Clinician Reviews

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Patients who are being treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors overall show a high immune response rate to COVID-19 vaccination, one that matches the rates seen in patients on other immunosuppressants, a new study has found.

The patients taking a JAK inhibitor who are most at risk of a diminished response may be those on upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and anyone 65 years or older, wrote Raphaèle Seror, MD, PhD, of Paris-Saclay (France) University and coauthors. The study was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

To gauge the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in this subset of immunosuppressed patients, the researchers analyzed 113 participants in the MAJIK-SFR Registry, a multicenter study of French patients with rheumatoid or psoriatic arthritis. The participants were treated at 13 centers throughout France; their mean age was 61.8 years (standard deviation, 12.5), and 72% were female. A total of 56 were taking baricitinib (Olumiant), 30 were taking tofacitinib (Xeljanz), and 27 were taking upadacitinib.

Serologic assessment was performed an average of 8.7 weeks (SD, 5.2) after the last dose of vaccine. The overall response rate – defined as the proportion of patients with detectable anti-spike antibodies per manufacturer’s cutoff values – was 88% (100 of 113). The nonresponse rate was higher with upadacitinib (7 of 27 patients, 26%) than with baricitinib (5 of 56, 9%) or tofacitinib (1 of 30, 3%). The only nonresponders who were not age 65 or older were four of the seven who received upadacitinib. The interval between the last vaccine dose and serologic assessment was somewhat longer in nonresponders (11.3 weeks) than in responders (8.3 weeks).

Earlier this year, the American College of Rheumatology recommended withholding JAK inhibitors for 1 week after each vaccine dose because of “concern related to the effects of this medication class on interferon signaling that may result in a diminished vaccine response Only two patients in the study had treatment with JAK inhibitors stopped before or after vaccination.

Questions about antibody levels remain difficult to answer

“This study does further confirm a big point,” said Alfred Kim, MD, PhD, of Washington University, St. Louis, in an interview. “Most people on any sort of immunosuppression, with rare exceptions, can mount responses to COVID-19 vaccination.”

“What level of response is going to be sufficient, of course, is not clear,” he added. “Even though most people generate responses, at the population level those responses seem lower than those in nonimmunosuppressed people. Particularly for those on upadacitinib, which is lower than patients on the other JAK inhibitors. Is that problematic? We don’t know yet.”

Dr. Kim, who was part of a separate, earlier study that assessed vaccine response in patients with chronic inflammatory disease who were being treated with immunosuppressive medications, noted that many of the questions patients are asking about their antibody levels cannot yet be answered.

“It’s kind of the Wild West of serologic testing out there right now,” he said. “Even though we’re recommending that people still don’t check their antibody levels because their results are largely inactionable, everyone is still getting them anyway. But each of these tests are slightly different, and the results and the interpretation are further clouded because of those slight performance differences between each platform.”

Dr. Kim highlighted the number of different tests as one of this study’s notable limitations: 11 different assays were used to determine patients’ immune responses. “The authors made the argument that these tests are FDA approved, and that’s true, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Approval does translate to technical reliability but not to comparisons between the tests.”

As for next steps, both the authors and Dr. Kim recognized the need for a prospective trial. “To do a vaccine effectiveness–type study and show clinical protection against either infection or hospitalization – those are going to take a while, simply because of the nature of how many people you need for each of these studies,” he said. “Time will tell whether or not the data that are being presented here will translate literally into protective outcomes downstream.”

The MAJIK Registry is supported by the French Rheumatology Society. The authors acknowledged numerous potential conflicts of interest, including receiving consulting fees, research support, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical companies.

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Two biomarkers could potentially indicate which children with SARS-CoV-2 infection will develop severe disease, according to research presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2021 National Conference.

“Most children with COVID-19 present with common symptoms, such as fever, vomiting, and abdominal pain, which are very similar to other common viruses,” said senior researcher Usha Sethuraman, MD, professor of pediatric emergency medicine at Central Michigan University in Detroit.

“It is impossible, in many instances, to predict which child, even after identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection, is going to develop severe consequences, such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome [MIS-C] or severe pneumonia,” she said in an interview.

“In fact, many of these kids have been sent home the first time around as they appeared clinically well, only to return a couple of days later in cardiogenic shock and requiring invasive interventions,” she added. “It would be invaluable to have the ability to know which child is likely to develop severe infection so appropriate disposition can be made and treatment initiated.”

In their prospective observational cohort study, Dr. Sethuraman and her colleagues collected saliva samples from children and adolescents when they were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. They assessed the saliva for micro (mi)RNAs, which are small noncoding RNAs that help regulate gene expression and are “thought to play a role in the regulation of inflammation following an infection,” the researchers write in their poster.

Of the 129 young people assessed, 32 (25%) developed severe infection and 97 (75%) did not. The researchers defined severe infection as an MIS-C diagnosis, death in the 30 days after diagnosis, or the need for at least 2 L of oxygen, inotropes, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The expression of 63 miRNAs was significantly different between young people who developed severe infection and those who did not (P < .05). In cases of severe disease, expression was downregulated for 38 of the 63 miRNAs (60%).

“A model of six miRNAs was able to discriminate between severe and nonsevere infections with high sensitivity and accuracy in a preliminary analysis,” Dr. Sethuraman reported. “While salivary miRNA has been shown in other studies to help differentiate persistent concussion in children, we did not expect them to be downregulated in children with severe COVID-19.”

The significant differences in miRNA expression in those with and without severe disease is “striking,” despite this being an interim analysis in a fairly small sample size, said Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.

“It will be interesting to see if these findings persist when larger numbers are analyzed,” she told this news organization. “Biomarkers that can predict potential severity can be very useful in making risk and management determinations. A child who has the biomarkers that indicate increased severity can be monitored more closely and complications can be preempted and prevented.”

The largest difference between severe and nonsevere cases was in the expression of miRNA 4495. In addition, miRNA 6125 appears to have prognostic potential, the researchers conclude. And three cytokines from saliva samples were elevated in cases of severe infection, but cytokine levels could not distinguish between severe and nonsevere infections, Dr. Sethuraman said.

If further research confirms these findings and determines that these miRNAs truly can provide insight into the likely course of an infection, it “would be a game changer, clinically,” she added, particularly because saliva samples are less invasive and less painful than blood draws.

The potential applications of these biomarkers could extend beyond children admitted to the hospital, Dr. Mohandas noted.

“For example, it would be a noninvasive and easy method to predict potential severity in a child seen in the emergency room and could help with deciding between observation, admission to the general floor, or admission to the ICU,” she told this news organization. “However, this test is not easily or routinely available at present, and cost and accessibility will be the main factors that will have to be overcome before it can be used for this purpose.”

These findings are preliminary, from a small sample, and require confirmation and validation, Dr. Sethuraman cautioned. And the team only analyzed saliva collected at diagnosis, so they have no data on potential changes in cytokines or miRNAs that occur as the disease progresses.

The next step is to “better characterize what happens with time to these profiles,” she explained. “The role of age, race, and gender differences in saliva biomarker profiles needs additional investigation as well.”

It would also be interesting to see whether varied expression of miRNAs “can help differentiate the various complications after COVID-19, like acute respiratory failure, MIS-C, and long COVID,” said Dr. Mohandas. “That would mean it could be used not only to potentially predict severity, but also to predict longer-term outcomes.”

This study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the National Institutes of Health’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) program. Coauthor Steven D. Hicks, MD, PhD, reports being a paid consultant for Quadrant Biosciences.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) have a twofold increased risk for COVID-related hospitalization and death even after vaccination, new research shows.

Investigators analyzed data on over 10,000 vaccinated individuals with various SUDs and almost 600,000 vaccinated individuals without an SUD. They found about twice as many individuals with an SUD had a breakthrough COVID-19 infection as their counterparts without an SUD, at 7% versus 3.6%, respectively.

Worrisome phase

SUDs are “often associated with multiple comorbid conditions that are known risk factors for severe outcome of COVID-19 infection,” the investigators note.

Research published early in the pandemic showed patients with SUDs, including alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, opioid, and tobacco use disorders, were “at increased risk for COVID-19 infection and associated severe outcomes, especially among African Americans,” they add.

