Dr. Aliza Wingo noted.

The new results also have implications for developing therapeutics to treat depression, she said. “If we target the genes, the brain proteins, that are shared risk between depression and AD, the medications that target that gene might mitigate risk for AD later on.”

However, the investigators advised caution. “A lot of this is still unknown,” said Dr. Thomas Wingo.

For example, it is not clear whether successfully treating depression mitigates the eventual risk of dementia, which is “a very important topic of inquiry and one we continue to work on,” he said, adding that a significant number of patients do not respond well to existing antidepressants such as SSRIs.
 

Need for further research

Commenting on the findings, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach, Alzheimer’s Association, said the study contributes to the debate about whether depression increases risk for AD, whether AD increases risk for depression, or both.

“These newly published findings strengthen our understanding of the role of depression as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s dementia,” said Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the research.

While experts do not yet fully understand the impact of treating depression on dementia risk, “the findings emphasize the importance of assessing mental health status, particularly depression, and getting it properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner,” she said.

However, she agreed more research in this area is needed. “Importantly, these findings need replication in broader, more diverse study populations,” Dr. Sexton said.

A study funded by the Alzheimer’s Association may provide more information on the link between depression and AD. It will investigate whether machine learning, an advanced computer science technique, can better predict cognitive decline, compared with traditional methods.

Over a period of 6 months, researchers will collect smartphone conversations from 225 older adults with dementia, mild cognitive impairment, or no cognitive impairment. They will also have data from cognitive tests, brain scans, and biomarkers such as cerebrospinal fluid samples to study brain changes associated with AD.

The novel method of analysis should be able to identify subtle differences in speech quality to indicate which depressive symptoms an individual might be experiencing.

“The study could help us further understand the potential impact of depression in the risk of developing dementia,” said Dr. Sexton.

Dr. Aliza Wingo and Dr. Thomas Wingo reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis suggests the risk for violence is higher in patients with schizophrenia, but some experts beg to differ, calling out study limitations and urging caution when interpreting the findings.

The study suggests patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) are 4.5 times more likely than individuals in the general population to perpetrate violence against others.

While the results showed comorbid substance misuse was associated with a significantly increased risk for violence in those with SSD, data on medication nonadherence, prior exposure to violence, childhood trauma, or other known risk factors were not included in the study.

“I think one of the main implications of this study is that prevention of violence outcomes really should be a focus for clinical services, because these are important outcomes to prevent and many of the factors that increase risk are modifiable, such as substance misuse and treatment adherence,” study coinvestigator Seena Fazel, MD, professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Still, some experts urge caution when interpreting the findings, which they fear could perpetuate stigma against individuals with serious mental illness if not taken in the context of a study that shows association, not causation.

“While potential for violence is certainly a relevant consideration in assessing persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, it would be wrong to conclude from this study that schizophrenia spectrum disorders per se cause people to become violent,” said Ronald W. Pies, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse, who commented on the findings.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

No causal link

The meta-analysis included 24 studies involving 51,309 individuals with SSD from 15 countries over 4 decades.

Risk for violence perpetrated by men with schizophrenia was 4.5 times higher (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.6) than their counterparts in the general population. Among women, the rate was 10.2 times higher (95% CI, 7.1-14.6) versus those without SSD.

The odds of perpetrating sexual offenses (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.8-6.8) and homicide (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 13.9-22.6) were also increased.

When restricting analysis to studies that used outcomes only from register-based sources, indicating a criminal arrest or conviction, absolute risks of violence perpetration ranged from 2.3% to 24.7% in men with SSD and from 0% to 5.4% in women up to a 35-year follow-up.

“That means that over a 35-year period most men are not going to be involved in these criminal register-based violent outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said. “And at least 90% of the women are not going to have any register-based violent outcomes.”

When accounting for substance use comorbidity, risk for violence perpetration dropped sharply. Those with no substance misuse were 3.5 times more likely than those in the general population to commit acts of violence versus 9.9 times in those with substance misuse comorbidity.

“In these subgroup studies of people with dual diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance misuse, the risk was increased 10-fold,” Dr. Fazel said. “If you look at people without substance misuse comorbidity, there remains a risk there of between three- to fourfold increase. It doesn’t explain the association completely.”

The investigators were quick to point out that this new study identifies an association between SSD and violence, and not causation.

“One important way to consider the association is to think of clinical services for people presenting with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Does the evidence suggest that violence is an important enough potential adverse outcome, for a minority of those individuals, such that support for this clinical need should be improved?” study investigator Daniel Whiting, BM BCh, a doctoral research fellow in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, said in an interview. “We highlight this as an implication of the findings.”

Whether the association would change if researchers controlled for substance misuse in both the study and control groups is unknown. Also unclear from this study is what impact other risk factors may have on increasing violent outcomes in individuals with SSD.
 

Education, treatment adherence important

Dr. Pies pointed out that, “notably, the risk for violence in the study population declined more than sixfold when comorbid substance abuse was excluded from the analysis.”

That aligns with an earlier study conducted in Sweden by Dr. Fazel, which showed that, after controlling for substance misuse, the rate of violent crime among individuals with schizophrenia was only slightly higher than in the general population.

“The fact is that people with schizophrenia who are compliant with proper medication do not commit violent acts any more than those in the general population,” Lynn DeLisi, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding editor of Schizophrenia Research, said in a comment.

Indeed, Dr. Fazel’s own research suggests treatment with antipsychotics cuts in half the risk for violent crime by patients with severe mental illness.

