Clinician Reviews

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

CHICAGO – A randomized trial suggests resistance exercise promotes better sleep than other workouts among inactive adults, particularly those who are poor sleepers.

“We thought resistance exercise would be somewhere in the same neighborhood as aerobic exercise or that maybe combined exercise would be a little bit better but, no, it was consistently resistance exercise, on its own, that seemed to show the most benefits across the board,” Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, told this news organization.

The results were presented at the recent Epidemiology, Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Even before the pandemic and bedtime “doom scrolling” took hold, research showed that a third of Americans regularly get less than 7 hours of sleep. The AHA recommends aerobic exercise to improve sleep and promote cardiovascular health, yet little is known on how it compares with other types of exercise in the general population, she said.

Dr. Brellenthin and coinvestigator Duck-chul Lee, PhD, both of Iowa State University in Ames, recruited 406 inactive adults, aged 35-70 years, who had obesity or overweight (mean body mass index, 31.2 kg/m²) and had elevated or stage 1 hypertension and randomly assigned them to no exercise or 60 minutes of supervised aerobic, resistance, or combination exercise three times per week for 12 months.

The aerobic exercise group could choose among treadmills, upright or recumbent bikes, and ellipticals, and the participants had their heart rate monitored to ensure they were continuously getting moderate- to vigorous-intensity exercise.

The resistance exercise group performed three sets of 8-16 repetitions at 50%-80% of their one-rep maximum on 12 resistance machines: a leg press, chest press, lat pulldown, leg curl, leg extension, biceps curl, triceps pushdown, shoulder press, abdominal crunch, lower back extension, torso rotation, and hip abduction.

The combination group did 30 minutes of aerobic exercise at moderate to vigorous intensity, and then two sets of 8-16 repetitions of resistance exercise on 9 machines instead of 12.

Exercise adherence over the year was 84%, 77%, and 85%, respectively.

Participants also completed the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at baseline and 12 months. Among the 386 participants (53% women) with evaluable data, 35% had poor-quality sleep, as indicated by a global PSQI score of more than 5, and 42% regularly slept less than 7 hours per night.

In adjusted analyses, sleep duration at 12 months, on average, increased by 13 minutes in the resistance-exercise group (P = .009), decreased by 0.6 minute in the aerobic-exercise group, and increased by 2 minutes in the combined-exercise group and by 4 minutes in the control group.

Among participants who got less than 7 hours of sleep at baseline, however, sleep duration increased by 40 minutes (P < .0001), compared with increases of 23 minutes in the aerobic group, 17 minutes in the combined group, and 15 minutes in the control group.

Overall sleep efficiency, or the ratio of total sleep time to time in bed, improved in the resistance (P = .0005) and combined (P = .03) exercise groups, but not in the aerobic or control groups.

Sleep latency, or the time needed to fall asleep, decreased by 3 minutes in the resistance-exercise group, with no notable changes in the other groups.

Sleep quality and the number of sleep disturbances improved in all groups, including the control group. This could be due to simply being part of a health intervention, which included a month of lifestyle education classes, Dr. Brellenthin suggested.

It’s unclear why the aerobic-exercise group didn’t show greater gains, given the wealth of research showing it improves sleep, she said, but it had fewer poor sleepers at baseline than the resistance group (33% vs. 42%). “So it may be that people who were already getting good sleep didn’t have much room to improve.”

Among the poor-quality sleepers at baseline, resistance exercise significantly improved sleep quality (-2.4 vs. -1.0 points; P = .009) and duration (+36 vs. +3 minutes; P = .02), compared with the control group. It also improved sleep efficiency by 9.0%, compared with 0.9% in the control group (P = .002) and 8.0% for the combined-exercise group (P = .01).

“For a lot of people who know their sleep could be a bit better, this could be a place to start without resorting to medications, if they wanted to focus on a lifestyle intervention,” Dr. Brellenthin said.

It’s not fully understood how resistance exercise improves sleep, but it might contribute to better overall mental health and it might enhance the synthesis and release of certain hormones, such as testosterone and human growth hormone, which are associated with better sleep, Dr. Brellenthin said. Another hypothesis is that it causes direct microscopic damage to muscle tissue, forcing that tissue to adapt and grow over time. “So potentially that microscopic damage could provide that extra signal boost to the brain to replenish and repair, and get this person sleep.”

The study was limited by the use of self-reported sleep outcomes and a lack of detailed information on sleep medications, although 81% of participants reported taking no such medications.

The research was supported by a National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant to Dr. Lee. Dr. Brellenthin reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s now known that tinnitus may be an unexpected side effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and there is an urgent need to understand the precise mechanisms and best treatment for vaccine-associated tinnitus, researchers say.

As of mid-September 2021, 12,247 cases of tinnitus, or ringing in the ears, following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Despite several cases of tinnitus being reported following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the precise pathophysiology is still not clear,” write Syed Hassan Ahmed, 3rd-year MBBS student, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan, and coauthors.

The researchers review what is known and unknown about SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-associated tinnitus in an article published online Feb. 11 in Annals of Medicine and Surgery.
 