To date, no research has focused on the potential risk for COVID in individuals with SUDs following vaccination. In addition, although vaccines are “very effective,” breakthrough infections have been recorded, “highlighting the need to identify populations that might be most vulnerable, as we have entered a worrisome new phase of the pandemic,” the authors write.

For the study, researchers used a data analytics platform that included de-identified information from 63 health care organizations across the U.S. to estimate the risk for breakthrough COVID-19 among vaccinated patients with SUD (n = 30,183; mean age 59.3, 51.4% male, 63.2% White, 26.2% African American), compared with vaccinated individuals without SUDs (n = 549,189; mean age 54.7, 43.2% male, 63.4% White, 14.3% African American) between December 2020 and August 2021.

They also conducted statistical analyses to examine how the rate of breakthrough cases changed over that timeframe.

The cohorts were matched by demographics, adverse socioeconomic determinants of health, lifetime medical and psychiatric comorbidities, and vaccine type.

Among vaccinated SUD patients, three-quarters received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, one-fifth received the Moderna vaccine, and 3.3% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

In contrast, among the vaccinated non-SUD population, almost all (88.2%) received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 10% received Moderna, and only 1.2% received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
 

Underlying drivers

The prevalence of adverse socioeconomic determinants of health was higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (7.9% vs. 1.2%, respectively). Moreover, vaccinated patients with SUD had a higher lifetime prevalence of all comorbidities as well as transplants (all Ps < .001).

The risk for breakthrough infection was significantly higher in vaccinated individuals with SUDs compared to those without (all Ps < .001).

After controlling for adverse socioeconomic determinants of health and comorbid medical conditions, the risk for breakthrough infection “no longer differed in SUD compared to non-SUD cohorts, except for patients with cannabis use disorder, who remained at significantly increased risk,” the authors report.

In both populations, the rate of breakthrough infections “steadily increased” between January and August 2021.

The risk for hospitalization and death was higher among those with breakthrough infections, compared with those in the matched cohort without breakthrough infections, but the risk for hospitalization and death were higher in the SUD compared with the non-SUD population.

In the SUD patients, after matching an array of demographic, socioeconomic, and medical factors as well as vaccine type, only cannabis use disorder was associated with a higher risk in African Americans, compared with matched Caucasians (HR = 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.51).

“When we adjusted the data to account for comorbidities and for socioeconomic background, we no longer saw a difference between those with substance use disorders and those without – the only exception to this was for people with cannabis use disorder,” said Dr. Volkow.

“This suggests that these factors, which are often associated with substance use disorders, are likely the underlying drivers for the increased risk,” she continued.

She added that it is important for other studies to investigate why individuals with cannabis use disorder had a higher risk for breakthrough infections.
 

Good news, bad news

Commenting for this news organization, Anna Lembke, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said the study is important and contains good news and bad news.

The good news, she said, “is that, after controlling for comorbidities and socioeconomic variables, patients with SUDs are no more likely than patients without SUDs to get COVID after getting vaccinated, and the bad news is that if vaccinated patients with SUDs do get COVID, they’re more likely to end up hospitalized or die from it,” said Dr. Lembke, who was not involved with the study.

“The take-home message for clinicians is that if your vaccinated patient with an SUD gets COVID, be on the alert for a more complicated medical outcome and a higher risk of death,” warned Dr. Lembke.

This study was supported by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse, the U.S. National Institute of Aging, and the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative (CTSC) of Cleveland. No disclosures were listed on the original study. Dr. Lembke has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An 8-month high-intensity resistance and impact training program (HiRIT, Onero) led to greater gains in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) and leg/back strength than a low-intensity Pilates-based program (Buff Bones).
 

BeyondImages/Getty Images

These findings are from the Medication and Exercise for Osteoporosis (MEDEX-OP) trial, which included 115 postmenopausal women with low bone mass. Patients were randomly assigned to attend either the HiRIT or Pilates-based exercise program. The participants attended supervised 45-min sessions twice weekly.

HiRIT was better than the low-intensity Pilates-based exercise program for enhancing bone mass, muscle strength, functional performance, and stature, the researchers reported. The low-intensity program did improve function, but to a lesser extent

Of the 115 participants, most (86) were not taking osteoporosis medicine. For the 29 women who were receiving it, the medication appeared to enhance the effect of exercise.

Melanie Fischbacher, PhD candidate, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia, presented these findings in an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research; the study was also published in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

The study’s senior author, Belinda R. Beck, PhD, director of the Bone Clinic in Brisbane, Australia, developed the Onero HiRIT program and has licensed it to others in Australia.

“It is a very effective program and we have shown it can be undertaken safely, but it must be supervised because of the heavy weights and high-risk clientele,” Beck stressed to this news organization.

“This is not a program you should just hand to a patient and tell them to do in a gym,” she said.

“Both forms of exercise in our study were beneficial for functional outcomes but Onero improved back extensor strength, mobility and stature considerably more than Buff Bones,” Ms. Fischbacher said in an interview.

Nevertheless, “the contribution of functional capacity to risk of falling and fracture cannot be overstated, and bone medications do not address function,” she noted.

“More trials combining bone medication and bone-targeted exercise are needed,” the researchers concluded.

Compliance stands out, study supports high-intensity exercise

Kristen M. Beavers, PhD, MPH, RD, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization that participant compliance in the study really stands out.

“Compliance to an 8-month, 2 day/week high-intensity resistance training program among older women with low bone mass was quite good in this study [>80%], with very few adverse events reported,” said Dr. Beavers, of the department of health and exercise science, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, N.C.

“A lot of individuals wouldn’t even consider recommending this type/intensity of exercise to this population, because they are worried it is too risky and/or the uptake will be low,” she said.

Although the benefit in BMD and strength wasn’t seen universally across all bone/muscle outcomes assessed, the findings do reinforce the idea that high-intensity exercise is more efficacious for bone health than low-intensity exercise, she noted.

“The possible additive effect of high-intensity exercise when combined with medication is worth confirming in larger, adequately designed/powered studies,” according to Dr. Beavers.

“The general consensus in the field is that higher-intensity exercise is more osteogenic than low-intensity exercise, but improving muscle mass, quality, and function (including balance) are also important to reduce the risk of falls, which is a major contributor to incident fracture,” she noted.

Exercise, even low-intensity exercise, reduces the risk for falls, as shown in a recent meta-analysis, she added. This is something antiresorptive medications don’t do.
 

Building on the LIFTMOR and LIFTMOR-M Trials

Previously, the Australian group showed that HiRIT is efficacious and safe for bone formation in individuals with low to very low bone mass – in postmenopausal women in the LIFTMOR study (J Bone Miner Res. 2017 Oct 4 .doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3284), and in men in the LIFTMOR-M study.

The current study compared two exercise programs. The researchers randomly assigned 86 women who were not taking antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (42) or low-intensity (44) exercise program. They also assigned 29 women who were receiving antiresorptive medication to the high-intensity (15) or low-intensity (14) exercise program.

In the high-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (12), risedronate (2) or alendronate (1). In the low-intensity exercise plus medication subgroup, the women were taking denosumab (9), risedronate (1), alendronate (3), or zoledronic acid (1).

The mean age of the women was 64-68 years. The mean lumbar spine T score was –1.5 to –2.3, and the mean femoral neck T score was –1.7 to –2.0 (determined by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) .

The HiRIT training program consisted of three free-weight resistance training exercises (deadlift, back squat, overhead press), one high-impact exercise (jump drop), and two balance exercises. The exercises varied each session.

The low-intensity training consisted of bone-specific Pilates-based exercises performed on the mat; standing weight-bearing exercise with 1-kg dumbbells; and impact exercises, such as heel drops and stomping.

At 8 months, compared with women in the low-intensity exercise program, those in the HiRIT program demonstrated greater improvement in lumbar spine BMD (1.9% vs. 0.1%) and stature (0.2 cm vs. 0.0 cm), muscle strength, and functional performance.

Functional performance improved with both exercise programs, but the HiRIT program led to greater leg and back muscle strength and better results in the five times sit-to-stand test (P < .05).