“The goal should be education of school officials, families, and primary care physicians to detect this illness early and treat it. Programs that make sure patients comply with medication once they begin it are equally important,” Dr. DeLisi said.

Treatment adherence is important, but the first step toward violence prevention is high-quality risk assessment, said Dr. Fazel. His research team has developed a web-based, free risk calculator shown to help clinicians evaluate the risk that a patient might become violent.

Dr. Pies agreed with the importance of comprehensive, clinical assessments of modifiable risk factors, including substance use, homelessness, medication adherence, and conflictual relationships.

This kind of assessment, “in my experience, is rarely carried out in most evaluations of persons with psychotic symptoms or SSD,” he said.
 

Perpetuating stigma?

Another concern raised by Dr. Pies and Dr. DeLisi is how the findings might perpetuate stigma toward individuals with serious mental illness. Results from a recently published study showed that, although attitudes toward those with major depression have improved in the United States over the past few decades, stigma toward those with schizophrenia has actually worsened.

The most effective approach to reducing stigma is to “face up to the evidence, then try and prevent the negative outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said.

“The conclusion of this paper is that it’s all pointing toward a strategy toward prevention by developing high-quality risk assessment and then developing high-quality treatment programs that include not just pharmacological treatments but psychosocial treatments and beyond,” he added. “We know that’s the way it works for other disorders as well.”

Although mental illness stigma is a serious problem, Dr. Pies noted, “the risk is not so much that studies of this sort are carried out and then covered in the media, but that they are decontextualized and reduced to ‘bumper sticker’ headlines.”

“The public needs context and perspective,” he said. “It needs to be informed that violent behavior is relatively rare among persons with psychiatric illness, including persons with schizophrenia and related disorders who do not also have a substance use disorder.”

Indeed, some studies have shown that individuals with mental illness are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

“Frankly, the public is much more at risk from the neighborhood lout who drinks heavily and repeatedly starts bar fights than from the average patient with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” Dr. Pies said.

Dr. Fazel reported receiving funding from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. DeLisi and Dr. Pies disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis suggests the risk for violence is higher in patients with schizophrenia, but some experts beg to differ, calling out study limitations and urging caution when interpreting the findings.

The study suggests patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) are 4.5 times more likely than individuals in the general population to perpetrate violence against others.

While the results showed comorbid substance misuse was associated with a significantly increased risk for violence in those with SSD, data on medication nonadherence, prior exposure to violence, childhood trauma, or other known risk factors were not included in the study.

“I think one of the main implications of this study is that prevention of violence outcomes really should be a focus for clinical services, because these are important outcomes to prevent and many of the factors that increase risk are modifiable, such as substance misuse and treatment adherence,” study coinvestigator Seena Fazel, MD, professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Still, some experts urge caution when interpreting the findings, which they fear could perpetuate stigma against individuals with serious mental illness if not taken in the context of a study that shows association, not causation.

“While potential for violence is certainly a relevant consideration in assessing persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, it would be wrong to conclude from this study that schizophrenia spectrum disorders per se cause people to become violent,” said Ronald W. Pies, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse, who commented on the findings.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

No causal link

The meta-analysis included 24 studies involving 51,309 individuals with SSD from 15 countries over 4 decades.

Risk for violence perpetrated by men with schizophrenia was 4.5 times higher (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.6) than their counterparts in the general population. Among women, the rate was 10.2 times higher (95% CI, 7.1-14.6) versus those without SSD.

The odds of perpetrating sexual offenses (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.8-6.8) and homicide (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 13.9-22.6) were also increased.

When restricting analysis to studies that used outcomes only from register-based sources, indicating a criminal arrest or conviction, absolute risks of violence perpetration ranged from 2.3% to 24.7% in men with SSD and from 0% to 5.4% in women up to a 35-year follow-up.

“That means that over a 35-year period most men are not going to be involved in these criminal register-based violent outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said. “And at least 90% of the women are not going to have any register-based violent outcomes.”

When accounting for substance use comorbidity, risk for violence perpetration dropped sharply. Those with no substance misuse were 3.5 times more likely than those in the general population to commit acts of violence versus 9.9 times in those with substance misuse comorbidity.

“In these subgroup studies of people with dual diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance misuse, the risk was increased 10-fold,” Dr. Fazel said. “If you look at people without substance misuse comorbidity, there remains a risk there of between three- to fourfold increase. It doesn’t explain the association completely.”

The investigators were quick to point out that this new study identifies an association between SSD and violence, and not causation.

“One important way to consider the association is to think of clinical services for people presenting with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Does the evidence suggest that violence is an important enough potential adverse outcome, for a minority of those individuals, such that support for this clinical need should be improved?” study investigator Daniel Whiting, BM BCh, a doctoral research fellow in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, said in an interview. “We highlight this as an implication of the findings.”

Whether the association would change if researchers controlled for substance misuse in both the study and control groups is unknown. Also unclear from this study is what impact other risk factors may have on increasing violent outcomes in individuals with SSD.
 

Education, treatment adherence important

Dr. Pies pointed out that, “notably, the risk for violence in the study population declined more than sixfold when comorbid substance abuse was excluded from the analysis.”

That aligns with an earlier study conducted in Sweden by Dr. Fazel, which showed that, after controlling for substance misuse, the rate of violent crime among individuals with schizophrenia was only slightly higher than in the general population.

“The fact is that people with schizophrenia who are compliant with proper medication do not commit violent acts any more than those in the general population,” Lynn DeLisi, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding editor of Schizophrenia Research, said in a comment.