Molecular mimicry?

The researchers say cross-reactivity between anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and otologic antigens is one possibility, based on the mechanisms behind other COVID-19 vaccine–induced disorders and the phenomenon of molecular mimicry.

“The heptapeptide resemblance between coronavirus spike glycoprotein and numerous human proteins further supports molecular mimicry as a potential mechanism behind such vaccine-induced disorders,” they write.

Anti-spike antibodies may react with antigens anywhere along the auditory pathway and fuel an inflammatory reaction, they point out.

“Therefore, understanding the phenomenon of cross-reactivity and molecular mimicry may be helpful in postulating potential treatment behind not only tinnitus but also the rare events of vaccination associated hearing loss and other otologic manifestations,” the authors say.

Genetic predispositions and associated conditions may also play a significant role in determining whether an individual develops vaccine-induced tinnitus.

Stress and anxiety following COVID vaccination may also play a role, inasmuch as anxiety-related adverse events following vaccination have been reported. Vaccine-related anxiety as a potential cause of tinnitus developing after vaccination needs to be explored, they write.
 

Jury out on best management

How best to manage COVID vaccine-associated tinnitus also remains unclear, but it starts with a well-established diagnosis, the authors say.

A well-focused and detailed history and examination are essential, with particular emphasis placed on preexisting health conditions, specifically, autoimmune diseases, such as Hashimoto thyroiditis; otologic conditions, such as sensorineural hearing loss; glaucoma; and psychological well-being. According to the review, patients often present with a history of one or more of these disorders.

“However, any such association has not yet been established and requires further investigation to be concluded as potential risk factors for vaccine-induced tinnitus,” they caution.

Routine cranial nerve examination, otoscopy, Weber test, and Rinne test, which are used for tinnitus diagnosis in general, may be helpful for confirmation of vaccine-associated tinnitus.

Owing to the significant association between tinnitus and hearing impairment, audiology should also performed, the authors say.

Although treatments for non–vaccine-induced tinnitus vary significantly, corticosteroids are the top treatment choice for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-induced tinnitus reported in the literature.

Trials of other drug and nondrug interventions that may uniquely help with vaccine-associated tinnitus are urgently needed, the authors say.

Summing up, the reviewers say, “Although the incidence of COVID-19 vaccine-associated tinnitus is rare, there is an overwhelming need to discern the precise pathophysiology and clinical management as a better understanding of adverse events may help in encountering vaccine hesitancy and hence fostering the COVID-19 global vaccination program.

“Despite the incidence of adverse events, the benefits of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in reducing hospitalization and deaths continue to outweigh the rare ramifications,” they conclude.

The research had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

The Biden administration’s new test-to-treat program is simple on the surface: if you feel like you may have COVID-19, go to a pharmacy, get tested, and, if positive, get treated with an antiviral medication on the spot.

But the program is not that simple to groups representing physicians and pharmacists.

One large physicians’ group is concerned that the program leaves doctors on the margins, and may put patients at risk if there are adverse effects from the medications. Pharmacists groups, on the other hand, say the program is too restrictive, according to an article by the research group Advisory Board.

Recently, the White House announced that more than 1,000 pharmacy clinics across the United States had registered to participate in the initiative, according to CNN. Ordering of the drugs is underway in many of these clinics, a White House official told the network.

Besides retail clinics in chain pharmacies, the antivirals will also be available in community health centers, long-term-care facilities, and Veterans Health Administration clinics, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The two antiviral pills authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include Pfizer’s Paxlovid, for people 12 and older, and Merck’s molnupiravir, for adults. Either drug has to be taken within 5 days after symptoms appear to be effective in preventing serious illness.

The need for speed is a major reason why the government chose to work with retail clinics that are more accessible than most primary care offices. However, the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Community Pharmacists Association (NCPA), and the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) have publicly criticized the administration’s approach.

The pharmacists’ groups are concerned that the program is limited only to pharmacies with clinics on site, thus restricting the number of pharmacies qualified to participate. Fourteen pharmacy groups, including the NCPA and the APhA, have also sent a letter to the Biden administration urging it to remove barriers to pharmacies ordering the medications.

The groups also want permission as “clinically trained medication experts” to prescribe the drugs and ensure their safe use.

The AMA on March 4 took issue with the prescribing component, saying that “the pharmacy-based clinic component of the test-to-treat plan flouts patient safety and risks significant negative health outcomes.”

In the AMA’s view, prescribing Paxlovid without a patient’s physician being present poses a risk for adverse drug interactions, as neither the nurse practitioners in retail clinics nor the pharmacists who dispense the drug have full knowledge of a patient›s medical history.

The next day, the AMA released another statement, saying it was reassured by comments from administration officials “that patients who have access to a regular source of care should contact their physician shortly after testing positive for COVID-19 to assess their treatment options.”
 

“Traditional doctor-only approach”

Having patients call their doctors after testing positive for COVID in a pharmacy “strikes me as unnecessary in the vast majority of cases, and it will delay treatment,” Robert Wachter, MD, professor and chair of the department of medicine at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “In this case, it seems like the AMA is taking a very traditional doctor-only approach. And the world has changed. It’s much more of a team sport than an individual sport, the way it was years ago.”

