Clinician Reviews

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Patients with severe asthma and comorbid atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety had fewer annual exacerbations after receiving mepolizumab, according to research from the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology.

“Mepolizumab has clearly been shown to improve severe asthma control in many clinical trials, but atopy, obesity, and depression/anxiety affect patients with asthma at an increased rate,” Thomas B. Casale, MD, former AAAAI president and professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of South Florida in Tampa, said in a presentation at the meeting. “Yet, few studies have examined whether asthma therapy with these comorbidities works.”

Dr. Casale and colleagues performed a retrospective analysis of patients in the United States from the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Database between November 2014 and December 2018 who had atopy, obesity, or depression/anxiety in addition to asthma and were receiving mepolizumab. Atopy in the study was defined as allergic rhinitis, anaphylaxis, atopic dermatitis, conjunctivitis, eosinophilic esophagitis, and food allergies. Patients were at least age 12 years, had at least one diagnosis for asthma, at least one diagnosis code for atopic disease, obesity, or depression/anxiety at baseline, and at least two administrations of mepolizumab within 180 days.

The researchers examined the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) claims, and OCS bursts per year at 12-month follow-up, compared with baseline. They identified exacerbations by examining patients who had an emergency department or outpatient claim related to their asthma, and a claim for systemic corticosteroids made in the 4 days prior to or 5 days after a visit, or if their inpatient hospital admission contained a primary asthma diagnosis. Dr. Casale and colleagues measured OCS bursts as a pharmacy claim of at least 20 mg of prednisone per day for between 3 and 28 days plus a claim for an emergency department visit related to asthma in the 7 days prior or 6 days after the claim.

At baseline, patients across all groups were mean age 50.5-52.4 years with a Charleson Comorbidity Index score between 1.1 and 1.4, a majority were women (59.0%-72.0%) and nearly all were commercially insured (88.0%-90.0%). Patients who used biologics at baseline and/or used a biologic that wasn’t mepolizumab during the follow-up period were excluded.

Medication claims in the groups included inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) (36.8%-48.6%), ICS/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) (60.2%-63.0%), LABA/ long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) (1.2%-3.5%), ICS/LABA/LAMA (21.2%-25.1%), short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) (83.2%-87.7%), LAMA alone (33.5%-42.1%), or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA).

In the non–mutually exclusive group of patients with atopy (468 patients), 28.0% had comorbid obesity and 26.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. For patients with obesity categorized in a non–mutually exclusive subgroup (171 patients), 79.0% had comorbid atopy and 32.0% had comorbid depression/anxiety. Among patients with non–mutually exclusive depression/anxiety (173 patients), 70.0% had comorbid atopy, while 32.0% had comorbid obesity.

The results showed the mean number of overall exacerbations decreased by 48% at 12 months in the atopic group (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), 52% in the group with obesity (2.5 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and 38% in the depression/anxiety group (2.4 vs. 1.5; P < .001). The mean number of exacerbations leading to hospitalizations decreased by 64% in the atopic group (0.11 vs. 0.04; P < .001), 65% in the group with obesity (0.20 vs. 0.07; P < .001), and 68% in the group with depression/anxiety (0.22 vs. 0.07; P < .001).

The researchers also found the mean number of OCS claims and OCS bursts also significantly decreased over the 12-month follow-up period. Mean OCS claims decreased by 33% for patients in the atopic group (5.5 vs. 3.7; P < .001), by 38% in the group with obesity (6.1 vs. 3.8; P < .001), and by 31% in the group with depression/anxiety (6.2 vs. 4.3; P < .001).

The mean number of OCS bursts also significantly decreased by 40% in the atopic group (2.0 vs. 2.1; P < .001), 48% in the group with obesity (2.3 vs. 1.2; P < .001), and by 37% in the group with depression/anxiety (1.9 vs. 1.2; P < .001). In total, 69% of patients with comorbid atopy, 70.8% of patients with comorbid obesity, and 68.2% of patients with comorbid depression/anxiety experienced a mean decrease in their OCS dose over 12 months.

“These data demonstrate that patients with asthma and atopy, obesity, or depression and anxiety have significantly fewer exacerbations and reduced OCS use in a real-world setting with treatment of mepolizumab,” Dr. Casale said. “Thus, holistic patient care for severe asthma is critical, and mepolizumab provides tangible clinical benefit despite the complexities of medical comorbidities.”

This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline, and the company also funded graphic design support of the poster. Dr. Casale reports he has received research funds from GlaxoSmithKline. Four authors report being current or former GlaxoSmithKline employees; three authors report holding stock and/or shares of GlaxoSmithKline. Three authors are IBM Watson Health employees, a company GlaxoSmithKline has provided research funding.

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Sublingual immunotherapy for the treatment of peanut allergy is safe and effective, even in children as young as age 1 year.