Indeed, Dr. Fazel’s own research suggests treatment with antipsychotics cuts in half the risk for violent crime by patients with severe mental illness.

“The goal should be education of school officials, families, and primary care physicians to detect this illness early and treat it. Programs that make sure patients comply with medication once they begin it are equally important,” Dr. DeLisi said.

Treatment adherence is important, but the first step toward violence prevention is high-quality risk assessment, said Dr. Fazel. His research team has developed a web-based, free risk calculator shown to help clinicians evaluate the risk that a patient might become violent.

Dr. Pies agreed with the importance of comprehensive, clinical assessments of modifiable risk factors, including substance use, homelessness, medication adherence, and conflictual relationships.

This kind of assessment, “in my experience, is rarely carried out in most evaluations of persons with psychotic symptoms or SSD,” he said.
 

Perpetuating stigma?

Another concern raised by Dr. Pies and Dr. DeLisi is how the findings might perpetuate stigma toward individuals with serious mental illness. Results from a recently published study showed that, although attitudes toward those with major depression have improved in the United States over the past few decades, stigma toward those with schizophrenia has actually worsened.

The most effective approach to reducing stigma is to “face up to the evidence, then try and prevent the negative outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said.

“The conclusion of this paper is that it’s all pointing toward a strategy toward prevention by developing high-quality risk assessment and then developing high-quality treatment programs that include not just pharmacological treatments but psychosocial treatments and beyond,” he added. “We know that’s the way it works for other disorders as well.”

Although mental illness stigma is a serious problem, Dr. Pies noted, “the risk is not so much that studies of this sort are carried out and then covered in the media, but that they are decontextualized and reduced to ‘bumper sticker’ headlines.”

“The public needs context and perspective,” he said. “It needs to be informed that violent behavior is relatively rare among persons with psychiatric illness, including persons with schizophrenia and related disorders who do not also have a substance use disorder.”

Indeed, some studies have shown that individuals with mental illness are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

“Frankly, the public is much more at risk from the neighborhood lout who drinks heavily and repeatedly starts bar fights than from the average patient with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” Dr. Pies said.

Dr. Fazel reported receiving funding from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. DeLisi and Dr. Pies disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new meta-analysis suggests the risk for violence is higher in patients with schizophrenia, but some experts beg to differ, calling out study limitations and urging caution when interpreting the findings.

The study suggests patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder (SSD) are 4.5 times more likely than individuals in the general population to perpetrate violence against others.

While the results showed comorbid substance misuse was associated with a significantly increased risk for violence in those with SSD, data on medication nonadherence, prior exposure to violence, childhood trauma, or other known risk factors were not included in the study.

“I think one of the main implications of this study is that prevention of violence outcomes really should be a focus for clinical services, because these are important outcomes to prevent and many of the factors that increase risk are modifiable, such as substance misuse and treatment adherence,” study coinvestigator Seena Fazel, MD, professor of forensic psychiatry at the University of Oxford (England), said in an interview.

Still, some experts urge caution when interpreting the findings, which they fear could perpetuate stigma against individuals with serious mental illness if not taken in the context of a study that shows association, not causation.

“While potential for violence is certainly a relevant consideration in assessing persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, it would be wrong to conclude from this study that schizophrenia spectrum disorders per se cause people to become violent,” said Ronald W. Pies, MD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York, Syracuse, who commented on the findings.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

No causal link

The meta-analysis included 24 studies involving 51,309 individuals with SSD from 15 countries over 4 decades.

Risk for violence perpetrated by men with schizophrenia was 4.5 times higher (95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.6) than their counterparts in the general population. Among women, the rate was 10.2 times higher (95% CI, 7.1-14.6) versus those without SSD.

The odds of perpetrating sexual offenses (odds ratio, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.8-6.8) and homicide (OR, 17.7; 95% CI, 13.9-22.6) were also increased.

When restricting analysis to studies that used outcomes only from register-based sources, indicating a criminal arrest or conviction, absolute risks of violence perpetration ranged from 2.3% to 24.7% in men with SSD and from 0% to 5.4% in women up to a 35-year follow-up.

“That means that over a 35-year period most men are not going to be involved in these criminal register-based violent outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said. “And at least 90% of the women are not going to have any register-based violent outcomes.”

When accounting for substance use comorbidity, risk for violence perpetration dropped sharply. Those with no substance misuse were 3.5 times more likely than those in the general population to commit acts of violence versus 9.9 times in those with substance misuse comorbidity.

“In these subgroup studies of people with dual diagnoses of schizophrenia and substance misuse, the risk was increased 10-fold,” Dr. Fazel said. “If you look at people without substance misuse comorbidity, there remains a risk there of between three- to fourfold increase. It doesn’t explain the association completely.”

The investigators were quick to point out that this new study identifies an association between SSD and violence, and not causation.

“One important way to consider the association is to think of clinical services for people presenting with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder: Does the evidence suggest that violence is an important enough potential adverse outcome, for a minority of those individuals, such that support for this clinical need should be improved?” study investigator Daniel Whiting, BM BCh, a doctoral research fellow in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, said in an interview. “We highlight this as an implication of the findings.”

Whether the association would change if researchers controlled for substance misuse in both the study and control groups is unknown. Also unclear from this study is what impact other risk factors may have on increasing violent outcomes in individuals with SSD.
 

Education, treatment adherence important

Dr. Pies pointed out that, “notably, the risk for violence in the study population declined more than sixfold when comorbid substance abuse was excluded from the analysis.”