Dr. Wachter said he has the utmost respect for pharmacists’ ability to screen prescriptions for adverse drug interactions. “We’re required to do medication reconciliation when patients see us,” he says. “And in many hospitals, we delegate that to pharmacists. They’re at least as good at it if not better than physicians are.”

While it’s essential to know what other medications a patient is taking, he noted, pharmacies have computer records of all the prescriptions they’ve filled for patients. In addition, pharmacies have access to complete medication histories through Surescripts, the company that enables electronic prescribing transactions between prescribers and pharmacies.
 

Drug interactions “not trivial”

Preeti Malani, MD, the chief health officer and a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, told this news organization that the potential interactions between Paxlovid and some other medications are “not trivial.”

However, she said, “The really dangerous drugs are the ones for people who have had organ transplants and the like. Those aren’t individuals who are going to shop at a pharmacy.”

Besides the antirejection drugs, Dr. Wachter said, there can be serious interactions with cholesterol-lowering medications. If a person is taking Lipitor, for instance, “Someone would have to make the decision on whether it’s ok for me to stop it for a while, or to lower the dose. But I trust the pharmacist to do that as well as anybody.”

Except for these potential drug interactions with Paxlovid, the antiviral medications are “quite safe,” he said, adding that being able to treat people who test positive for COVID-19 right away is a big advantage of the test-to-treat program, considering how difficult it is for many people to get access to a doctor. That delay could mean that the antivirals are not prescribed and taken until they are no longer effective.

Both Dr. Wachter and Dr. Malani said that the widespread distribution of pharmacies and their extended hours are other big pluses, especially for people who can’t easily leave work or travel far to visit a physician.

Dr. Malani cautioned that there are still kinks to work out in the test-to-treat program. It will be a while before the retail clinics all have the antiviral drugs, and many pharmacies don’t have clinics on site.

Still, she said people can still go to their physicians to be tested, and presumably those doctors can also write antiviral prescriptions. But it’s not clear where the antivirals will be available in the near term.

“Right now, we’re playing catch-up,” Dr. Malani said. “But pharmacies are an important piece of the puzzle.”

Looking at the big picture, she said, “We know that neither vaccination nor natural infection provides long lasting immunity, and so there will be a role for antivirals in order to make this a manageable illness. And when you’re talking about millions of cases, as we were having a few months ago, the health system can’t field all those patients. So we do need a system where I can go to a pharmacy and get a test and treatment.”

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Adults with a congenital heart defect (CHD) are at increased risk for serious illness and death when hospitalized with COVID-19, making vaccination and other preventive measures even important in this population, say researchers with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“We found that hospitalized patients with heart defects are up to twice as likely to have critical outcomes of COVID-19 illness (admission to the intensive care unit, use of a ventilator to help with breathing, or death) compared to hospitalized COVID-19 patients without heart defects,” Karrie Downing, MPH, epidemiologist, with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, said in an interview.

“Additionally, we learned that people with hearts defects who were older or who also had other conditions like heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity were the most likely to have critical COVID-19 illness, but children and adults with heart defects without these other conditions were still at increased risk,” Ms. Downing said.

The message for health care providers is clear: “Encourage your patients with heart defects to get vaccinated and discuss with your patients the need for other preventive measures to avoid infection that may progress to severe COVID-19 illness,” Ms. Downing added.

The study was published online March 7, 2022, in Circulation.

The researchers analyzed data on 235,638 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 2020 and January 2021, including 421 (0.2%) with CHD. Most CHD patients were older than 30 years (73%) and 61% were men, with 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Hispanic and 16% non-Hispanic Black.

Overall, 68% of CHD patients had at least one comorbidity, as did 59% of patients without CHD.

Rates of ICU admission were higher in the CHD group (54% vs. 43%), as were rates of invasive mechanical ventilation (24% vs. 15%) and in-hospital death (11% vs. 7%).

After accounting for patient characteristics, ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death were more prevalent among COVID-19 patients with rather than without CHD, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 1.4, 1.8 and 2.0, respectively.

When stratified by high-risk characteristics, prevalence estimates for ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation and death remained higher among patients with COVID-19 and CHD across nearly all strata, including younger age groups and those without heart failure, pulmonary hypertension, Down syndrome, diabetes, or obesity, the researchers reported.

Ms. Downing said more work is needed to identify why the clinical course of COVID-19 disease results in admission to the ICU, the need for a ventilator, or death for some hospitalized patients with CHD and not for others.

“There could be a number of social, environmental, economic, medical, and genetic factors playing a role. But staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines and following preventive measures for COVID-19 are effective ways to reduce the risk of severe illness from COVID-19,” Ms. Downing said.

The study had no specific funding. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People taking immunosuppressive drugs benefit significantly from SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved in the United States to prevent and reduce the severity of COVID-19, according to the first study to quantify the vaccines’ real-world effectiveness in this population.