HiRIT plus bone medication improved BMD at the femoral neck and total hip, whereas HiRIT alone did not. Low-intensity exercise plus bone medication improved BMD at the lumbar spine and total hip, whereas low-intensity exercise alone did not.

The retention rate was 90%. The rate of exercise compliance was 83% in the high-intensity group and 82% in the low-intensity group.

Thirty falls were reported by 24 participants (21%). One fracture occurred in each exercise group. Three adverse events occurred in the low-intensity group, and four occurred in the high-intensity group.

Dr. Beck owns the Bone Clinic and sells licenses to the Onero program. The other researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

A new U.S. government study shows it isn’t risky and may even be a good idea to mix, rather than match, COVID-19 vaccines when getting a booster dose.

The study also shows mixing different kinds of vaccines appears to spur the body to make higher levels of virus-blocking antibodies than they would have gotten by boosting with a dose of the vaccine the person already had.

If regulators endorse the study findings, it should make getting a COVID-19 booster as easy as getting a yearly influenza vaccine.

“Currently when you go to do your flu shot nobody asks you what kind you had last year. Nobody cares what you had last year. And we were hoping that that was the same — that we would be able to boost regardless of what you had [previously],” said the study’s senior author, John Beigel, MD, who is associate director for clinical research in the division of microbiology and infectious diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

“But we needed to have the data,” he said.

Studies have suggested that higher antibody levels translate into better protection against disease, though the exact level that confers protection is not yet known.

“The antibody responses are so much higher [with mix and match], it’s really impressive,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Shaffner said if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sign off on the approach, he would especially recommend that people who got the Johnson & Johnson vaccine follow up with a dose of an mRNA vaccine from Pfizer or Moderna.

“It is a broader stimulation of the immune system, and I think that broader stimulation is advantageous,” he said.

Minimal side effects

The preprint study was published late Oct. 13 in medRxiv ahead of peer review, just before a slate of meetings involving vaccine experts that advise the FDA and CDC. 

These experts are tasked with trying to figure out whether additional shots of Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines are safe and effective for boosting immunity against COVID-19.

The FDA’s panel is the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), and the CDC’s panel is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 

During the pandemic, they have been meeting almost in lock step to tackle important vaccine-related questions.

“We got this data out because we knew VRBPAC was coming and we knew ACIP was going to grapple with these issues,” Dr. Beigel said.

He noted that these are just the first results. The study will continue for a year, and the researchers aim to deeply characterize the breadth and depth of the immune response to all nine of the different vaccine combinations included in the study.

The study included 458 participants at 10 study sites around the country who had been fully vaccinated with one of the three COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use in the United States: Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, or Pfizer-BioNTech. 

About 150 study participants were recruited from each group. Everyone in the study had finished their primary series at least 12 weeks before starting the study. None had a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.

About 50 participants from each vaccine group were randomly assigned to get a third (booster) dose of either the same vaccine as the one they had already received, or a different vaccine, creating nine possible combinations of shots.

About half of study participants reported mild side effects — including pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle aches.

Two study participants had serious medical problems during the study, but they were judged to be unrelated to vaccination. One study participant experienced kidney failure after their muscles broke down following a fall. The other experienced cholecystitis, or an inflamed gallbladder. 

Up to 1 month after the booster shots, no other serious adverse events were seen.

The study didn’t look at whether people got COVID-19, so it’s not possible to say that they were better protected against disease after their boosters.

Increase in antibodies

But all the groups saw substantial increases in their antibody levels, which is thought to indicate that they were better protected.

Overall, groups that got the same vaccine as their primary series saw 4 to 20-fold increases in their antibody levels. Groups that got different shots than the ones in their primary series got 6 to 76 fold increases in their antibody levels.

People who had originally gotten a Johnson & Johnson vaccine saw far bigger increases in antibodies, and were more likely to see a protective rise in antibodies if they got a second dose of an mRNA vaccine.

Dr. Schaffner noted that European countries had already been mixing the vaccine doses this way, giving people who had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, which is similar to the Johnson & Johnson shot, another dose of an mRNA vaccine.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel received a Moderna vaccine for her second dose after an initial shot of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines, for example.

No safety signals related to mixing vaccines has been seen in countries that routinely use the approach for their initial series.

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

Many pediatric patients with headache experienced increased headache frequency, increased anxiety, and worsening mood through the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly released survey finds. But some actually found the pandemic era to be less stressful since they were tightly wound and could more easily control their home environments, a researcher said.

“We need to be very mindful of the connections between school and home environments – and social situations – and how they impact headache frequency,” said Marc DiSabella, DO, a pediatric neurologist at Children’s National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington. He is coauthor of a poster presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Dr. DiSabella and colleagues launched the survey to understand what headache patients were experiencing during the pandemic. They expected that “things were going to go really terrible in terms of headaches – or things would go great, and then things would crash when we had to reintegrate into society,” he said in an interview.

The team surveyed 113 pediatric patients who were evaluated at the hospital’s headache clinic between summer 2020 and winter 2021. Most of the patients were female (60%) and were aged 12-17 years (63%). Twenty-one percent were younger than 12 and 16% were older than 17. Chronic migraine (37%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by migraine with aura (22%), migraine without aura (19%), and new daily persistent headache (15%).

Nearly half (46%) of patients said their headaches had worsened during the pandemic. Many also reported more anxiety (55%), worsened mood (48%) and more stress (55%).

Dr. DiSabella said it’s especially notable that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed reported they were exercising less during the pandemic. Research has suggested that exercise and proper diet/sleep are crucial to improving headaches in kids, he said, and the survey findings suggest that exercise may be especially important. “Engaging in physical activity changes their pain threshold,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 60% of those surveyed said they looked at screens more than 6 hours per day. According to Dr. DiSabella, high screen use may not be worrisome from a headache perspective. “We have another study in publication that shows there’s not a clear association between frequency of screen use and headache intensity,” he said.

The survey doesn’t examine what has happened in recent weeks as schools have reopened. Anecdotally, Dr. DiSabella said some patients with migraine are feeling the stress of returning to normal routines. “They tend to be type A perfectionists and do well when they’re in control of their environment,” he said. “Now they’ve lost the control they had at home and are being put back into a stressful environment.”
 

Pandemic effects mixed

Commenting on the study, child neurologist Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, questioned the finding that many children suffered from more headaches during the pandemic. In his experience, “headaches were overall better when [children] were doing virtual learning,” he said in an interview. “We had fewer admissions, ED visits declined, and patients were maintaining better healthy habits. Some did express anxiety about not seeing friends, but were accommodating by doing this remotely.”

He added: “Since their return, kids are back to the same sleep deprivation issue since schools start too early, and they have more difficulty treating headaches acutely since they have to go to the nurse’s office [to do so]. They self-report a higher degree of stress and anxiety.”

On the other hand, Jack Gladstein, MD, a child neurologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview that most of his patients suffered more headaches during the pandemic, although a small number with social anxiety thrived because they got to stay at home.

He agreed with Dr. DiSabella about the value of exercise. “At every visit we remind our youngsters with migraine to eat breakfast, exercise, get regular sleep, and drink fluids,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The study authors, Dr. Hershey, and Dr. Gladstein reported no disclosures.

Many pediatric patients with headache experienced increased headache frequency, increased anxiety, and worsening mood through the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly released survey finds. But some actually found the pandemic era to be less stressful since they were tightly wound and could more easily control their home environments, a researcher said.

“We need to be very mindful of the connections between school and home environments – and social situations – and how they impact headache frequency,” said Marc DiSabella, DO, a pediatric neurologist at Children’s National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington. He is coauthor of a poster presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Dr. DiSabella and colleagues launched the survey to understand what headache patients were experiencing during the pandemic. They expected that “things were going to go really terrible in terms of headaches – or things would go great, and then things would crash when we had to reintegrate into society,” he said in an interview.

The team surveyed 113 pediatric patients who were evaluated at the hospital’s headache clinic between summer 2020 and winter 2021. Most of the patients were female (60%) and were aged 12-17 years (63%). Twenty-one percent were younger than 12 and 16% were older than 17. Chronic migraine (37%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by migraine with aura (22%), migraine without aura (19%), and new daily persistent headache (15%).

Nearly half (46%) of patients said their headaches had worsened during the pandemic. Many also reported more anxiety (55%), worsened mood (48%) and more stress (55%).