That aligns with an earlier study conducted in Sweden by Dr. Fazel, which showed that, after controlling for substance misuse, the rate of violent crime among individuals with schizophrenia was only slightly higher than in the general population.

“The fact is that people with schizophrenia who are compliant with proper medication do not commit violent acts any more than those in the general population,” Lynn DeLisi, MD, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and founding editor of Schizophrenia Research, said in a comment.

Indeed, Dr. Fazel’s own research suggests treatment with antipsychotics cuts in half the risk for violent crime by patients with severe mental illness.

“The goal should be education of school officials, families, and primary care physicians to detect this illness early and treat it. Programs that make sure patients comply with medication once they begin it are equally important,” Dr. DeLisi said.

Treatment adherence is important, but the first step toward violence prevention is high-quality risk assessment, said Dr. Fazel. His research team has developed a web-based, free risk calculator shown to help clinicians evaluate the risk that a patient might become violent.

Dr. Pies agreed with the importance of comprehensive, clinical assessments of modifiable risk factors, including substance use, homelessness, medication adherence, and conflictual relationships.

This kind of assessment, “in my experience, is rarely carried out in most evaluations of persons with psychotic symptoms or SSD,” he said.
 

Perpetuating stigma?

Another concern raised by Dr. Pies and Dr. DeLisi is how the findings might perpetuate stigma toward individuals with serious mental illness. Results from a recently published study showed that, although attitudes toward those with major depression have improved in the United States over the past few decades, stigma toward those with schizophrenia has actually worsened.

The most effective approach to reducing stigma is to “face up to the evidence, then try and prevent the negative outcomes,” Dr. Fazel said.

“The conclusion of this paper is that it’s all pointing toward a strategy toward prevention by developing high-quality risk assessment and then developing high-quality treatment programs that include not just pharmacological treatments but psychosocial treatments and beyond,” he added. “We know that’s the way it works for other disorders as well.”

Although mental illness stigma is a serious problem, Dr. Pies noted, “the risk is not so much that studies of this sort are carried out and then covered in the media, but that they are decontextualized and reduced to ‘bumper sticker’ headlines.”

“The public needs context and perspective,” he said. “It needs to be informed that violent behavior is relatively rare among persons with psychiatric illness, including persons with schizophrenia and related disorders who do not also have a substance use disorder.”

Indeed, some studies have shown that individuals with mental illness are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators.

“Frankly, the public is much more at risk from the neighborhood lout who drinks heavily and repeatedly starts bar fights than from the average patient with a schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” Dr. Pies said.

Dr. Fazel reported receiving funding from the Wellcome Trust. Dr. DeLisi and Dr. Pies disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

Cessation of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) significantly increases the risk of self-harm and death by suicide in the first month after stopping the treatment in new findings that highlight the need for “advanced safety planning” during this critical time.

Investigators found that 4 weeks after stopping OAT, the risk of death by suicide was almost five times higher and the risk of hospital admission for self-harm was almost three times higher during this period, compared with the 4 weeks after initiation of OAT to treatment end.

These results highlight the importance of a “transition” period when stopping OAT and highlight the need for better supports for patients coming off this treatment, study investigator Prianka Padmanathan, MD, PhD candidate, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol (England), told this news organization.

She noted the study supports previous findings that OAT “has an important role” in suicide prevention.

“Suicide and self-harm risk is greatly increased during treatment cessation, and advanced safety planning and additional psychosocial support during this time may be required,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

The findings were published online Dec. 15 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

Suicide, self-harm risk

Previous research shows an increased risk for overdose deaths and death in general during the first few weeks of starting and stopping treatment for opioid dependence.

“We wanted to see if the risk of dying by suicide was also elevated during these times,” said Dr. Padmanathan. As suicides are relatively rare, the researchers also looked at self-harm, “which is an important risk factor for suicide.”

The investigators used linked health care databases to gather information on mortality and hospital admissions among primary care patients in England prescribed OAT, particularly buprenorphine or methadone.

“We tried to exclude people prescribed these drugs for pain and focused specifically on their prescription for opioid dependence,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

They estimated rates and adjusted risk ratios of hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm and completed suicide during treatment initiation, maintenance, and cessation.

The study included 8,070 patients (69.3% men; mean baseline age, 33.3 years) who received OAT at least once from January 1998 through November 2018. The median treatment time was 84 days. Most of the participants lived in the most deprived neighborhoods and were White.

There were 807 hospital admissions for self-harm (1.99 per 100 person-years) and 46 suicides (0.11 per 100 person-years).

The investigators examined age, sex, socioeconomic status, number of previous OAT treatment episodes, previous self-harm, previous mental illness, and major chronic illness scores as potential confounders.

Need for psychosocial care

Results showed the risk for self-harm was significantly increased while off OAT (aRR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.88).

The overall age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 7.5 times higher (95% CI, 5.5-10) in the study cohort, compared with the general population in England between 1998 and 2017.

There was insufficient evidence to show the risk for suicide was higher off, versus on, treatment, but this may be because suicides are relatively rare, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“The sample may have been too small to enable a difference to be detected. In contrast, self-harm is more common, so there was power to detect a difference there,” she said.

Risk for self-harm was more than double in the first 4 weeks after stopping OAT versus stable periods on treatment (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.83-3.7). Risk for suicide more than quadrupled during this period (aRR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.63-13.42).

These new results suggest additional interventions may be in order, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“We already knew that extra care – for example, providing naloxone when coming off OAT – was important to prevent overdoses. But this study suggests providing psychosocial care and other extra care may also be important to prevent suicides,” she said.