Researchers’ analysis of the electronic medical records of more than 150,000 people in the University of Michigan’s health care system showed that even after becoming fully vaccinated, immunosuppressed individuals remain at higher risk for COVID-19 than are vaccinated people in the wider population who aren’t receiving immunosuppressive therapy. However, they still derive benefit from vaccination, particularly when bolstered with a booster dose.

BrianAJackson/Thinkstock

The study, published online in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, also claims to be the first to show that the Moderna (mRNA-1273) vaccine is as effective as the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccine for people taking immunosuppressants.

“Booster doses are effective and important for individuals on immunosuppressants,” corresponding author Lili Zhao, PhD, a research associate professor in biostatistics at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Previous studies focused mostly on the Pfizer vaccine, whereas our study is the first that also investigates the Moderna vaccine in a large, immunosuppressed population.”

The epidemiologic study included 154,519 fully vaccinated and unvaccinated adults in the Michigan Medicine electronic health record database. Participants were considered fully vaccinated if they were within 2 weeks of having received a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines or the single-dose Johnson & Johnson (Ad26.COV2.S) vaccine. The study population included 5,536 immunosuppressed patients; of those, 4,283 were fully vaccinated, and 1,253 were unvaccinated.

The researchers focused on data collected from Jan. 1 to Dec. 7, 2021, so the study doesn’t cover the Omicron variant. “The conclusions for immunosuppressed individuals are likely to remain the same during the Omicron period,” Dr. Zhao said. “We are currently investigating this.” Johnson & Johnson paused production of its vaccine in February.

The researchers found that, among unvaccinated individuals, the immunosuppressed group had about a 40% higher risk of infection than did the immunocompetent patients (hazard ratio, 1.398; 95% confidence interval, 1.068-1.829; P = .0075) but a similar risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (HR, 0.951; 95% CI, 0.435-2.080; P = .9984). For the fully vaccinated, the gap was significantly wider: Immunosuppressed patients had more than double the risk of infection (HR, 2.173; 95% CI, 1.690-2.794; P < .0001) and almost five times the risk of hospitalization (HR, 4.861; 95% CI, 2.238-10.56; P < .0001), compared with immunocompetent patients.

However, among immunosuppressed individuals, the vaccinations significantly lowered risks, compared with not being vaccinated. There was a statistically significant 45% lower risk of infection (HR, 0.550; 95% CI, 0.387-0.781; P = .001) and similarly lower risk of hospitalization that did not reach statistical significance (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.196-1.452; P = .3724).

When those immunosuppressed patients received a booster dose, their protection against COVID-19 improved, compared with their immunosuppressed counterparts who didn’t get a booster, with a 58% lower risk of infection after adjustment for age, gender, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.76; P = .0037). The study included nearly 4 months of data after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a booster dose of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines for immunocompromised individuals in August 2021. Among the immunosuppressed patients, 38.5% had received a booster dose.

There also was no apparent difference in the effectiveness between the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, with adjusted hazard ratios showing 41%-48% lower risk of infection. Too few individuals in the study were vaccinated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to enable a sufficiently powered calculation of its effectiveness.

Other studies reach similar conclusions

The study findings fall into line with other studies of patient populations on immunosuppressants. A retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with inflammatory bowel disease who were taking immunosuppressants, published in Gastroenterology, found that full vaccination with either Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines was about 80% effective. Another retrospective cohort study of data from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, published in JAMA Internal Medicine, reported that full vaccination significantly reduced the risk of COVID-19 breakthrough infection regardless of immune status. Immunosuppressed patients in this study had higher rates of breakthrough infections than immunocompetent patients, but the disparities were in line with what Dr. Zhao and the University of Michigan researchers reported.

A review of 23 studies of COVID-19 vaccinations, published in Lancet Global Health, found that immunocompromised people – 1,722 of whom were included in the studies – had lower rates of producing antibodies after two vaccine doses than did immunocompetent people, ranging from 27% to 92%, depending on the nature of their immunocompromised status, compared with 99% for the immunocompetent.
 

Strengths and limitations

One strength of the Michigan study is the quality of data, which were drawn from the Michigan Medicine electronic health record, Dr. Zhao said. “So, we know who received the vaccine and who didn’t. We also have access to data on patient health conditions, such as comorbidities, in addition to demographic variables (age, gender, and race), which were controlled in making fair comparisons between immunosuppressants and immunocompetent groups.”

Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of internal medicine and rheumatology at Washington University in St. Louis, who was not involved with the study, credited Dr. Zhao and associates for delivering the first data that specifically quantified COVID-19 risk reduction in a large study population. Although he noted that the large sample size and the design reduced the chances of confounding and were strengths, he said in an interview that “lumping” the patients taking immunosuppressive drugs into one group was a weakness of the study.

“Clearly, there are certain medications (B-cell depleters, mycophenolate, for example) that carry the greatest risk of poor antibody responses post vaccination,” he said. “One would have to guess that the greatest risk of breakthrough infections continues to be in those patients taking these high-risk medications.”

Another possible problem, which the authors acknowledged, is spotty SARS-CoV-2 testing of study participants – “a systemic issue,” Dr. Kim noted.