In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, food challenge (DBPCFC) of some 36 peanut-allergic children (mean age 2.2 years, range 1-4 years), those who were randomly assigned to receive peanut sublingual immunotherapy (PNSLIT) showed significant desensitization compared with those who received placebo.

In addition, there was a “strong potential” for sustained unresponsiveness at 3 months for the toddlers who received the active treatment.

The findings were presented in a late breaking oral abstract session at the 2021 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology virtual annual meeting (Abstract L2).

“A year ago, the Food and Drug Administration approved the oral agent Palforzia (peanut allergen powder) for the treatment of peanut allergy in children 4 and older, and it is a great option, but I think what we have learned over time is that this approach is not for everybody,” Edwin H. Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview.

Palforzia is a powder that is mixed in food like yogurt or pudding which the child then eats daily, according to a rigorous schedule. But Palforzia treatment presents some difficulties.

“Palforzia requires getting the powder dose, mixing it with food, like pudding or apple sauce, then eating it, which can take up to 30 minutes depending on age and kids’ cooperation. It tastes and smells like peanut which can cause aversion. Kids have to refrain from exercise or strenuous activity for at least 30 minutes before and after dosing and have to be observed for up to 2 hours post dose for symptoms,” Dr. Kim said.

“It’s a great drug, but the treatment could be overly difficult for certain families to be able to do, and in some cases the side effects may be more than certain patients are able or willing to handle, so there is a real urgent need for alternative approaches,” Dr. Kim said. “SLIT is several drops under the tongue, held for 2 minutes, swallowed and done.”

In the current placebo-controlled study, he and his group tested the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of the sublingual approach to peanut allergy in children age 4 years and younger.

Both groups were similar with regard to gender, race, ethnicity, atopic history, peanut skin prick test, and qualifying DBPCFC, and all children were previously allergic with positive blood and skin tests, with a positive reaction during baseline food challenge, thus proving the allergy and establishing the baseline threshold.

“We have learned from some studies, for instance the DEVIL and LEAP studies, that strongly suggest that the immune systems in younger patients may be more amenable to change, and there may be some justification for early intervention,” he said.

“Based on both of those ideas, we wanted to take our sublingual approach, which we have shown to have a pretty good efficacy in older children, and bring it down to this younger group and see if it still could have the same efficacy and also maintain what seems to be a very good safety signal.”

The researchers randomly assigned the children to receive PNSLIT at a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg peanut protein (n = 19) or to receive placebo (n = 17) for 36 months.

“There was a 5- to 6-month buildup period where the SLIT dose was increased every 1-2 weeks up to the target dose of 4 mg, and then the final dose of 4 mg was continued through to the end of the study,” Dr. Kim noted.

Over a total of 20,593 potential dosing days, the children took 91.2% of SLIT doses and 93.5% of placebo doses.

At the end of the 3-year study period, the children were challenged by DBPCFC with up to 4,333 mg of peanut protein.

Sustained unresponsiveness was assessed by an identical DBPCFC after discontinuation of the immunotherapy for 3 months.

Cumulative tolerated dose increased from a median of 143 mg to 4,443 mg in the PNSLIT group, compared with a median of 43 mg to 143 mg in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Fourteen of the children receiving PNSLIT, and none of the children receiving placebo, passed the desensitization food challenge. Twelve of the children receiving PNSLIT and two of the children receiving placebo passed the sustained unresponsiveness challenge.

Children who underwent the immunotherapy saw a decrease in their peanut skin prick test from 10 mm to 3.25 mm, compared to an increase from 11.5 mm to 12 mm with placebo (P < .0001).

The most common side effect reported was itching or irritation in the mouth. Most side effects resolved on their own, although some patients used an antihistamine. Getting children as young as 1 to hold the dose under their tongue was a challenge in some instances, but it eventually worked out, Dr. Kim said.

“It took a lot of work from the parents as well as from our research coordinators in trying to train these young kids to, first of all, allow us to put the peanut medication in the mouth and then to try as best as possible to keep it in their mouth for up to 2 minutes, but the families involved in our study were very dedicated and so we were able to get through that,” he said.
 

Study merits larger numbers

“Among the 36 who completed the 3 years of therapy, the authors report significant rates of desensitization among treated children compared with those receiving placebo. Furthermore, this effect was persistent for at least 3 months after stopping therapy in a subgroup of the children,” said Leonard B. Bacharier, MD, director of the Center for Pediatric Asthma, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tenn.

“Overall, these findings suggest the promise of peanut SLIT, which should be studied in larger numbers of preschool children,” Dr. Bacharier, who was not part of the study, said in an interview.

Jonathan A. Bernstein, MD, professor of medicine, University of Cincinnati, agreed.

“It’s a well-designed study, it’s small, but it’s promising,” Dr. Bernstein, who was not involved with the study, said in an interview.