There was no statistical evidence of difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of self-harm and suicide risks. However, this may be because the sample was not large enough to detect a difference, said Dr. Padmanathan.

Although there are currently no guidelines to indicate an ideal OAT period, previous study results have suggested extending treatment to 2 years may be beneficial, perhaps reducing self-harm and, therefore, suicides, she noted.

“We think most of these adverse outcomes likely occur during short treatment episodes with an unplanned ending. Extending OAT sufficiently to enable a planned ending might help to reduce these risks,” she added.

‘A window of vulnerability’

Authors of an accompanying editorial note the study “adds weight” to the evidence that OAT is a “lifesaving” treatment.

“It’s critical to recognize that transitions in and out of care are vulnerable periods” when it comes to suicide, the coauthor of the editorial, Paul S. Nestadt, MD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Official suicide statistics may not reflect the entire story, as many deaths that occur because of overdose after treatment cessation are not counted as suicides, he said. “It can be difficult for medical examiners to determine if an overdose was intentional or not,” Dr. Nestadt added.

After treatment has been established, physicians “would be wise to delay treatment cessation” until the patient is in a stable condition and can be closely followed by mental health professionals, the editorialists note.

“We must consider the month following OAT cessation to be a window of vulnerability, not just for relapse but also for suicide,” they write.

The finding that patients prescribed OAT have such a high rate of suicide, compared with the general population, is “troubling” and “highlights the importance of interventions which address both opioid use and suicide risk,” they add.

The editorialists point out the median treatment period of 84 days is less than what is generally recommended, raising the question of whether longer treatment might lower suicide risk after treatment discontinuation.

They also emphasized the need for further study to test potential suicide prevention interventions in the period after treatment cessation.

Dr. Nestadt added the new findings are “quite generalizable outside of the U.K.” and referred to similar studies carried out in Australia and elsewhere.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Padmanathan was a coapplicant on an a grant awarded to University of Bristol by Bristol and Weston Hospital Charity focusing on suicide prevention for patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm and harmful substance use. Dr. Nestadt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

Cessation of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) significantly increases the risk of self-harm and death by suicide in the first month after stopping the treatment in new findings that highlight the need for “advanced safety planning” during this critical time.

Investigators found that 4 weeks after stopping OAT, the risk of death by suicide was almost five times higher and the risk of hospital admission for self-harm was almost three times higher during this period, compared with the 4 weeks after initiation of OAT to treatment end.

These results highlight the importance of a “transition” period when stopping OAT and highlight the need for better supports for patients coming off this treatment, study investigator Prianka Padmanathan, MD, PhD candidate, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol (England), told this news organization.

She noted the study supports previous findings that OAT “has an important role” in suicide prevention.

“Suicide and self-harm risk is greatly increased during treatment cessation, and advanced safety planning and additional psychosocial support during this time may be required,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

The findings were published online Dec. 15 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

Suicide, self-harm risk

Previous research shows an increased risk for overdose deaths and death in general during the first few weeks of starting and stopping treatment for opioid dependence.

“We wanted to see if the risk of dying by suicide was also elevated during these times,” said Dr. Padmanathan. As suicides are relatively rare, the researchers also looked at self-harm, “which is an important risk factor for suicide.”

The investigators used linked health care databases to gather information on mortality and hospital admissions among primary care patients in England prescribed OAT, particularly buprenorphine or methadone.

“We tried to exclude people prescribed these drugs for pain and focused specifically on their prescription for opioid dependence,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

They estimated rates and adjusted risk ratios of hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm and completed suicide during treatment initiation, maintenance, and cessation.

The study included 8,070 patients (69.3% men; mean baseline age, 33.3 years) who received OAT at least once from January 1998 through November 2018. The median treatment time was 84 days. Most of the participants lived in the most deprived neighborhoods and were White.

There were 807 hospital admissions for self-harm (1.99 per 100 person-years) and 46 suicides (0.11 per 100 person-years).

The investigators examined age, sex, socioeconomic status, number of previous OAT treatment episodes, previous self-harm, previous mental illness, and major chronic illness scores as potential confounders.

Need for psychosocial care

Results showed the risk for self-harm was significantly increased while off OAT (aRR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.88).

The overall age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 7.5 times higher (95% CI, 5.5-10) in the study cohort, compared with the general population in England between 1998 and 2017.

There was insufficient evidence to show the risk for suicide was higher off, versus on, treatment, but this may be because suicides are relatively rare, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“The sample may have been too small to enable a difference to be detected. In contrast, self-harm is more common, so there was power to detect a difference there,” she said.

Risk for self-harm was more than double in the first 4 weeks after stopping OAT versus stable periods on treatment (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.83-3.7). Risk for suicide more than quadrupled during this period (aRR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.63-13.42).

These new results suggest additional interventions may be in order, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“We already knew that extra care – for example, providing naloxone when coming off OAT – was important to prevent overdoses. But this study suggests providing psychosocial care and other extra care may also be important to prevent suicides,” she said.

There was no statistical evidence of difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of self-harm and suicide risks. However, this may be because the sample was not large enough to detect a difference, said Dr. Padmanathan.

Although there are currently no guidelines to indicate an ideal OAT period, previous study results have suggested extending treatment to 2 years may be beneficial, perhaps reducing self-harm and, therefore, suicides, she noted.

“We think most of these adverse outcomes likely occur during short treatment episodes with an unplanned ending. Extending OAT sufficiently to enable a planned ending might help to reduce these risks,” she added.