“The easiest and most durable way to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19 is through vaccination, period,” he said. “Now we have infection-rates data from a real-world study cohort to prove this. Furthermore, boosting clearly provides additional benefit to this population.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provided funding for the study. Dr. Zhao, Dr. Zhao’s coauthors, and Kim disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Owning an outdoor cat as a child is associated with an increased risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood – but only in males, new research suggests.

Investigators found male children who owned cats that went outside had a small, but significantly increased, risk of psychotic experiences in adulthood, compared with their counterparts who had no cat during childhood or who had an indoor cat.

Courtesy McGill University

The suspected culprit is not the cat itself but rather exposure to Toxoplasma gondii, a common parasite carried by rodents and sometimes found in cat feces. The study adds to a growing evidence showing exposure to T. gondii may be a risk factor for schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders.

“These are small pieces of evidence but it’s interesting to consider that there might be combinations of risk factors at play,” lead author Vincent Paquin, MD, psychiatry resident at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“And even if the magnitude of the risk is small at the individual level,” he added, “cats and Toxoplasma gondii are so present in our society that if we add up all these small potential effects then it becomes a potential public health question.”

The study was published online Jan. 30, 2022, in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

Inconsistent evidence

T. gondii infects about 30% of the human population and is usually transmitted by cats. Most infections are asymptomatic, but T. gondii can cause toxoplasmosis in humans, which has been linked to increased risk of schizophrenia, suicide attempts, and more recently, mild cognitive impairment.

Although some studies show an association between cat ownership and increased risk of mental illness, the research findings have been inconsistent.

“The evidence has been mixed about the association between cat ownership and psychosis expression, so our approach was to consider whether specific factors or combinations of factors could explain this mixed evidence,” Dr. Paquin said.

For the study, 2206 individuals aged 18-40 years completed the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE-42) and a questionnaire to gather information about cat ownership at any time between birth and age 13 and if the cats lived exclusively indoors (nonhunting) or if they were allowed outside (rodent hunting).

Participants were also asked about the number of residential moves between birth and age 15, date and place of birth, lifetime history of head trauma, and tobacco smoking history.

Rodent-hunting cat ownership was associated with higher risk of psychosis in male participants, compared with owning no cat or a nonhunting cat. When the investigators added head trauma and residential moves to rodent-hunting cat ownership, psychosis risk was elevated in both men and women.

Independent of cat ownership, younger age, moving more than three times as a child, a history of head trauma, and being a smoker were all associated with higher psychosis risk.

Courtesy McGill University

The study wasn’t designed to explore potential biological mechanisms to explain the sex differences in psychosis risk seen among rodent-hunting cat owners, but “one possible explanation based on the animal model literature is that the neurobiological effects of parasitic exposure may be greater with male sex,” senior author Suzanne King, PhD, professor of psychiatry at McGill, said in an interview.

The new study is part of a larger, long-term project called EnviroGen, led by Dr. King, examining the environmental and genetic risk factors for schizophrenia.
 

Need for replication

Commenting on the findings, E. Fuller Torrey, MD, who was among the first researchers to identify a link between cat ownership, T. gondii infection, and schizophrenia, said the study is “an interesting addition to the studies of cat ownership in childhood as a risk factor for psychosis.”

Of the approximately 10 published studies on the topic, about half suggest a link between cat ownership and psychosis later in life, said Dr. Torrey, associate director for research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute in Rockville, Md.

“The Canadian study is interesting in that it is the first study that separates exposure to permanently indoor cats from cats that are allowed to go outdoors, and the results were positive only for outdoor cats,” Dr. Torrey said.

The study has limitations, Dr. Torrey added, including its retrospective design and the use of a self-report questionnaire to assess psychotic experiences in adulthood.

Also commenting on findings, James Kirkbride, PhD, professor of psychiatric and social epidemiology, University College London, noted the same limitations.

Dr. Kirkbride is the lead author of a 2017 study that showed no link between cat ownership and serious mental illness that included nearly 5,000 people born in 1991 or 1992 and followed until age 18. In this study, there was no link between psychosis and cat ownership during pregnancy or at ages 4 or 10 years.

“Researchers have long been fascinated with the idea that cat ownership may affect mental health. This paper may have them chasing their own tail,” Dr. Kirkbride said.

“Evidence of any association is limited to certain subgroups without a strong theoretical basis for why this may be the case,” he added. “The retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the survey also raise the possibility that the results are impacted by differential recall bias, as well as the broader issues of chance and unobserved confounding.”

Dr. King noted that recall bias is a limitation the researchers highlighted in their study, but “considering the exposures are relatively objective and factual, we do not believe the potential for recall bias is substantial.”

“Nonetheless, we strongly believe that replication of our results in prospective, population-representative cohorts will be crucial to making firmer conclusions,” he added.

The study was funded by grants from the Quebec Health Research Fund. The study authors and Dr. Kirkbride disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Even mild cases of COVID-19 are associated with brain changes, including decreased gray matter, an overall reduction in brain volume, and cognitive decline, a new imaging study shows.