Dr. DiSabella said it’s especially notable that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed reported they were exercising less during the pandemic. Research has suggested that exercise and proper diet/sleep are crucial to improving headaches in kids, he said, and the survey findings suggest that exercise may be especially important. “Engaging in physical activity changes their pain threshold,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 60% of those surveyed said they looked at screens more than 6 hours per day. According to Dr. DiSabella, high screen use may not be worrisome from a headache perspective. “We have another study in publication that shows there’s not a clear association between frequency of screen use and headache intensity,” he said.

The survey doesn’t examine what has happened in recent weeks as schools have reopened. Anecdotally, Dr. DiSabella said some patients with migraine are feeling the stress of returning to normal routines. “They tend to be type A perfectionists and do well when they’re in control of their environment,” he said. “Now they’ve lost the control they had at home and are being put back into a stressful environment.”
 

Pandemic effects mixed

Commenting on the study, child neurologist Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, questioned the finding that many children suffered from more headaches during the pandemic. In his experience, “headaches were overall better when [children] were doing virtual learning,” he said in an interview. “We had fewer admissions, ED visits declined, and patients were maintaining better healthy habits. Some did express anxiety about not seeing friends, but were accommodating by doing this remotely.”

He added: “Since their return, kids are back to the same sleep deprivation issue since schools start too early, and they have more difficulty treating headaches acutely since they have to go to the nurse’s office [to do so]. They self-report a higher degree of stress and anxiety.”

On the other hand, Jack Gladstein, MD, a child neurologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview that most of his patients suffered more headaches during the pandemic, although a small number with social anxiety thrived because they got to stay at home.

He agreed with Dr. DiSabella about the value of exercise. “At every visit we remind our youngsters with migraine to eat breakfast, exercise, get regular sleep, and drink fluids,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The study authors, Dr. Hershey, and Dr. Gladstein reported no disclosures.

Many pediatric patients with headache experienced increased headache frequency, increased anxiety, and worsening mood through the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, a newly released survey finds. But some actually found the pandemic era to be less stressful since they were tightly wound and could more easily control their home environments, a researcher said.

“We need to be very mindful of the connections between school and home environments – and social situations – and how they impact headache frequency,” said Marc DiSabella, DO, a pediatric neurologist at Children’s National Hospital/George Washington University, Washington. He is coauthor of a poster presented at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

Dr. DiSabella and colleagues launched the survey to understand what headache patients were experiencing during the pandemic. They expected that “things were going to go really terrible in terms of headaches – or things would go great, and then things would crash when we had to reintegrate into society,” he said in an interview.

The team surveyed 113 pediatric patients who were evaluated at the hospital’s headache clinic between summer 2020 and winter 2021. Most of the patients were female (60%) and were aged 12-17 years (63%). Twenty-one percent were younger than 12 and 16% were older than 17. Chronic migraine (37%) was the most common diagnosis, followed by migraine with aura (22%), migraine without aura (19%), and new daily persistent headache (15%).

Nearly half (46%) of patients said their headaches had worsened during the pandemic. Many also reported more anxiety (55%), worsened mood (48%) and more stress (55%).

Dr. DiSabella said it’s especially notable that nearly two-thirds of those surveyed reported they were exercising less during the pandemic. Research has suggested that exercise and proper diet/sleep are crucial to improving headaches in kids, he said, and the survey findings suggest that exercise may be especially important. “Engaging in physical activity changes their pain threshold,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 60% of those surveyed said they looked at screens more than 6 hours per day. According to Dr. DiSabella, high screen use may not be worrisome from a headache perspective. “We have another study in publication that shows there’s not a clear association between frequency of screen use and headache intensity,” he said.

The survey doesn’t examine what has happened in recent weeks as schools have reopened. Anecdotally, Dr. DiSabella said some patients with migraine are feeling the stress of returning to normal routines. “They tend to be type A perfectionists and do well when they’re in control of their environment,” he said. “Now they’ve lost the control they had at home and are being put back into a stressful environment.”
 

Pandemic effects mixed

Commenting on the study, child neurologist Andrew D. Hershey, MD, PhD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, questioned the finding that many children suffered from more headaches during the pandemic. In his experience, “headaches were overall better when [children] were doing virtual learning,” he said in an interview. “We had fewer admissions, ED visits declined, and patients were maintaining better healthy habits. Some did express anxiety about not seeing friends, but were accommodating by doing this remotely.”

He added: “Since their return, kids are back to the same sleep deprivation issue since schools start too early, and they have more difficulty treating headaches acutely since they have to go to the nurse’s office [to do so]. They self-report a higher degree of stress and anxiety.”

On the other hand, Jack Gladstein, MD, a child neurologist at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in an interview that most of his patients suffered more headaches during the pandemic, although a small number with social anxiety thrived because they got to stay at home.

He agreed with Dr. DiSabella about the value of exercise. “At every visit we remind our youngsters with migraine to eat breakfast, exercise, get regular sleep, and drink fluids,” he said.

No study funding was reported. The study authors, Dr. Hershey, and Dr. Gladstein reported no disclosures.

The proportion of children caught up on vaccinations is lower than 2019 levels, despite an increase in weekly vaccine administration among children from summer to fall 2020.

The finding, published in JAMA Pediatrics, joins a growing collection of studies examining the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on routine pediatric vaccine delivery. A 2021 survey from the Urban Institute that found that nearly one in five parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“We need to think about what additional interventions are needed to promote catch-up vaccination, especially for those at-risk populations that we saw were undervaccinated even prior to the pandemic,” study author Malini B. DeSilva, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “[That means] working creatively to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to receive these recommended vaccines.”

While examining data on pediatric vaccination of 1.4 million children between Jan. 5, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, across eight health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Dr. DeSilva and colleagues saw vaccination administration rates return to near prepandemic levels after an initial decline, particularly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines specified that in-person visits for children younger than 2 years should be prioritized.

“I think we’ve all been concerned and aware that people just weren’t bringing their children to their pediatricians as frequently [caused by] the fear of being in medical settings during the heat of the pandemic,” said James Schneider, MD, who was not involved with the study. “So it’s not surprising that we saw lower rates of overall vaccinations in all age groups.”

The current study found that lower vaccination rates persisted among most age groups from March to September 2020. However, during the period of expanded primary care, which took place between May and October 2020, vaccination administration rates in infants younger than 2 years old and children aged 4-6 years approached or were equal to 2019 rates. However, these rebounds were not enough to make up for the missed vaccines.

Still, only 74% of infants reaching 7 months old in September 2020 were caught up on their vaccinations, compared with 81% of infants turning the same age in 2019. Researchers also found that, compared with 61% of infants reaching 18 months in September 2019, only 57% of 18-month-olds were up to date with vaccinations in September 2020. However, the proportion of 6-, 13-, and 18-year-olds up to date on vaccinations were about the same in 2020 and 2019.

Racial disparities also persisted during this time, with Black children having the lowest proportion of up-to-date vaccinations for most ages from January to September 2020. Although these disparities were evident prior to the pandemic, these differences became more pronounced for the 18-month-old age group, where just 41% of Black infants were up to date in vaccinations, compared with 76% of Asian infants, 54% of Hispanics infants, and 56% of White infants.

Dr. Schneider believes Dr. DeSilva’s study is a “robust” one and paints an accurate picture of the pandemic’s effect on pediatric vaccinations, despite examining data from just eight health systems.

“I think it’s a fairly reasonable representation of what we already have been recognizing during the pandemic,” he explained. “Which is that people are really reluctant to go to their physicians’ offices for routine care because of the fear of getting sick. I think the study emphasized the importance of catching these children up to keep them safe in the future.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a childhood immunization schedule that protects children against 14 infectious diseases before their second birthday. Since the on-time administration of these vaccines is essential for preventing communicable diseases, many pediatric offices are trying to ensure a safe environment for patients and families, said Dr. Schneider, chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York.

There’s also some concern that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy my spillover into routine childhood vaccinations, especially for families who were already hesitant toward the routine well-established vaccine schedule for children.