‘A window of vulnerability’

Authors of an accompanying editorial note the study “adds weight” to the evidence that OAT is a “lifesaving” treatment.

“It’s critical to recognize that transitions in and out of care are vulnerable periods” when it comes to suicide, the coauthor of the editorial, Paul S. Nestadt, MD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Official suicide statistics may not reflect the entire story, as many deaths that occur because of overdose after treatment cessation are not counted as suicides, he said. “It can be difficult for medical examiners to determine if an overdose was intentional or not,” Dr. Nestadt added.

After treatment has been established, physicians “would be wise to delay treatment cessation” until the patient is in a stable condition and can be closely followed by mental health professionals, the editorialists note.

“We must consider the month following OAT cessation to be a window of vulnerability, not just for relapse but also for suicide,” they write.

The finding that patients prescribed OAT have such a high rate of suicide, compared with the general population, is “troubling” and “highlights the importance of interventions which address both opioid use and suicide risk,” they add.

The editorialists point out the median treatment period of 84 days is less than what is generally recommended, raising the question of whether longer treatment might lower suicide risk after treatment discontinuation.

They also emphasized the need for further study to test potential suicide prevention interventions in the period after treatment cessation.

Dr. Nestadt added the new findings are “quite generalizable outside of the U.K.” and referred to similar studies carried out in Australia and elsewhere.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Padmanathan was a coapplicant on an a grant awarded to University of Bristol by Bristol and Weston Hospital Charity focusing on suicide prevention for patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm and harmful substance use. Dr. Nestadt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY

Cessation of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) significantly increases the risk of self-harm and death by suicide in the first month after stopping the treatment in new findings that highlight the need for “advanced safety planning” during this critical time.

Investigators found that 4 weeks after stopping OAT, the risk of death by suicide was almost five times higher and the risk of hospital admission for self-harm was almost three times higher during this period, compared with the 4 weeks after initiation of OAT to treatment end.

These results highlight the importance of a “transition” period when stopping OAT and highlight the need for better supports for patients coming off this treatment, study investigator Prianka Padmanathan, MD, PhD candidate, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol (England), told this news organization.

She noted the study supports previous findings that OAT “has an important role” in suicide prevention.

“Suicide and self-harm risk is greatly increased during treatment cessation, and advanced safety planning and additional psychosocial support during this time may be required,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

The findings were published online Dec. 15 in The Lancet Psychiatry.

Suicide, self-harm risk

Previous research shows an increased risk for overdose deaths and death in general during the first few weeks of starting and stopping treatment for opioid dependence.

“We wanted to see if the risk of dying by suicide was also elevated during these times,” said Dr. Padmanathan. As suicides are relatively rare, the researchers also looked at self-harm, “which is an important risk factor for suicide.”

The investigators used linked health care databases to gather information on mortality and hospital admissions among primary care patients in England prescribed OAT, particularly buprenorphine or methadone.

“We tried to exclude people prescribed these drugs for pain and focused specifically on their prescription for opioid dependence,” Dr. Padmanathan said.

They estimated rates and adjusted risk ratios of hospital admissions for nonfatal self-harm and completed suicide during treatment initiation, maintenance, and cessation.

The study included 8,070 patients (69.3% men; mean baseline age, 33.3 years) who received OAT at least once from January 1998 through November 2018. The median treatment time was 84 days. Most of the participants lived in the most deprived neighborhoods and were White.

There were 807 hospital admissions for self-harm (1.99 per 100 person-years) and 46 suicides (0.11 per 100 person-years).

The investigators examined age, sex, socioeconomic status, number of previous OAT treatment episodes, previous self-harm, previous mental illness, and major chronic illness scores as potential confounders.

Need for psychosocial care

Results showed the risk for self-harm was significantly increased while off OAT (aRR, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.88).

The overall age- and sex-standardized mortality ratio for suicide was 7.5 times higher (95% CI, 5.5-10) in the study cohort, compared with the general population in England between 1998 and 2017.

There was insufficient evidence to show the risk for suicide was higher off, versus on, treatment, but this may be because suicides are relatively rare, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“The sample may have been too small to enable a difference to be detected. In contrast, self-harm is more common, so there was power to detect a difference there,” she said.

Risk for self-harm was more than double in the first 4 weeks after stopping OAT versus stable periods on treatment (aRR, 2.60; 95% CI, 1.83-3.7). Risk for suicide more than quadrupled during this period (aRR, 4.68; 95% CI, 1.63-13.42).

These new results suggest additional interventions may be in order, Dr. Padmanathan noted.

“We already knew that extra care – for example, providing naloxone when coming off OAT – was important to prevent overdoses. But this study suggests providing psychosocial care and other extra care may also be important to prevent suicides,” she said.

There was no statistical evidence of difference between buprenorphine and methadone in terms of self-harm and suicide risks. However, this may be because the sample was not large enough to detect a difference, said Dr. Padmanathan.

Although there are currently no guidelines to indicate an ideal OAT period, previous study results have suggested extending treatment to 2 years may be beneficial, perhaps reducing self-harm and, therefore, suicides, she noted.

“We think most of these adverse outcomes likely occur during short treatment episodes with an unplanned ending. Extending OAT sufficiently to enable a planned ending might help to reduce these risks,” she added.

‘A window of vulnerability’

Authors of an accompanying editorial note the study “adds weight” to the evidence that OAT is a “lifesaving” treatment.