In the first study to use magnetic resonance brain imaging, before and after COVID-19, investigators found “greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue-contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex and greater reduction in global brain size.” However, the researchers urge caution when interpreting the findings.

Gwenaëlle Douaud, PhD, Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, and colleagues describe these brain changes as “modest.”

“Whether these abnormal changes are the hallmark of the spread of the pathogenic effects in the brain, or of the virus itself, and whether these may prefigure a future vulnerability of the limbic system in particular, including memory, for these participants, remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were published online March 7 in the journal Nature.
 

Gray matter loss

The investigators analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database with genetic and health information for about 500,000 individuals living in the UK. They identified 785 adults aged 51-81 years who had undergone two brain MRIs about 3 years apart. Of these, 401 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before the second scan.

Participants also completed cognitive tests at the time of both scans.

Biobank centers use identical MRI scans and scanning methods, including six types of MRI scans, to image distinct regions of the brain and brain function. Results showed that although some loss of gray matter over time is normal, individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a 0.2% to 2% brain tissue loss in the parahippocampal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula – all of which are largely involved in the sense of smell.

Participants who had contracted COVID-19 also showed a greater reduction in overall brain volume and a decrease in cognitive function.

Most of those with COVID-19 had only mild or moderate symptoms. However, the findings held even after the researchers excluded patients who had been hospitalized.
 

More research needed

“These findings might help explain why some people experience brain symptoms long after the acute infection,” Max Taquet, PhD, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health BRC senior research fellow, University of Oxford, said in a press release.

Dr. Taquet, who was not a part of the study, noted the causes of these brain changes remain to be determined. Questions remain as to “whether they can be prevented or even reverted, as well as whether similar changes are observed in hospitalized patients,” children, younger adults, and minority groups.

“It is possible that these brain changes are not caused by COVID-19 but represent the natural progression of a disease that itself increased the risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Taquet said.

Other experts expressed concern over the findings and emphasized the need for more research.

“I am very concerned by the alarming use of language in the report with terms such as ‘neurodegenerative,’ “ Alan Carson, MD, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said in a press release. “The size and magnitude of brain changes found is very modest and such changes can be caused by a simple change in mental experience,” Dr. Carson said.

“What this study almost certainly shows is the impact, in terms of neural changes, of being disconnected from one’s sense of smell,” he added.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust Collaborative. Full financial conflict information for the study authors is included in the original article. Dr. Taquet has collaborated previously with some of the investigators.

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

Even mild cases of COVID-19 are associated with brain changes, including decreased gray matter, an overall reduction in brain volume, and cognitive decline, a new imaging study shows.

In the first study to use magnetic resonance brain imaging, before and after COVID-19, investigators found “greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue-contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex and greater reduction in global brain size.” However, the researchers urge caution when interpreting the findings.

Gwenaëlle Douaud, PhD, Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, and colleagues describe these brain changes as “modest.”

“Whether these abnormal changes are the hallmark of the spread of the pathogenic effects in the brain, or of the virus itself, and whether these may prefigure a future vulnerability of the limbic system in particular, including memory, for these participants, remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were published online March 7 in the journal Nature.
 

Gray matter loss

The investigators analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database with genetic and health information for about 500,000 individuals living in the UK. They identified 785 adults aged 51-81 years who had undergone two brain MRIs about 3 years apart. Of these, 401 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before the second scan.

Participants also completed cognitive tests at the time of both scans.

Biobank centers use identical MRI scans and scanning methods, including six types of MRI scans, to image distinct regions of the brain and brain function. Results showed that although some loss of gray matter over time is normal, individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a 0.2% to 2% brain tissue loss in the parahippocampal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula – all of which are largely involved in the sense of smell.

Participants who had contracted COVID-19 also showed a greater reduction in overall brain volume and a decrease in cognitive function.

Most of those with COVID-19 had only mild or moderate symptoms. However, the findings held even after the researchers excluded patients who had been hospitalized.
 

More research needed

“These findings might help explain why some people experience brain symptoms long after the acute infection,” Max Taquet, PhD, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health BRC senior research fellow, University of Oxford, said in a press release.

Dr. Taquet, who was not a part of the study, noted the causes of these brain changes remain to be determined. Questions remain as to “whether they can be prevented or even reverted, as well as whether similar changes are observed in hospitalized patients,” children, younger adults, and minority groups.

“It is possible that these brain changes are not caused by COVID-19 but represent the natural progression of a disease that itself increased the risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Taquet said.

Other experts expressed concern over the findings and emphasized the need for more research.

“I am very concerned by the alarming use of language in the report with terms such as ‘neurodegenerative,’ “ Alan Carson, MD, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said in a press release. “The size and magnitude of brain changes found is very modest and such changes can be caused by a simple change in mental experience,” Dr. Carson said.

“What this study almost certainly shows is the impact, in terms of neural changes, of being disconnected from one’s sense of smell,” he added.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust Collaborative. Full financial conflict information for the study authors is included in the original article. Dr. Taquet has collaborated previously with some of the investigators.