The CDC and AAP recommend that children continue to receive recommended vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To boost the number of children caught up on vaccinations, health system and community-level interventions are needed, especially in underserved communities, the researchers wrote. Additionally, enforcing mandates that require vaccination prior to school entry could also increase vaccine administration across populations and reduce disparities.

The study emphasizes the “immediate and lagging” disruptions in the delivery of pediatric health care caused by the pandemic, which will likely have long-term consequences for pediatric health, Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a solicited commentary.

However, interventions tailored to specific age groups could help remedy this. These include increasing the frequency of well-child care during the next year of life for infants younger than 24 months and prioritizing visits with 13-year-old adolescents who are behind on vaccinations.

“Although there is no evidence base for this approach, such a change could create not only catch-up opportunities for vaccination for children delayed at age 7 and 18 months, but also provide opportunities to attend to developmental concerns and social needs that have emerged during COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Jenssen, a researcher and primary care pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Other practices such as reaching out to patients and families directly via text message, email, or phone to “notify them of needed vaccinations,” vaccine mandates, and having pediatric health systems partner with alternative settings to promote vaccination could also get kids back on track, health wise. Furthermore, financial incentives from insurers or primary care practices also may help.

“The COVID-19 pandemic’s lost care may have long-term consequences unless pediatric health care systems and child health advocates are proactive in engaging families to take advantage of every opportunity to catch up,” Dr. Jenssen wrote.

The proportion of children caught up on vaccinations is lower than 2019 levels, despite an increase in weekly vaccine administration among children from summer to fall 2020.

The finding, published in JAMA Pediatrics, joins a growing collection of studies examining the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on routine pediatric vaccine delivery. A 2021 survey from the Urban Institute that found that nearly one in five parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“We need to think about what additional interventions are needed to promote catch-up vaccination, especially for those at-risk populations that we saw were undervaccinated even prior to the pandemic,” study author Malini B. DeSilva, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “[That means] working creatively to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to receive these recommended vaccines.”

While examining data on pediatric vaccination of 1.4 million children between Jan. 5, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, across eight health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Dr. DeSilva and colleagues saw vaccination administration rates return to near prepandemic levels after an initial decline, particularly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines specified that in-person visits for children younger than 2 years should be prioritized.

“I think we’ve all been concerned and aware that people just weren’t bringing their children to their pediatricians as frequently [caused by] the fear of being in medical settings during the heat of the pandemic,” said James Schneider, MD, who was not involved with the study. “So it’s not surprising that we saw lower rates of overall vaccinations in all age groups.”

The current study found that lower vaccination rates persisted among most age groups from March to September 2020. However, during the period of expanded primary care, which took place between May and October 2020, vaccination administration rates in infants younger than 2 years old and children aged 4-6 years approached or were equal to 2019 rates. However, these rebounds were not enough to make up for the missed vaccines.

Still, only 74% of infants reaching 7 months old in September 2020 were caught up on their vaccinations, compared with 81% of infants turning the same age in 2019. Researchers also found that, compared with 61% of infants reaching 18 months in September 2019, only 57% of 18-month-olds were up to date with vaccinations in September 2020. However, the proportion of 6-, 13-, and 18-year-olds up to date on vaccinations were about the same in 2020 and 2019.

Racial disparities also persisted during this time, with Black children having the lowest proportion of up-to-date vaccinations for most ages from January to September 2020. Although these disparities were evident prior to the pandemic, these differences became more pronounced for the 18-month-old age group, where just 41% of Black infants were up to date in vaccinations, compared with 76% of Asian infants, 54% of Hispanics infants, and 56% of White infants.

Dr. Schneider believes Dr. DeSilva’s study is a “robust” one and paints an accurate picture of the pandemic’s effect on pediatric vaccinations, despite examining data from just eight health systems.

“I think it’s a fairly reasonable representation of what we already have been recognizing during the pandemic,” he explained. “Which is that people are really reluctant to go to their physicians’ offices for routine care because of the fear of getting sick. I think the study emphasized the importance of catching these children up to keep them safe in the future.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a childhood immunization schedule that protects children against 14 infectious diseases before their second birthday. Since the on-time administration of these vaccines is essential for preventing communicable diseases, many pediatric offices are trying to ensure a safe environment for patients and families, said Dr. Schneider, chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York.

There’s also some concern that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy my spillover into routine childhood vaccinations, especially for families who were already hesitant toward the routine well-established vaccine schedule for children.

The CDC and AAP recommend that children continue to receive recommended vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To boost the number of children caught up on vaccinations, health system and community-level interventions are needed, especially in underserved communities, the researchers wrote. Additionally, enforcing mandates that require vaccination prior to school entry could also increase vaccine administration across populations and reduce disparities.

The study emphasizes the “immediate and lagging” disruptions in the delivery of pediatric health care caused by the pandemic, which will likely have long-term consequences for pediatric health, Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a solicited commentary.

However, interventions tailored to specific age groups could help remedy this. These include increasing the frequency of well-child care during the next year of life for infants younger than 24 months and prioritizing visits with 13-year-old adolescents who are behind on vaccinations.

“Although there is no evidence base for this approach, such a change could create not only catch-up opportunities for vaccination for children delayed at age 7 and 18 months, but also provide opportunities to attend to developmental concerns and social needs that have emerged during COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Jenssen, a researcher and primary care pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Other practices such as reaching out to patients and families directly via text message, email, or phone to “notify them of needed vaccinations,” vaccine mandates, and having pediatric health systems partner with alternative settings to promote vaccination could also get kids back on track, health wise. Furthermore, financial incentives from insurers or primary care practices also may help.

“The COVID-19 pandemic’s lost care may have long-term consequences unless pediatric health care systems and child health advocates are proactive in engaging families to take advantage of every opportunity to catch up,” Dr. Jenssen wrote.

The proportion of children caught up on vaccinations is lower than 2019 levels, despite an increase in weekly vaccine administration among children from summer to fall 2020.

The finding, published in JAMA Pediatrics, joins a growing collection of studies examining the COVID-19 pandemic’s effect on routine pediatric vaccine delivery. A 2021 survey from the Urban Institute that found that nearly one in five parents delayed or did not get care for their children in the past 12 months because of fear of exposure to the virus.

“We need to think about what additional interventions are needed to promote catch-up vaccination, especially for those at-risk populations that we saw were undervaccinated even prior to the pandemic,” study author Malini B. DeSilva, MD, MPH, said in an interview. “[That means] working creatively to ensure that all children would have the opportunity to receive these recommended vaccines.”

While examining data on pediatric vaccination of 1.4 million children between Jan. 5, 2020, and Oct. 3, 2020, across eight health systems in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Dr. DeSilva and colleagues saw vaccination administration rates return to near prepandemic levels after an initial decline, particularly after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines specified that in-person visits for children younger than 2 years should be prioritized.

“I think we’ve all been concerned and aware that people just weren’t bringing their children to their pediatricians as frequently [caused by] the fear of being in medical settings during the heat of the pandemic,” said James Schneider, MD, who was not involved with the study. “So it’s not surprising that we saw lower rates of overall vaccinations in all age groups.”

The current study found that lower vaccination rates persisted among most age groups from March to September 2020. However, during the period of expanded primary care, which took place between May and October 2020, vaccination administration rates in infants younger than 2 years old and children aged 4-6 years approached or were equal to 2019 rates. However, these rebounds were not enough to make up for the missed vaccines.

Still, only 74% of infants reaching 7 months old in September 2020 were caught up on their vaccinations, compared with 81% of infants turning the same age in 2019. Researchers also found that, compared with 61% of infants reaching 18 months in September 2019, only 57% of 18-month-olds were up to date with vaccinations in September 2020. However, the proportion of 6-, 13-, and 18-year-olds up to date on vaccinations were about the same in 2020 and 2019.

Racial disparities also persisted during this time, with Black children having the lowest proportion of up-to-date vaccinations for most ages from January to September 2020. Although these disparities were evident prior to the pandemic, these differences became more pronounced for the 18-month-old age group, where just 41% of Black infants were up to date in vaccinations, compared with 76% of Asian infants, 54% of Hispanics infants, and 56% of White infants.

Dr. Schneider believes Dr. DeSilva’s study is a “robust” one and paints an accurate picture of the pandemic’s effect on pediatric vaccinations, despite examining data from just eight health systems.