“It’s critical to recognize that transitions in and out of care are vulnerable periods” when it comes to suicide, the coauthor of the editorial, Paul S. Nestadt, MD, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Official suicide statistics may not reflect the entire story, as many deaths that occur because of overdose after treatment cessation are not counted as suicides, he said. “It can be difficult for medical examiners to determine if an overdose was intentional or not,” Dr. Nestadt added.

After treatment has been established, physicians “would be wise to delay treatment cessation” until the patient is in a stable condition and can be closely followed by mental health professionals, the editorialists note.

“We must consider the month following OAT cessation to be a window of vulnerability, not just for relapse but also for suicide,” they write.

The finding that patients prescribed OAT have such a high rate of suicide, compared with the general population, is “troubling” and “highlights the importance of interventions which address both opioid use and suicide risk,” they add.

The editorialists point out the median treatment period of 84 days is less than what is generally recommended, raising the question of whether longer treatment might lower suicide risk after treatment discontinuation.

They also emphasized the need for further study to test potential suicide prevention interventions in the period after treatment cessation.

Dr. Nestadt added the new findings are “quite generalizable outside of the U.K.” and referred to similar studies carried out in Australia and elsewhere.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. Dr. Padmanathan was a coapplicant on an a grant awarded to University of Bristol by Bristol and Weston Hospital Charity focusing on suicide prevention for patients presenting to the emergency department with self-harm and harmful substance use. Dr. Nestadt has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 3 authorized the first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for American adolescents ages 12 to 15.

Besides updating the authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more, based on new evidence. In addition, a third primary series dose is now authorized for certain immunocompromised children 5 years to 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The amended emergency use authorization (EUA) only applies to the Pfizer vaccine, said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD.

“Just to make sure every everyone is clear on this, right now: If you got [Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine], you get a booster after 2 months. If you got Moderna, you can get a booster at 6 months or beyond,” she said during a media briefing.

What is new, she said, is “if you got Pfizer as your primary series, you can get a booster at 5 months or beyond.”
 

A lower risk of myocarditis?

Asked about concerns about the risk of myocarditis with vaccination in the 12- to 15-year age group, Dr. Woodcock said they expect it would be “extremely rare with the third dose.”

“We have the real-world evidence from the Israeli experience to help us with that analysis,” she said.

The data so far consistently points to a higher risk of myocarditis after a second mRNA vaccine dose among males, from teenagers to 30-year-olds, with a peak at about 16 to 17 years of age, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the media call.

The risk of myocarditis is about 2 to 3 times higher after a second vaccine dose, compared to a booster shot, Dr. Marks said, based on available data. It may be related to the closer dose timing of the second dose versus a third, he added.

“The inference here is that on the risk of myocarditis with third doses in the 12- to 15-year age range is likely to be quite acceptable,” he said.

Dr. Marks also pointed out that most cases of myocarditis clear up quickly.

“We’re not seeing long-lasting effects. That’s not to say that we don’t care about this and that it’s not important,” he said.

“But what it is saying is that in the setting of a tremendous number of Omicron and Delta cases in this country, the potential benefits of getting vaccinated in this age group outweigh that risk,” Dr. Marks said. “We can look at that risk-benefit and still feel comfortable.”

He said that “the really overwhelming majority of these cases, 98%, have been mild” -- shown by a 1-day median hospital stay.

Even so, the FDA plans to continue monitoring for the risk of myocarditis “very closely,” he said.

Interestingly, swollen underarm lymph nodes were seen more frequently after the booster dose than after the second dose of a two-dose primary series, the FDA said.

Reducing the time between primary vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine -- two initial doses -- and the booster shot from 6 months to 5 months is based on decreasing efficacy data that the drugmaker submitted to the FDA.

The 5-month interval was evaluated in a study from Israel published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine .
 

Mixing and matching vaccines

Less clear at the moment is guidance about boosters for people who opted to mix and match their primary vaccine series.

“There was a mix-and-match study that was done which showed that in some cases, the mixing and matching … of an adenoviral record vaccine and an mRNA vaccine seem to give a very good immune response,” Dr. Marks said.

Once more data comes in on mixing and matching, “we’ll analyze them and then potentially make recommendations,” he said.
 

‘It’s not too late’

No federal government media briefing on COVID-19 would be complete without a plea for the unvaccinated to get immunized.

“We’re talking a lot about boosters right now, but it’s not too late for those who have not gotten a vaccine to get a vaccine,” Dr. Marks said, referring to the tens of millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated at the beginning of 2022.

“We know from our previous studies that even a single dose of the vaccine -- and probably two doses -- can help prevent the worst outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 3 authorized the first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for American adolescents ages 12 to 15.

Besides updating the authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more, based on new evidence. In addition, a third primary series dose is now authorized for certain immunocompromised children 5 years to 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The amended emergency use authorization (EUA) only applies to the Pfizer vaccine, said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD.

“Just to make sure every everyone is clear on this, right now: If you got [Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine], you get a booster after 2 months. If you got Moderna, you can get a booster at 6 months or beyond,” she said during a media briefing.

What is new, she said, is “if you got Pfizer as your primary series, you can get a booster at 5 months or beyond.”
 

A lower risk of myocarditis?

Asked about concerns about the risk of myocarditis with vaccination in the 12- to 15-year age group, Dr. Woodcock said they expect it would be “extremely rare with the third dose.”

“We have the real-world evidence from the Israeli experience to help us with that analysis,” she said.

The data so far consistently points to a higher risk of myocarditis after a second mRNA vaccine dose among males, from teenagers to 30-year-olds, with a peak at about 16 to 17 years of age, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the media call.