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

Even mild cases of COVID-19 are associated with brain changes, including decreased gray matter, an overall reduction in brain volume, and cognitive decline, a new imaging study shows.

In the first study to use magnetic resonance brain imaging, before and after COVID-19, investigators found “greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue-contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex and greater reduction in global brain size.” However, the researchers urge caution when interpreting the findings.

Gwenaëlle Douaud, PhD, Wellcome Center for Integrative Neuroimaging, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, England, and colleagues describe these brain changes as “modest.”

“Whether these abnormal changes are the hallmark of the spread of the pathogenic effects in the brain, or of the virus itself, and whether these may prefigure a future vulnerability of the limbic system in particular, including memory, for these participants, remains to be investigated,” the researchers wrote.

The findings were published online March 7 in the journal Nature.
 

Gray matter loss

The investigators analyzed data from the UK Biobank, a large-scale biomedical database with genetic and health information for about 500,000 individuals living in the UK. They identified 785 adults aged 51-81 years who had undergone two brain MRIs about 3 years apart. Of these, 401 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before the second scan.

Participants also completed cognitive tests at the time of both scans.

Biobank centers use identical MRI scans and scanning methods, including six types of MRI scans, to image distinct regions of the brain and brain function. Results showed that although some loss of gray matter over time is normal, individuals who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 showed a 0.2% to 2% brain tissue loss in the parahippocampal gyrus, the orbitofrontal cortex, and the insula – all of which are largely involved in the sense of smell.

Participants who had contracted COVID-19 also showed a greater reduction in overall brain volume and a decrease in cognitive function.

Most of those with COVID-19 had only mild or moderate symptoms. However, the findings held even after the researchers excluded patients who had been hospitalized.
 

More research needed

“These findings might help explain why some people experience brain symptoms long after the acute infection,” Max Taquet, PhD, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health BRC senior research fellow, University of Oxford, said in a press release.

Dr. Taquet, who was not a part of the study, noted the causes of these brain changes remain to be determined. Questions remain as to “whether they can be prevented or even reverted, as well as whether similar changes are observed in hospitalized patients,” children, younger adults, and minority groups.

“It is possible that these brain changes are not caused by COVID-19 but represent the natural progression of a disease that itself increased the risk of COVID-19,” Dr. Taquet said.

Other experts expressed concern over the findings and emphasized the need for more research.

“I am very concerned by the alarming use of language in the report with terms such as ‘neurodegenerative,’ “ Alan Carson, MD, professor of neuropsychiatry at the Center for Clinical Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, said in a press release. “The size and magnitude of brain changes found is very modest and such changes can be caused by a simple change in mental experience,” Dr. Carson said.

“What this study almost certainly shows is the impact, in terms of neural changes, of being disconnected from one’s sense of smell,” he added.

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust Collaborative. Full financial conflict information for the study authors is included in the original article. Dr. Taquet has collaborated previously with some of the investigators.

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

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

New cases of COVID-19 in children continued their descent toward normalcy, falling below 100,000 in a week for the first time since early August 2021, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

The sixth consecutive week of declines saw just under 69,000 U.S. children test positive for COVID-19 from Feb. 25 to March 3, a drop of almost 46% from the previous week and 94% since the Omicron-fueled peak of 1.15 million during the week of Jan. 14-20, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report. The total number of child cases is 12.7 million since the pandemic began, with children representing 19% of all cases.

New admissions also stayed on a downward path, as the rate dropped to 0.24 per 100,000 children aged 0-17 years on March 5, a decline of nearly 81% since hitting 1.25 per 100,000 on Jan. 15. The latest 7-day average for daily admissions, 178 per day from Feb. 27 to March 5, was 29% lower than the previous week and almost 81% lower than the peak of 914 per day for Jan. 10-16, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported.

The story is the same for emergency department visits with diagnosed COVID-19, which are reported as a percentage of all ED visits. On March 4, the 7-day average for children aged 0-11 years was 0.8%, compared with a high of 13.9% in mid-January, while 12- to 15-year-olds had dropped from 12.4% to 0.5% and 16- to 17-year-olds went from 12.6% down to 0.5%, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

Florida’s surgeon general says no to the vaccine

Vaccination, in the meantime, is struggling to maintain a foothold against the current of declining cases. Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo said that “the Florida Department of Health is going to be the first state to officially recommend against the COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children,” NBC News reported March 7. With such a move, “Florida would become the first state to break from the CDC on vaccines for children,” CNN said in its report.

Vaccinations among children aged 5-11 years, which hit 1.6 million in 1 week shortly after emergency use was authorized in early November, declined quickly shorty thereafter and only rose slightly during the Omicron surge. Since mid-January, the number of children receiving an initial dose has declined for seven consecutive weeks and is now lower than ever, based on CDC data compiled by the AAP.

Just over one-third of children aged 5-11 have gotten at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, while 26.4% are fully vaccinated. Among children aged 12-17, just over two-thirds (67.8%) have received at least one dose, 57.8% have completed the vaccine regimen, and 21.9% have gotten a booster, the CDC reported.