“They did show that most of the patients who got the sublingual therapy were able to get to the target dose and develop tolerance, so I think it’s promising. We know that this stuff works. This is just more data from a well-controlled study in a younger population,” he said.

“We do OIT [oral immunotherapy] and sublingual but we don’t do it in such young children in our practice. The youngest is 3 years old, because they have to understand what is going on and cooperate. If they don’t cooperate it’s not possible.”

Dr. Kim reported financial relationships with DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, Ukko, Aimmune Therapeutics, ALK, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Nutricia, NIH/NIAID, NIH/NCCIH, NIH/Immune Tolerance Network, FARE, and the Wallace Foundation. Dr. Bacharier and Dr. Bernstein have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Girls with more body fat experienced earlier menarche and hormone changes, but later full breast development, compared with those with normal weight, according to longitudinal data from 90 girls aged 8-15 years.

A link between obesity and early puberty has been observed among U.S. girls for decades, but more recent studies suggest that “girls with greater childhood adiposity have earlier thelarche and progress through puberty at a faster rate than normal weight girls,” wrote Madison T. Ortega, MD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. However, studies involving hormone levels have yielded mixed results, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , the researchers followed 36 girls with overweight or obesity and 54 girls with normal weight for 4 years; normal weight was defined as body mass index in the 5th to 85th percentile, overweight was defined as BMI in the 85th to 95th percentile, and obese was defined as greater than 95th percentile. Overweight and obese were combined into one category for comparison with normal weight girls.

Participants had an average of 2.8 study visits during this period and provided additional information by phone and online. Visits included measurement of total body fat using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), Tanner staging, breast ultrasound for morphological staging (BMORPH; A-E), pelvic ultrasound, hormone tests, and menarchal status assessment.

Overall, girls with overweight/obesity (OW/OB) had significantly more advanced breast development at baseline than did those with normal weight (NW), but these girls progressed through BMORPH stage D later than did NW girls. Early-stage breast development was not affected by total body fat. However, “an increase of 5 percentage points in mean total body fat, for example, was associated with a 26% decrease in the transition rate out of stage D,” the researchers noted.

Hormone levels were similar at baseline for follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, estrone (E1), total and free testosterone, and androstenedione. However, these levels increased more quickly after 1 year for girls with OW/OB, while they plateaued in girls with NW and dropped among girls with lower total body fat. Total body fat had no apparent effect on other reproductive hormones including luteinizing hormone, modified vaginal maturation index, and estradiol 2.

The average age of menarche was 12.4 years across all participants, but girls with higher total body fat at baseline were more likely to reach menarche at a younger age. “For every 1-unit increase in visit one total body fat, the chance of achieving menarche at any given time point was 3% higher,” the researchers said. No interaction appeared between race and total body fat with regard to menarche.


 

Several surprising findings

The study is important because “there have been no longitudinal studies in U.S. girls to examine how total body fat affects serum reproductive hormones or the development of the breast and ovaries using ultrasound imaging,” corresponding author Natalie Shaw, MD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Shaw said she was surprised by several of the study findings. “Others have reported increased male-like hormones (androgens) in overweight/obese girls in cross-sectional studies; however, we were surprised to find that FSH and inhibin B were also elevated in girls with excess body fat,” she said. “We also found, unexpectedly, that even though the breast bud appears earlier in overweight/obese girls (thelarche), which signals the onset of puberty, the breast matured more slowly during the course of puberty in overweight/obese girls compared with normal weight girls,” she noted.

“The main take-home message is that puberty looks different in girls with excess body fat; they develop breast tissue earlier, yet take longer to achieve a fully mature breast, and they undergo menarche earlier,” Dr. Shaw said. Clinicians should be aware of the hormonal differences based on body fat, Dr. Shaw emphasized. “Girls with greater body fat had higher levels of FSH (a pituitary hormone), inhibin B (an ovarian hormone), and male-like reproductive hormones (e.g., testosterone) that are made by the adrenal glands and the ovaries in the late stages of puberty,” she said.
 

Potential implications for adulthood

“The findings in this study contribute to better understanding how total body fat impacts hormonal findings of puberty,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “Prior studies have linked weight gain as a factor that contributes to pubertal development, but this study is attempting to longitudinally investigate how body weight may affect clinical and biochemical pubertal markers in girls,” she noted.

“The take-home message is that this study and other earlier studies have illustrated that puberty is not a fixed pattern in all individual girls,” Dr. Jay emphasized. “Rather, there are environmental factors which can impact pubertal course,” she said. “In effect, there are pathways through puberty in individual adolescents that require greater ongoing studies to further identify the arc of puberty and the impact of how the length in various stages may affect exposure to estrogen and other neurohormonal factors,” she explained. These factors impact not only adolescence but also future health in adulthood, she said.