“I think it’s a fairly reasonable representation of what we already have been recognizing during the pandemic,” he explained. “Which is that people are really reluctant to go to their physicians’ offices for routine care because of the fear of getting sick. I think the study emphasized the importance of catching these children up to keep them safe in the future.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a childhood immunization schedule that protects children against 14 infectious diseases before their second birthday. Since the on-time administration of these vaccines is essential for preventing communicable diseases, many pediatric offices are trying to ensure a safe environment for patients and families, said Dr. Schneider, chief of pediatric critical care at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York.

There’s also some concern that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy my spillover into routine childhood vaccinations, especially for families who were already hesitant toward the routine well-established vaccine schedule for children.

The CDC and AAP recommend that children continue to receive recommended vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

To boost the number of children caught up on vaccinations, health system and community-level interventions are needed, especially in underserved communities, the researchers wrote. Additionally, enforcing mandates that require vaccination prior to school entry could also increase vaccine administration across populations and reduce disparities.

The study emphasizes the “immediate and lagging” disruptions in the delivery of pediatric health care caused by the pandemic, which will likely have long-term consequences for pediatric health, Brian P. Jenssen, MD, MSHP, who was not involved in the study, wrote in a solicited commentary.

However, interventions tailored to specific age groups could help remedy this. These include increasing the frequency of well-child care during the next year of life for infants younger than 24 months and prioritizing visits with 13-year-old adolescents who are behind on vaccinations.

“Although there is no evidence base for this approach, such a change could create not only catch-up opportunities for vaccination for children delayed at age 7 and 18 months, but also provide opportunities to attend to developmental concerns and social needs that have emerged during COVID-19,” wrote Dr. Jenssen, a researcher and primary care pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Other practices such as reaching out to patients and families directly via text message, email, or phone to “notify them of needed vaccinations,” vaccine mandates, and having pediatric health systems partner with alternative settings to promote vaccination could also get kids back on track, health wise. Furthermore, financial incentives from insurers or primary care practices also may help.

“The COVID-19 pandemic’s lost care may have long-term consequences unless pediatric health care systems and child health advocates are proactive in engaging families to take advantage of every opportunity to catch up,” Dr. Jenssen wrote.

Most vaccines are given with hypodermic needle injections. But shots aren’t necessarily the most efficient or effective way to deliver a vaccine. Scientists have been experimenting with microneedle patches to painlessly deliver a vaccine into the outermost layer of the skin with dozens of extremely tiny needles coated in the vaccine solution.

Now, researchers have found a three-dimensional printing method that lets them customize microneedle shapes in the patches for different pathogens, such as flu, measles, hepatitis, or COVID-19. In tests using mice, the patches led to stronger and longer-lasting immune responses than traditional shots under the skin. The research team described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Tiny needles, big advantages

Previous research has shown delivering vaccines into the skin can cause a stronger immune response because the skin has a high concentration of immune cells. But shots can be painful and require skilled medical providers.

Microneedles painlessly deliver the vaccine into the skin without the need for a trained clinician. In fact, a person can even give the vaccine to themselves.

The needles – made of metal, silicon, or plastic – are so tiny that they puncture only the tough outermost layer of skin. The prospect of a painless vaccination without a hypodermic needle may ease anxiety in people who fear needles.

Scientists also can store dried patches after coating them with the vaccine solution, so there’s no preparation needed before giving the vaccine and the patches may not even require cold storage. This latest study suggests that the patches generate a stronger immune response than standard shots, allowing for a smaller dose than traditional vaccine delivery methods and possibly fewer side effects.
 

Breaking the mold

Past methods of making microneedle patches often used molds, but that approach limited the ability to customize patches for different diseases. Repeatedly using same mold also can blunt the tiny needles.

For the three-dimensional–printed patches, Cassie Caudill at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues used a printing technique that allows greater control over and consistency in the shape of the microneedles. The investigators printed two shapes: a slender pyramid microneedle that is similar to previous versions, and one with serrated grooves that resembles a pine tree.

The increased surface area from the grooves let researchers add 36% more of the ingredient that causes an immune response, compared with using only the pyramid shape, yet still less than a conventional shot. At only 1 cm by 1 cm, each patch contains 100 microneedles that are just over 1 mm long. The researchers found that in mice the patch drew a stronger immune response than a conventional shot, despite carrying a much smaller dose of vaccine ingredient.

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

Most vaccines are given with hypodermic needle injections. But shots aren’t necessarily the most efficient or effective way to deliver a vaccine. Scientists have been experimenting with microneedle patches to painlessly deliver a vaccine into the outermost layer of the skin with dozens of extremely tiny needles coated in the vaccine solution.

Now, researchers have found a three-dimensional printing method that lets them customize microneedle shapes in the patches for different pathogens, such as flu, measles, hepatitis, or COVID-19. In tests using mice, the patches led to stronger and longer-lasting immune responses than traditional shots under the skin. The research team described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Tiny needles, big advantages

Previous research has shown delivering vaccines into the skin can cause a stronger immune response because the skin has a high concentration of immune cells. But shots can be painful and require skilled medical providers.

Microneedles painlessly deliver the vaccine into the skin without the need for a trained clinician. In fact, a person can even give the vaccine to themselves.

The needles – made of metal, silicon, or plastic – are so tiny that they puncture only the tough outermost layer of skin. The prospect of a painless vaccination without a hypodermic needle may ease anxiety in people who fear needles.

Scientists also can store dried patches after coating them with the vaccine solution, so there’s no preparation needed before giving the vaccine and the patches may not even require cold storage. This latest study suggests that the patches generate a stronger immune response than standard shots, allowing for a smaller dose than traditional vaccine delivery methods and possibly fewer side effects.
 

Breaking the mold

Past methods of making microneedle patches often used molds, but that approach limited the ability to customize patches for different diseases. Repeatedly using same mold also can blunt the tiny needles.

For the three-dimensional–printed patches, Cassie Caudill at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues used a printing technique that allows greater control over and consistency in the shape of the microneedles. The investigators printed two shapes: a slender pyramid microneedle that is similar to previous versions, and one with serrated grooves that resembles a pine tree.

The increased surface area from the grooves let researchers add 36% more of the ingredient that causes an immune response, compared with using only the pyramid shape, yet still less than a conventional shot. At only 1 cm by 1 cm, each patch contains 100 microneedles that are just over 1 mm long. The researchers found that in mice the patch drew a stronger immune response than a conventional shot, despite carrying a much smaller dose of vaccine ingredient.

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

Most vaccines are given with hypodermic needle injections. But shots aren’t necessarily the most efficient or effective way to deliver a vaccine. Scientists have been experimenting with microneedle patches to painlessly deliver a vaccine into the outermost layer of the skin with dozens of extremely tiny needles coated in the vaccine solution.

Now, researchers have found a three-dimensional printing method that lets them customize microneedle shapes in the patches for different pathogens, such as flu, measles, hepatitis, or COVID-19. In tests using mice, the patches led to stronger and longer-lasting immune responses than traditional shots under the skin. The research team described their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
 

Tiny needles, big advantages

Previous research has shown delivering vaccines into the skin can cause a stronger immune response because the skin has a high concentration of immune cells. But shots can be painful and require skilled medical providers.

Microneedles painlessly deliver the vaccine into the skin without the need for a trained clinician. In fact, a person can even give the vaccine to themselves.

The needles – made of metal, silicon, or plastic – are so tiny that they puncture only the tough outermost layer of skin. The prospect of a painless vaccination without a hypodermic needle may ease anxiety in people who fear needles.

Scientists also can store dried patches after coating them with the vaccine solution, so there’s no preparation needed before giving the vaccine and the patches may not even require cold storage. This latest study suggests that the patches generate a stronger immune response than standard shots, allowing for a smaller dose than traditional vaccine delivery methods and possibly fewer side effects.
 

Breaking the mold

Past methods of making microneedle patches often used molds, but that approach limited the ability to customize patches for different diseases. Repeatedly using same mold also can blunt the tiny needles.

For the three-dimensional–printed patches, Cassie Caudill at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and colleagues used a printing technique that allows greater control over and consistency in the shape of the microneedles. The investigators printed two shapes: a slender pyramid microneedle that is similar to previous versions, and one with serrated grooves that resembles a pine tree.