The risk of myocarditis is about 2 to 3 times higher after a second vaccine dose, compared to a booster shot, Dr. Marks said, based on available data. It may be related to the closer dose timing of the second dose versus a third, he added.

“The inference here is that on the risk of myocarditis with third doses in the 12- to 15-year age range is likely to be quite acceptable,” he said.

Dr. Marks also pointed out that most cases of myocarditis clear up quickly.

“We’re not seeing long-lasting effects. That’s not to say that we don’t care about this and that it’s not important,” he said.

“But what it is saying is that in the setting of a tremendous number of Omicron and Delta cases in this country, the potential benefits of getting vaccinated in this age group outweigh that risk,” Dr. Marks said. “We can look at that risk-benefit and still feel comfortable.”

He said that “the really overwhelming majority of these cases, 98%, have been mild” -- shown by a 1-day median hospital stay.

Even so, the FDA plans to continue monitoring for the risk of myocarditis “very closely,” he said.

Interestingly, swollen underarm lymph nodes were seen more frequently after the booster dose than after the second dose of a two-dose primary series, the FDA said.

Reducing the time between primary vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine -- two initial doses -- and the booster shot from 6 months to 5 months is based on decreasing efficacy data that the drugmaker submitted to the FDA.

The 5-month interval was evaluated in a study from Israel published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine .
 

Mixing and matching vaccines

Less clear at the moment is guidance about boosters for people who opted to mix and match their primary vaccine series.

“There was a mix-and-match study that was done which showed that in some cases, the mixing and matching … of an adenoviral record vaccine and an mRNA vaccine seem to give a very good immune response,” Dr. Marks said.

Once more data comes in on mixing and matching, “we’ll analyze them and then potentially make recommendations,” he said.
 

‘It’s not too late’

No federal government media briefing on COVID-19 would be complete without a plea for the unvaccinated to get immunized.

“We’re talking a lot about boosters right now, but it’s not too late for those who have not gotten a vaccine to get a vaccine,” Dr. Marks said, referring to the tens of millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated at the beginning of 2022.

“We know from our previous studies that even a single dose of the vaccine -- and probably two doses -- can help prevent the worst outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Jan. 3 authorized the first COVID-19 vaccine booster dose for American adolescents ages 12 to 15.

Besides updating the authorization for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more, based on new evidence. In addition, a third primary series dose is now authorized for certain immunocompromised children 5 years to 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The amended emergency use authorization (EUA) only applies to the Pfizer vaccine, said acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD.

“Just to make sure every everyone is clear on this, right now: If you got [Johnson & Johnson’s one-dose vaccine], you get a booster after 2 months. If you got Moderna, you can get a booster at 6 months or beyond,” she said during a media briefing.

What is new, she said, is “if you got Pfizer as your primary series, you can get a booster at 5 months or beyond.”
 

A lower risk of myocarditis?

Asked about concerns about the risk of myocarditis with vaccination in the 12- to 15-year age group, Dr. Woodcock said they expect it would be “extremely rare with the third dose.”

“We have the real-world evidence from the Israeli experience to help us with that analysis,” she said.

The data so far consistently points to a higher risk of myocarditis after a second mRNA vaccine dose among males, from teenagers to 30-year-olds, with a peak at about 16 to 17 years of age, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during the media call.

The risk of myocarditis is about 2 to 3 times higher after a second vaccine dose, compared to a booster shot, Dr. Marks said, based on available data. It may be related to the closer dose timing of the second dose versus a third, he added.

“The inference here is that on the risk of myocarditis with third doses in the 12- to 15-year age range is likely to be quite acceptable,” he said.

Dr. Marks also pointed out that most cases of myocarditis clear up quickly.

“We’re not seeing long-lasting effects. That’s not to say that we don’t care about this and that it’s not important,” he said.

“But what it is saying is that in the setting of a tremendous number of Omicron and Delta cases in this country, the potential benefits of getting vaccinated in this age group outweigh that risk,” Dr. Marks said. “We can look at that risk-benefit and still feel comfortable.”

He said that “the really overwhelming majority of these cases, 98%, have been mild” -- shown by a 1-day median hospital stay.

Even so, the FDA plans to continue monitoring for the risk of myocarditis “very closely,” he said.

Interestingly, swollen underarm lymph nodes were seen more frequently after the booster dose than after the second dose of a two-dose primary series, the FDA said.

Reducing the time between primary vaccination with the Pfizer vaccine -- two initial doses -- and the booster shot from 6 months to 5 months is based on decreasing efficacy data that the drugmaker submitted to the FDA.

The 5-month interval was evaluated in a study from Israel published Dec. 21 in the New England Journal of Medicine .
 

Mixing and matching vaccines

Less clear at the moment is guidance about boosters for people who opted to mix and match their primary vaccine series.

“There was a mix-and-match study that was done which showed that in some cases, the mixing and matching … of an adenoviral record vaccine and an mRNA vaccine seem to give a very good immune response,” Dr. Marks said.

Once more data comes in on mixing and matching, “we’ll analyze them and then potentially make recommendations,” he said.
 

‘It’s not too late’

No federal government media briefing on COVID-19 would be complete without a plea for the unvaccinated to get immunized.

“We’re talking a lot about boosters right now, but it’s not too late for those who have not gotten a vaccine to get a vaccine,” Dr. Marks said, referring to the tens of millions of Americans who remain unvaccinated at the beginning of 2022.

“We know from our previous studies that even a single dose of the vaccine -- and probably two doses -- can help prevent the worst outcomes from COVID-19, including hospitalization and death.”

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