“Ongoing prospective studies are needed to identify how factors such as body weight can affect adolescent pubertal development and the possible impact long after adolescence for health issues such as breast cancer,” Dr. Jay added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the available data from only two completed study visits for most participants, as well as the racial differences among body weight groups and lack of standardized timing for blood draws, the researchers noted.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and corresponding author Dr. Shaw disclosed support as a Lasker Clinical Research Scholar. The other researchers, as well as Dr. Jay, had no disclosures.

Girls with more body fat experienced earlier menarche and hormone changes, but later full breast development, compared with those with normal weight, according to longitudinal data from 90 girls aged 8-15 years.

A link between obesity and early puberty has been observed among U.S. girls for decades, but more recent studies suggest that “girls with greater childhood adiposity have earlier thelarche and progress through puberty at a faster rate than normal weight girls,” wrote Madison T. Ortega, MD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. However, studies involving hormone levels have yielded mixed results, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , the researchers followed 36 girls with overweight or obesity and 54 girls with normal weight for 4 years; normal weight was defined as body mass index in the 5th to 85th percentile, overweight was defined as BMI in the 85th to 95th percentile, and obese was defined as greater than 95th percentile. Overweight and obese were combined into one category for comparison with normal weight girls.

Participants had an average of 2.8 study visits during this period and provided additional information by phone and online. Visits included measurement of total body fat using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), Tanner staging, breast ultrasound for morphological staging (BMORPH; A-E), pelvic ultrasound, hormone tests, and menarchal status assessment.

Overall, girls with overweight/obesity (OW/OB) had significantly more advanced breast development at baseline than did those with normal weight (NW), but these girls progressed through BMORPH stage D later than did NW girls. Early-stage breast development was not affected by total body fat. However, “an increase of 5 percentage points in mean total body fat, for example, was associated with a 26% decrease in the transition rate out of stage D,” the researchers noted.

Hormone levels were similar at baseline for follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, estrone (E1), total and free testosterone, and androstenedione. However, these levels increased more quickly after 1 year for girls with OW/OB, while they plateaued in girls with NW and dropped among girls with lower total body fat. Total body fat had no apparent effect on other reproductive hormones including luteinizing hormone, modified vaginal maturation index, and estradiol 2.

The average age of menarche was 12.4 years across all participants, but girls with higher total body fat at baseline were more likely to reach menarche at a younger age. “For every 1-unit increase in visit one total body fat, the chance of achieving menarche at any given time point was 3% higher,” the researchers said. No interaction appeared between race and total body fat with regard to menarche.


 

Several surprising findings

The study is important because “there have been no longitudinal studies in U.S. girls to examine how total body fat affects serum reproductive hormones or the development of the breast and ovaries using ultrasound imaging,” corresponding author Natalie Shaw, MD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Shaw said she was surprised by several of the study findings. “Others have reported increased male-like hormones (androgens) in overweight/obese girls in cross-sectional studies; however, we were surprised to find that FSH and inhibin B were also elevated in girls with excess body fat,” she said. “We also found, unexpectedly, that even though the breast bud appears earlier in overweight/obese girls (thelarche), which signals the onset of puberty, the breast matured more slowly during the course of puberty in overweight/obese girls compared with normal weight girls,” she noted.

“The main take-home message is that puberty looks different in girls with excess body fat; they develop breast tissue earlier, yet take longer to achieve a fully mature breast, and they undergo menarche earlier,” Dr. Shaw said. Clinicians should be aware of the hormonal differences based on body fat, Dr. Shaw emphasized. “Girls with greater body fat had higher levels of FSH (a pituitary hormone), inhibin B (an ovarian hormone), and male-like reproductive hormones (e.g., testosterone) that are made by the adrenal glands and the ovaries in the late stages of puberty,” she said.
 

Potential implications for adulthood

“The findings in this study contribute to better understanding how total body fat impacts hormonal findings of puberty,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “Prior studies have linked weight gain as a factor that contributes to pubertal development, but this study is attempting to longitudinally investigate how body weight may affect clinical and biochemical pubertal markers in girls,” she noted.

“The take-home message is that this study and other earlier studies have illustrated that puberty is not a fixed pattern in all individual girls,” Dr. Jay emphasized. “Rather, there are environmental factors which can impact pubertal course,” she said. “In effect, there are pathways through puberty in individual adolescents that require greater ongoing studies to further identify the arc of puberty and the impact of how the length in various stages may affect exposure to estrogen and other neurohormonal factors,” she explained. These factors impact not only adolescence but also future health in adulthood, she said.

“Ongoing prospective studies are needed to identify how factors such as body weight can affect adolescent pubertal development and the possible impact long after adolescence for health issues such as breast cancer,” Dr. Jay added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the available data from only two completed study visits for most participants, as well as the racial differences among body weight groups and lack of standardized timing for blood draws, the researchers noted.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and corresponding author Dr. Shaw disclosed support as a Lasker Clinical Research Scholar. The other researchers, as well as Dr. Jay, had no disclosures.