The increased surface area from the grooves let researchers add 36% more of the ingredient that causes an immune response, compared with using only the pyramid shape, yet still less than a conventional shot. At only 1 cm by 1 cm, each patch contains 100 microneedles that are just over 1 mm long. The researchers found that in mice the patch drew a stronger immune response than a conventional shot, despite carrying a much smaller dose of vaccine ingredient.

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

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The plasma D-dimer assay has been used, along with clinical prediction scores, to rule out pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients for decades, but a new study suggests it may not be the right test to use in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The results showed that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater, the cutoff point for the diagnosis.

“If using D-dimer to exclude patients with PE, the increased values we found among 92.3% of patients suggest that this assay would be less useful than in the populations in which it was originally validated, among which a minority of patients had increased D-dimer values,” the authors write. “Setting higher D-dimer thresholds was associated with improved specificity at the cost of an increased false-negative rate that could be associated with an unacceptable patient safety risk.”

The inclusion of patients with D-dimer and computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) was necessary to estimate diagnostic performance, they note, but “this may have introduced selection bias by excluding patients unable to undergo CTPA.”

“Nonetheless, given the high pretest probability of PE and low specificity observed in this and other studies, these results suggest that use of D-dimer levels to exclude PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 may be inappropriate and have limited clinical utility,” they conclude.

Led by Constantine N. Logothetis, MD, from Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, the study was published online Oct. 8 as a Research Letter in JAMA Network Open.
 

Uncertain utility

The authors note that the availability of D-dimer samples routinely collected from hospitalized COVID-19 patients – as well as the heterogeneity of early, smaller studies – generated uncertainty about the utility of this assay.

This uncertainty prompted them to test the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer assay among a sample of 1,541 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at their institution between January 2020 and February 2021 for a possible PE.

They compared plasma D-dimer concentrations with CTPA, the criterion standard for diagnosing PE, in 287 of those patients.

Overall, 118 patients (41.1%) required care in the ICU, and 27 patients (9.4%) died during hospitalization.

The investigators looked at the ability of plasma D-dimer levels collected on the same day as CTPA to diagnose PE.

Thirty-seven patients (12.9%) had radiographic evidence of PE, and 250 patients (87.1%) did not.

Overall, the vast majority of patients (92.3%; n = 265 patients) had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or more, including all patients with PE and 225 of 250 patients without PE (91.2%).

The median D-dimer values were 1.0 mcg/mL for 250 patients without PE and 6.1 mcg/mL for 37 patients with PE.

D-dimer values ranged from 0.2 mcg/mL to 128 mcg/mL among patients without PE, and from 0.5 mcg/mL to more than 10,000 mcg/mL among patients with PE. Patients without PE had statistically significantly decreased mean D-dimer values (8.7 mcg/mL vs. 1.2 mcg/mL; P < .001).

A D-dimer concentration of 0.05 mcg/mL was associated with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 8.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 13.9%, and a negative likelihood ratio (NLR) of less than 0.1.

The age-adjusted threshold was associated with a sensitivity of 94.6%, specificity of 22.8%, NPV of 96.6%, PPV of 13.9%, and NLR of 0.24.

The authors note that all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and radiographic evidence of PE had plasma D-dimer levels of 0.05 mcg/mL or greater.
 

D-dimer in VTE may not extrapolate to COVID-19

“The D-dimer test, which is a measure of circulating byproducts of blood clot dissolution, has long been incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for venous thromboembolic [VTE] disease, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. It is uncertain whether this diagnostic use of D-dimer testing can be extrapolated to the context of COVID-19 – an illness we now understand to be associated itself with intravascular thrombosis and fibrinolysis,” Matthew Tomey, MD, a cardiologist at Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“The authors of this study sought to evaluate the test characteristics of the D-dimer assay for diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in a consecutive series of 287 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). This was a selected group of patients representing less than 20% of the 1,541 patients screened. Exclusion of data on the more than 80% of screened patients who did not undergo CTPA is a significant limitation of the study,” Dr. Tomey said.

“In the highly selected, small cohort studied, representing a group of patients at high pretest probability of pulmonary embolism, there was no patient with pulmonary embolism who had a D-dimer value less than 0.5 mcg/mL. Yet broad ranges of D-dimer values were observed in COVID-19 patients with (0.5 to >10,000 mcg/mL) and without (0.2 to 128 mcg/mL) pulmonary embolism,” he added.

Based on the presented data, it is likely true that very low levels of D-dimer decrease the likelihood of finding a pulmonary embolus on a CTPA, if it is performed, Dr. Tomey noted.

“Yet the data confirm that a wide range of D-dimer values can be observed in COVID-19 patients with or without pulmonary embolism. It is not clear at this time that D-dimer levels should be used as gatekeepers to diagnostic imaging studies such as CTPA when pretest suspicion of pulmonary embolism is high,” he said.

“This issue becomes relevant as we consider evolving data on use of anticoagulation in treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We learned this year that in critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, routine therapeutic anticoagulation (with heparin) was not beneficial and potentially harmful when compared with usual thromboprophylaxis,” he concluded.

“As we strive to balance competing risks of bleeding and thrombosis, accurate diagnosis of pulmonary embolism is important to guide decision-making about therapeutic anticoagulation, including in COVID-19.”

Dr. Logothetis and Dr. Tomey have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Scientists who speak about COVID-19 to the media or comment about the pandemic on social media often meet with harassment and abuse, according to a survey published in Nature.

The survey of 321 scientists, largely from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, found that 22% were threatened with physical or sexual violence and that 15% received death threats.

More than one quarter of scientists surveyed said they “always” or “usually” received comments from trolls or were personally attacked after speaking out about COVID-19. More than 40% suffered emotional or psychological distress as a result.

Some scientists said the experience of being trolled online or receiving personal attacks had a chilling effect on their willingness to speak to the media in the future.

Even scientists who had a high profile before the COVID-19 pandemic said in the Nature article that the abuse was a “new and unwelcome phenomenon tied to the pandemic.”

Some scientists reported anonymously that they were hesitant to speak about some topics after witnessing the abuse received by others.
 

“Shocking” results require action

An editorial in Nature calls the results of the survey “shocking” and says institutions at all levels must do more to “protect and defend scientists, and to condemn intimidation.

“Intimidation is unacceptable on any scale, and the findings should be of concern to all those who care about scientists’ well-being. Such behavior also risks discouraging researchers from contributing to public discussion — which would be a huge loss, given their expertise, during the pandemic,” the editorial states.

“Scientists and health officials should expect their research to be questioned and challenged, and should welcome critical feedback that is given in good faith. But threats of violence and extreme online abuse do nothing to encourage debate — and risk undermining science communication at a time when it has never mattered more,” the editorial concludes.

A number of scientists weighed in on the survey in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Center.

“Undoubtedly there is a danger that scientists who have themselves been, or had colleagues who have been attacked in ways that disturb one’s equilibrium, may decide to disengage from the media. This will be sad and result in overall harm,” warned Stephen Evans, MSc, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Simon Clarke, PhD, with the University of Reading, who responded to the Nature survey, said he is “glad to see so many fellow scientists took the time to reflect on their experiences.”

Dr. Clarke said he is “shocked and saddened to hear that so many fellow scientists have experienced death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence, simply for doing their job trying to communicate the scientific facts that are so important for society in understanding and responding to this global health emergency.”

Dr. Clarke said he too has had some “bad experiences after appearing in the media, particularly after calling out conspiracy theorists and some politicians, who seem to dislike having their pet theories debunked. I have on occasion been threatened with various forms of death, violence and lifelong imprisonment. I am fortunate to have felt able to ignore the threats I’ve received, but I know that some colleagues have had far worse experiences.”

Michael Head, PhD, with the University of Southampton, said there’s been “a huge amount of abuse aimed at everyone contributing to the pandemic response. This has included NHS frontline staff, and also scientists and academics providing thoughts and explanatory comments to the public.

“I myself have received plenty of abuse throughout the pandemic. For those of us who have been pulling apart anti-vaccine misinformation from pre-pandemic times, the presence of these attempts at intimidation is very wearying, but not surprising,” said Dr. Head.