As of March 2, “about 8.4 million children 12-17 have yet to receive their initial COVID-19 vaccine dose,” the AAP said. About 64,000 children aged 12-17 had received their first dose in the previous week, the group noted, which was the second-lowest weekly total since the vaccine was approved for children aged 12-15 in May of 2021.

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

In a bid to stop abuse and diversion of the anticonvulsant gabapentin, a watchdog group is petitioning federal regulators to make the drug a controlled substance.

The nonprofit group Public Citizen has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), arguing that the medication’s risks warrant additional safeguards.

Gabapentin is a generic drug, best known under the brand name Neurontin. The petition also covers the related drug gabapentin enacarbil (Horizant).

Public Citizen requested that gabapentin come under the DEA’s Schedule V category, which already includes the similar drug pregabalin (Lyrica). Schedule V is the lowest rung on the DEA’s drug schedule, meaning it has lower potential for abuse then Schedule I through IV drugs. This tier also includes cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine.

Classifying gabapentin as a Schedule V drug would facilitate better tracking of the drug’s use and misuse and put in place educational and limitation requirements to mitigate the risk of addiction, overdose, and death, Michael Abrams, MPH, PhD, senior health researcher with Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, and colleagues write in the petition.
 

‘Widespread misuse’

There is “substantial evidence of widespread misuse” of gabapentin, plausibly helped by “extraordinary levels of off-label prescribing,” Public Citizen said in the petition.

Some estimates have pegged off-label use at more than 90%, with gabapentin prescribed for indications such as chronic cough, hiccups, postoperative pain, and postmenopausal hot flashes, the group said.

“Moreover, there are numerous reports indicating that gabapentin is widely used and diverted on the street to induce ‘highs’ or otherwise self-medicate,” Public Citizen said. “Both gabapentin and pregabalin have been empirically linked to the opioid overdose epidemic as drugs that potentiate the activity of these oftentimes deadly analgesics.”

This news organization tried several times to reach Azurity for comment but did not receive a response. Pfizer included gabapentin in the portfolio of drugs used to create the Viatris spin-off, which took place in 2020. Pfizer referred this news organization to Viatris for comment, but it also did not respond.

It is unclear how the FDA and DEA will respond to the petition. Public Citizen has received a reply from the FDA, in which the agency acknowledged receipt of the petition. However, the “acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter and in no way reflects the agency’s decision on the substantive merits of the petition,” the FDA said in a letter.

As is common practice, the agency assigned a docket number for the petition, FDA-2022-P-0149. The docket’s website allows interested parties to track the issue.
 

‘Unnoticed’ abuse

There have been rising concerns about risks and abuse of gabapentin in recent years. In its petition, Public Citizen noted that the United Kingdom and several U.S. states have already sought tighter control of gabapentin prescriptions.

In 2019, the United Kingdom announced it would reclassify both pregabalin and gabapentin as class C controlled substances because of the rising numbers of deaths linked to the drugs.

As of November 2020, seven states – Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia – had classified gabapentin as a schedule V drug, while another 12 states required prescription monitoring of the drug, Public Citizen noted.

In 2018, researchers at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a state that has been hit particularly hard by the opioid crisis, tried to draw more attention to the risks of gabapentin.

“Amid the opioid epidemic, abuse of a different prescription painkiller has widely gone unnoticed,” the University said in a press release at the time.

The release highlighted a study led by Rachel Vickers Smith, PhD, assistant professor in the University of Louisville School of Nursing that was published in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.

It included 33 individuals who reported recent recreational use of gabapentin. Use of the drug was combined with buprenorphine, other opioids, cocaine, and caffeine to produce effects such as muscle relaxation, pain reduction, sleep induction, feeling drunk, and feeling “high.”

In the press release, Dr. Vickers Smith said individuals who abuse gabapentin often mix it with opioids, marijuana, cocaine, and opioid treatment medication, compounding side effects to the central nervous system that include euphoria and sedation.

In addition, some individuals who primarily abused opioid pain medication have turned to gabapentin after law-enforcement actions made it more difficult to obtain prescription opioids, she noted.

“People are looking for other drugs to substitute for opioids, and gabapentin has filled that place for some,” Dr. Vickers Smith said. “Some have said it gives them a high similar to opioids.”
 

FDA 2019 warning

In 2019, the FDA issued a warning about serious breathing difficulties associated with gabapentin and pregabalin in patients with respiratory risk factors.

These factors include opioid use and other drugs that depress the central nervous system, as well as conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease that reduce lung function. Older patients are also at higher risk, the FDA said.

The agency noted that gabapentinoids are often co-prescribed with opioids for for medical conditions and abused in combination with opioids. Data collected in 2016 from an office-based physician survey showed 14% of patient encounters involving gabapentin also involved opioids, the FDA said.

“Our evaluation shows that the use of these medicines, often referred to as gabapentinoids, has been growing for prescribed medical use, as well as misuse and abuse,” the agency said in its 2019 alert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus on severe disease prevention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus on severe disease prevention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus on severe disease prevention

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

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

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

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

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

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