Girls with more body fat experienced earlier menarche and hormone changes, but later full breast development, compared with those with normal weight, according to longitudinal data from 90 girls aged 8-15 years.

A link between obesity and early puberty has been observed among U.S. girls for decades, but more recent studies suggest that “girls with greater childhood adiposity have earlier thelarche and progress through puberty at a faster rate than normal weight girls,” wrote Madison T. Ortega, MD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, N.C., and colleagues. However, studies involving hormone levels have yielded mixed results, they said.

In a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism , the researchers followed 36 girls with overweight or obesity and 54 girls with normal weight for 4 years; normal weight was defined as body mass index in the 5th to 85th percentile, overweight was defined as BMI in the 85th to 95th percentile, and obese was defined as greater than 95th percentile. Overweight and obese were combined into one category for comparison with normal weight girls.

Participants had an average of 2.8 study visits during this period and provided additional information by phone and online. Visits included measurement of total body fat using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), Tanner staging, breast ultrasound for morphological staging (BMORPH; A-E), pelvic ultrasound, hormone tests, and menarchal status assessment.

Overall, girls with overweight/obesity (OW/OB) had significantly more advanced breast development at baseline than did those with normal weight (NW), but these girls progressed through BMORPH stage D later than did NW girls. Early-stage breast development was not affected by total body fat. However, “an increase of 5 percentage points in mean total body fat, for example, was associated with a 26% decrease in the transition rate out of stage D,” the researchers noted.

Hormone levels were similar at baseline for follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, estrone (E1), total and free testosterone, and androstenedione. However, these levels increased more quickly after 1 year for girls with OW/OB, while they plateaued in girls with NW and dropped among girls with lower total body fat. Total body fat had no apparent effect on other reproductive hormones including luteinizing hormone, modified vaginal maturation index, and estradiol 2.

The average age of menarche was 12.4 years across all participants, but girls with higher total body fat at baseline were more likely to reach menarche at a younger age. “For every 1-unit increase in visit one total body fat, the chance of achieving menarche at any given time point was 3% higher,” the researchers said. No interaction appeared between race and total body fat with regard to menarche.


 

Several surprising findings

The study is important because “there have been no longitudinal studies in U.S. girls to examine how total body fat affects serum reproductive hormones or the development of the breast and ovaries using ultrasound imaging,” corresponding author Natalie Shaw, MD, of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, said in an interview.

Dr. Shaw said she was surprised by several of the study findings. “Others have reported increased male-like hormones (androgens) in overweight/obese girls in cross-sectional studies; however, we were surprised to find that FSH and inhibin B were also elevated in girls with excess body fat,” she said. “We also found, unexpectedly, that even though the breast bud appears earlier in overweight/obese girls (thelarche), which signals the onset of puberty, the breast matured more slowly during the course of puberty in overweight/obese girls compared with normal weight girls,” she noted.

“The main take-home message is that puberty looks different in girls with excess body fat; they develop breast tissue earlier, yet take longer to achieve a fully mature breast, and they undergo menarche earlier,” Dr. Shaw said. Clinicians should be aware of the hormonal differences based on body fat, Dr. Shaw emphasized. “Girls with greater body fat had higher levels of FSH (a pituitary hormone), inhibin B (an ovarian hormone), and male-like reproductive hormones (e.g., testosterone) that are made by the adrenal glands and the ovaries in the late stages of puberty,” she said.
 

Potential implications for adulthood

“The findings in this study contribute to better understanding how total body fat impacts hormonal findings of puberty,” M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin and Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview. “Prior studies have linked weight gain as a factor that contributes to pubertal development, but this study is attempting to longitudinally investigate how body weight may affect clinical and biochemical pubertal markers in girls,” she noted.

“The take-home message is that this study and other earlier studies have illustrated that puberty is not a fixed pattern in all individual girls,” Dr. Jay emphasized. “Rather, there are environmental factors which can impact pubertal course,” she said. “In effect, there are pathways through puberty in individual adolescents that require greater ongoing studies to further identify the arc of puberty and the impact of how the length in various stages may affect exposure to estrogen and other neurohormonal factors,” she explained. These factors impact not only adolescence but also future health in adulthood, she said.

“Ongoing prospective studies are needed to identify how factors such as body weight can affect adolescent pubertal development and the possible impact long after adolescence for health issues such as breast cancer,” Dr. Jay added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the available data from only two completed study visits for most participants, as well as the racial differences among body weight groups and lack of standardized timing for blood draws, the researchers noted.

The study was supported in part by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and corresponding author Dr. Shaw disclosed support as a Lasker Clinical Research Scholar. The other researchers, as well as Dr. Jay, had no disclosures.