“As a white, male academic, I would imagine I’m far less likely to receive abuse than a scientist making similar points but from a different demographic,” he said.

Susan Michie, FMedSci, with the University College London, said the findings of harassment and abuse of scientists during the pandemic align closely with what she and many U.K. women colleagues who have been prominent in speaking to the media have endured.

“The online abuse occurs most intensively after media engagements and especially after those that address restrictions to social mixing, the wearing of face masks or vaccination,” Dr. Michie said.

“This abuse has not put off many women colleagues I know from speaking to the media,” she said. “I think this is because they are well established in their careers and/or brave and very committed to communicating scientific understanding.

“They have also set up a variety of networks to support each other. However, I am concerned that it discourages early career scientists, especially young women and young women from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, from engaging with the media,” she said.

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

Scientists who speak about COVID-19 to the media or comment about the pandemic on social media often meet with harassment and abuse, according to a survey published in Nature.

The survey of 321 scientists, largely from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, found that 22% were threatened with physical or sexual violence and that 15% received death threats.

More than one quarter of scientists surveyed said they “always” or “usually” received comments from trolls or were personally attacked after speaking out about COVID-19. More than 40% suffered emotional or psychological distress as a result.

Some scientists said the experience of being trolled online or receiving personal attacks had a chilling effect on their willingness to speak to the media in the future.

Even scientists who had a high profile before the COVID-19 pandemic said in the Nature article that the abuse was a “new and unwelcome phenomenon tied to the pandemic.”

Some scientists reported anonymously that they were hesitant to speak about some topics after witnessing the abuse received by others.
 

“Shocking” results require action

An editorial in Nature calls the results of the survey “shocking” and says institutions at all levels must do more to “protect and defend scientists, and to condemn intimidation.

“Intimidation is unacceptable on any scale, and the findings should be of concern to all those who care about scientists’ well-being. Such behavior also risks discouraging researchers from contributing to public discussion — which would be a huge loss, given their expertise, during the pandemic,” the editorial states.

“Scientists and health officials should expect their research to be questioned and challenged, and should welcome critical feedback that is given in good faith. But threats of violence and extreme online abuse do nothing to encourage debate — and risk undermining science communication at a time when it has never mattered more,” the editorial concludes.

A number of scientists weighed in on the survey in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Center.

“Undoubtedly there is a danger that scientists who have themselves been, or had colleagues who have been attacked in ways that disturb one’s equilibrium, may decide to disengage from the media. This will be sad and result in overall harm,” warned Stephen Evans, MSc, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Simon Clarke, PhD, with the University of Reading, who responded to the Nature survey, said he is “glad to see so many fellow scientists took the time to reflect on their experiences.”

Dr. Clarke said he is “shocked and saddened to hear that so many fellow scientists have experienced death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence, simply for doing their job trying to communicate the scientific facts that are so important for society in understanding and responding to this global health emergency.”

Dr. Clarke said he too has had some “bad experiences after appearing in the media, particularly after calling out conspiracy theorists and some politicians, who seem to dislike having their pet theories debunked. I have on occasion been threatened with various forms of death, violence and lifelong imprisonment. I am fortunate to have felt able to ignore the threats I’ve received, but I know that some colleagues have had far worse experiences.”

Michael Head, PhD, with the University of Southampton, said there’s been “a huge amount of abuse aimed at everyone contributing to the pandemic response. This has included NHS frontline staff, and also scientists and academics providing thoughts and explanatory comments to the public.

“I myself have received plenty of abuse throughout the pandemic. For those of us who have been pulling apart anti-vaccine misinformation from pre-pandemic times, the presence of these attempts at intimidation is very wearying, but not surprising,” said Dr. Head.

“As a white, male academic, I would imagine I’m far less likely to receive abuse than a scientist making similar points but from a different demographic,” he said.

Susan Michie, FMedSci, with the University College London, said the findings of harassment and abuse of scientists during the pandemic align closely with what she and many U.K. women colleagues who have been prominent in speaking to the media have endured.

“The online abuse occurs most intensively after media engagements and especially after those that address restrictions to social mixing, the wearing of face masks or vaccination,” Dr. Michie said.

“This abuse has not put off many women colleagues I know from speaking to the media,” she said. “I think this is because they are well established in their careers and/or brave and very committed to communicating scientific understanding.

“They have also set up a variety of networks to support each other. However, I am concerned that it discourages early career scientists, especially young women and young women from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, from engaging with the media,” she said.

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

Scientists who speak about COVID-19 to the media or comment about the pandemic on social media often meet with harassment and abuse, according to a survey published in Nature.

The survey of 321 scientists, largely from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, found that 22% were threatened with physical or sexual violence and that 15% received death threats.

More than one quarter of scientists surveyed said they “always” or “usually” received comments from trolls or were personally attacked after speaking out about COVID-19. More than 40% suffered emotional or psychological distress as a result.

Some scientists said the experience of being trolled online or receiving personal attacks had a chilling effect on their willingness to speak to the media in the future.

Even scientists who had a high profile before the COVID-19 pandemic said in the Nature article that the abuse was a “new and unwelcome phenomenon tied to the pandemic.”

Some scientists reported anonymously that they were hesitant to speak about some topics after witnessing the abuse received by others.
 

“Shocking” results require action

An editorial in Nature calls the results of the survey “shocking” and says institutions at all levels must do more to “protect and defend scientists, and to condemn intimidation.

“Intimidation is unacceptable on any scale, and the findings should be of concern to all those who care about scientists’ well-being. Such behavior also risks discouraging researchers from contributing to public discussion — which would be a huge loss, given their expertise, during the pandemic,” the editorial states.

“Scientists and health officials should expect their research to be questioned and challenged, and should welcome critical feedback that is given in good faith. But threats of violence and extreme online abuse do nothing to encourage debate — and risk undermining science communication at a time when it has never mattered more,” the editorial concludes.

A number of scientists weighed in on the survey in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit organization, Science Media Center.

“Undoubtedly there is a danger that scientists who have themselves been, or had colleagues who have been attacked in ways that disturb one’s equilibrium, may decide to disengage from the media. This will be sad and result in overall harm,” warned Stephen Evans, MSc, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Simon Clarke, PhD, with the University of Reading, who responded to the Nature survey, said he is “glad to see so many fellow scientists took the time to reflect on their experiences.”

Dr. Clarke said he is “shocked and saddened to hear that so many fellow scientists have experienced death threats or threats of physical or sexual violence, simply for doing their job trying to communicate the scientific facts that are so important for society in understanding and responding to this global health emergency.”

Dr. Clarke said he too has had some “bad experiences after appearing in the media, particularly after calling out conspiracy theorists and some politicians, who seem to dislike having their pet theories debunked. I have on occasion been threatened with various forms of death, violence and lifelong imprisonment. I am fortunate to have felt able to ignore the threats I’ve received, but I know that some colleagues have had far worse experiences.”

Michael Head, PhD, with the University of Southampton, said there’s been “a huge amount of abuse aimed at everyone contributing to the pandemic response. This has included NHS frontline staff, and also scientists and academics providing thoughts and explanatory comments to the public.

“I myself have received plenty of abuse throughout the pandemic. For those of us who have been pulling apart anti-vaccine misinformation from pre-pandemic times, the presence of these attempts at intimidation is very wearying, but not surprising,” said Dr. Head.

“As a white, male academic, I would imagine I’m far less likely to receive abuse than a scientist making similar points but from a different demographic,” he said.

Susan Michie, FMedSci, with the University College London, said the findings of harassment and abuse of scientists during the pandemic align closely with what she and many U.K. women colleagues who have been prominent in speaking to the media have endured.

“The online abuse occurs most intensively after media engagements and especially after those that address restrictions to social mixing, the wearing of face masks or vaccination,” Dr. Michie said.

“This abuse has not put off many women colleagues I know from speaking to the media,” she said. “I think this is because they are well established in their careers and/or brave and very committed to communicating scientific understanding.

“They have also set up a variety of networks to support each other. However, I am concerned that it discourages early career scientists, especially young women and young women from minoritized ethnic backgrounds, from engaging with the media,” she said.

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