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

Asthma is not an independent risk factor for more severe disease or hospitalization due to COVID-19, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, held virtually this year.

“In our cohort of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 at Stanford between March and September, asthma was not an independent risk factor in and of itself for hospitalization or more severe disease from COVID,” Lauren E. Eggert, MD, of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in a poster presentation at the meeting. “What’s more, allergic asthma actually decreased the risk of hospitalization by nearly half.”

Dr. Eggert noted that there have been conflicting data on whether comorbid asthma is or is not a risk factor for more severe COVID-19. “The general thought at the beginning of the pandemic was that because COVID-19 is predominantly a viral respiratory illness, and viral illnesses are known to cause asthma exacerbations, that patients with asthma may be at higher risk if they got COVID infection,” she explained. “But some of the data also showed that Th2 inflammation downregulates ACE2 receptor [expression], which has been shown to be the port of entry for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, so maybe allergy might have a protective effect.”

The researchers at Stanford University identified 168,190 patients at Stanford Health Care who had a positive real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between March and September 2020 and collected data from their electronic medical records on their history of asthma, if they were hospitalized, comorbid conditions, and laboratory values. Patients who had no other data available except for a positive SARS-CoV-2 result, or were younger than 28 days, were excluded from the study. Dr. Eggert and colleagues used COVID-19 treatment guidelines from the National Institutes of Health to assess disease severity, which grades COVID-19 severity as asymptomatic or presymptomatic infection, mild illness, moderate illness, severe illness, and critical illness.

In total, the researchers analyzed 5,596 patients who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with 605 patients (10.8%) hospitalized within 14 days of receiving a positive test. Of these, 100 patients (16.5%) were patients with asthma. There were no significant differences between groups hospitalized and not hospitalized due to COVID-19 in patients with asthma and with no asthma.

Among patients with asthma and COVID-19, 28.0% had asymptomatic illness, 19.0% had moderate disease, 33.0% had severe disease, and 20.0% had critical COVID-19, compared with 36.0% of patients without asthma who had asymptomatic illness, 12.0% with moderate disease, 30.0% with severe disease, and 21.0% with critical COVID-19. Dr. Eggert and colleagues performed a univariate analysis, which showed a significant association between asthma and COVID-19 related hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.93; P < .001), but when adjusting for factors such as diabetes, obesity coronary heart disease, and hypertension, they found there was not a significant association between asthma and hospitalization due to COVID-19 (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.45; P < .40).

In a univariate analysis, asthma was associated with more severe disease in patients hospitalized for COVID-19, but the results were not significant (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.8-1.85; P = .37). When analyzing allergic asthma alone in a univariate analysis, the researchers found a significant association between allergic asthma and lower hospitalization risk, compared with patients who had nonallergic asthma (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .029), and this association remained after they performed a multivariate analysis as well.

“When we stratified by allergic asthma versus nonallergic asthma, we found that having a diagnosis of allergic asthma actually conferred a protective effect, and there was almost half the risk of hospitalization in asthmatics with allergic asthma as compared to others, which we thought was very interesting,” Dr. Eggert said.

“Eosinophil levels during hospitalization, even when adjusted for systemic steroid use – and we followed patients out through September, when dexamethasone was standard of care – also correlated with better outcomes,” she explained. “This is independent of asthmatic status.”

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Loss-of-function mutations in the FLG gene are the strongest known genetic risk factor for developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD.

This gene codes for profilaggrin, a protein, which is then cleaved to form filaggrin, which helps to organize the cytoskeleton of the skin and is an important structural component of the skin. The understanding is that patients who have filaggrin mutations tend to have earlier onset and more persistent disease, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium.

“Prior studies have shown that mutations in the FLG gene can confer a risk of developed AD that is two- to sevenfold with variants R501X and the 22804del4 frequently described. It is important to note that most of these findings have been described primarily in populations of European descent, with other variants being found in populations of African nation descent, and seem to be more prevalent in populations with early onset disease.”
 

Environmental factors

Other AD-related risk factors that have been previously described in the literature include environmental factors such as climate, diet, breastfeeding, obesity, pollution, tobacco smoke, pet ownership, and microbiome or gut microflora. “The list of culprits is ever increasing,” she said. “However, it’s important to recognize that data to support some of these associations are lacking, and oftentimes, a lot of the results are contradictory.”

As part of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, researchers evaluated the association between climate factors with the 12-month period prevalence rates of symptoms of atopic eczema in children. They found that patients who lived at higher latitudes and those who lived in areas where there were lower mean outdoor temperatures tended to have a higher prevalence of eczema symptoms. Worldwide, they found that symptoms of eczema were also prevalent in areas where there was lower indoor humidity.

“The authors concluded that they can’t really demonstrate a cause and effect, and that while latitude and temperature changes appear to affect the prevalence of eczema, they may do so indirectly, perhaps to changes in behavior and differences in sun exposure,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was not involved with the study. “For example, we know that vitamin D is a protective risk factor for AD. Low vitamin D has been associated with more severe disease in some studies. We also know that UV exposure leads to the conversion of filaggrin degradation products such as trans-urocanic acid into cis-urocanic acid, which has been demonstrated to have immunosuppressive effects.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine articles found small associations, which were significant, between being born in the winter (odds ratio, 1.15) and fall (OR, 1.16) and the risk of developing AD, compared with being born in the spring and summer. However, an analysis of satellite-derived data on air temperature across the United States from 1993 to 2011 found that as ambient air temperature increases, so did the risk for an ambulatory visit for AD to physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

In all areas but the south, the largest number of AD visits occur in the spring. In the south, more AD visits occur in the summer. “This raises the point that we don’t really know everything when it comes to the influence of temperature and climate change on AD,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said.

Several maternal and neonatal risk factors for AD have been described in the literature, including the effect of prenatal exposure to antibiotics. In one large analysis, investigators assessed the association among 18-month-old children in the Danish National Birth Cohort, which included 62,560 mother-child pairs. They found that prenatal antibiotic use was associated with an increased odds of AD among children born to atopic mothers but only when used during all three trimesters (adjusted OR, 1.45). When they further stratified these analyses by type of birth (vaginal versus C-section), the association persisted in both groups, but was stronger among those delivered by C-section.

 

Probiotics

The role of probiotics to reduce the risk for AD has also been investigated. “We do know that probiotics could potentially be helpful, and it is often a readily available intervention,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “But the question still is how and when to supplement.”

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers examined supplementation with probiotics given to breastfeeding mothers, pregnant mothers, or directly given to infants, and the risk of developing AD up to 18 months of age. They found that overall, probiotic exposure resulted in decreased risk of developing AD. In stratified analyses, the strongest association was observed for those who received probiotics during their pregnancy, during breastfeeding, and as an infant, which conferred about a 25% reduced risk.
 

Antibiotic exposure

What about early-life exposure to antibiotics on one’s risk for developing AD? A meta-analysis of 22 studies found that children who had been exposed to antibiotics during the first 2 years of life had an increased risk of eczema (OR, 1.26), compared with children who had not been exposed during the same period of time. “Interesting hypotheses can be generated from this study,” she said. “Perhaps future steps should focus on the impact of antibiotic exposure, the gut microbiome, and maternal risk factors for AD.”

In a separate study that supported these findings, researchers evaluated the association between the use of acid-suppressive medications and antibiotics during infancy and the development of allergic disease in early childhood. They found that exposure to either of these medications during the first six months of infancy resulted in a mild increased risk of developing AD, and concluded that they should be used during infancy only in situations of clear clinical benefit. “We should be good stewards of antibiotic use, in particular due to concern for antibiotic resistance in the population overall,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said.
 

Prevention strategies

Several AD prevention strategies have also been described in the medical literature, including the use of daily emollients during infancy. In a multicenter trial carried out in the United Kingdom, researchers tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year of life could prevent eczema in high-risk children, which was defined as having at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years. The researchers found no evidence to suggest that daily emollient use during the first year of life prevents eczema.

Another study, the PreventADALL trial of 2,397 infants, consisted of four treatment arms: a control group advised to follow national guidelines on infant nutrition; a skin intervention group that was asked to use skin emollients, a food intervention group with early introduction of peanut, cow’s milk, wheat, and egg, and a combined skin and food intervention. The investigators found no difference in the risk reduction of developing AD among patients who were treated with skin emollients or early complementary feeding, and concluded that these types of interventions should not be considered as interventions to prevent AD in this cohort of patients.

However, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench emphasized that emollients and moisturizers are an important part of the treatment regimen for AD patients. A Cochrane systematic review of nearly 80 randomized, controlled trials evaluating the use of emollients in eczema found that most moisturizers showed some beneficial effects in addition to active treatment, including prolonging the time to flare, reducing the number of flares, and reducing the amount of topical corticosteroids used.

For treatment, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench recommends a proactive approach focused on short-term induction therapy with intensive topical anti-inflammatories until the affected area is almost healed, followed by maintenance therapy that involves use of a long-term, low- to mid-potency steroid or a topical calcineurin inhibitor to previously affected areas. “These interventions have been shown to decrease the risk of recurrence and can shorten the treatment duration in the event of a flare,” she said.

She also favors a time-contingent approach to treating patients with AD. “As physicians, we tend to do our visits more as symptom contingent, which means when a patient is flaring. This reinforces the view that this is a difficult disease to treat, and that there is no hope,” she pointed out. But for chronic diseases, she added, “a time-contingent approach with appointments at set intervals leads to a different perception. It can result in better compliance, because skin care might be performed more regularly. It’s analogous to when you know you’re going to see the dentist so you floss more regularly the week before your appointment. There also seems to be less pressure on physicians and patients because you are seeing each other more frequently; you can talk more openly about what’s working and what’s not.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.

[email protected]

Loss-of-function mutations in the FLG gene are the strongest known genetic risk factor for developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD.

This gene codes for profilaggrin, a protein, which is then cleaved to form filaggrin, which helps to organize the cytoskeleton of the skin and is an important structural component of the skin. The understanding is that patients who have filaggrin mutations tend to have earlier onset and more persistent disease, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium.

“Prior studies have shown that mutations in the FLG gene can confer a risk of developed AD that is two- to sevenfold with variants R501X and the 22804del4 frequently described. It is important to note that most of these findings have been described primarily in populations of European descent, with other variants being found in populations of African nation descent, and seem to be more prevalent in populations with early onset disease.”
 

Environmental factors

Other AD-related risk factors that have been previously described in the literature include environmental factors such as climate, diet, breastfeeding, obesity, pollution, tobacco smoke, pet ownership, and microbiome or gut microflora. “The list of culprits is ever increasing,” she said. “However, it’s important to recognize that data to support some of these associations are lacking, and oftentimes, a lot of the results are contradictory.”

As part of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, researchers evaluated the association between climate factors with the 12-month period prevalence rates of symptoms of atopic eczema in children. They found that patients who lived at higher latitudes and those who lived in areas where there were lower mean outdoor temperatures tended to have a higher prevalence of eczema symptoms. Worldwide, they found that symptoms of eczema were also prevalent in areas where there was lower indoor humidity.

“The authors concluded that they can’t really demonstrate a cause and effect, and that while latitude and temperature changes appear to affect the prevalence of eczema, they may do so indirectly, perhaps to changes in behavior and differences in sun exposure,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was not involved with the study. “For example, we know that vitamin D is a protective risk factor for AD. Low vitamin D has been associated with more severe disease in some studies. We also know that UV exposure leads to the conversion of filaggrin degradation products such as trans-urocanic acid into cis-urocanic acid, which has been demonstrated to have immunosuppressive effects.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine articles found small associations, which were significant, between being born in the winter (odds ratio, 1.15) and fall (OR, 1.16) and the risk of developing AD, compared with being born in the spring and summer. However, an analysis of satellite-derived data on air temperature across the United States from 1993 to 2011 found that as ambient air temperature increases, so did the risk for an ambulatory visit for AD to physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

In all areas but the south, the largest number of AD visits occur in the spring. In the south, more AD visits occur in the summer. “This raises the point that we don’t really know everything when it comes to the influence of temperature and climate change on AD,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said.

Several maternal and neonatal risk factors for AD have been described in the literature, including the effect of prenatal exposure to antibiotics. In one large analysis, investigators assessed the association among 18-month-old children in the Danish National Birth Cohort, which included 62,560 mother-child pairs. They found that prenatal antibiotic use was associated with an increased odds of AD among children born to atopic mothers but only when used during all three trimesters (adjusted OR, 1.45). When they further stratified these analyses by type of birth (vaginal versus C-section), the association persisted in both groups, but was stronger among those delivered by C-section.

 

Probiotics

The role of probiotics to reduce the risk for AD has also been investigated. “We do know that probiotics could potentially be helpful, and it is often a readily available intervention,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “But the question still is how and when to supplement.”

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers examined supplementation with probiotics given to breastfeeding mothers, pregnant mothers, or directly given to infants, and the risk of developing AD up to 18 months of age. They found that overall, probiotic exposure resulted in decreased risk of developing AD. In stratified analyses, the strongest association was observed for those who received probiotics during their pregnancy, during breastfeeding, and as an infant, which conferred about a 25% reduced risk.
 

Antibiotic exposure

What about early-life exposure to antibiotics on one’s risk for developing AD? A meta-analysis of 22 studies found that children who had been exposed to antibiotics during the first 2 years of life had an increased risk of eczema (OR, 1.26), compared with children who had not been exposed during the same period of time. “Interesting hypotheses can be generated from this study,” she said. “Perhaps future steps should focus on the impact of antibiotic exposure, the gut microbiome, and maternal risk factors for AD.”

In a separate study that supported these findings, researchers evaluated the association between the use of acid-suppressive medications and antibiotics during infancy and the development of allergic disease in early childhood. They found that exposure to either of these medications during the first six months of infancy resulted in a mild increased risk of developing AD, and concluded that they should be used during infancy only in situations of clear clinical benefit. “We should be good stewards of antibiotic use, in particular due to concern for antibiotic resistance in the population overall,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said.
 

Prevention strategies

Several AD prevention strategies have also been described in the medical literature, including the use of daily emollients during infancy. In a multicenter trial carried out in the United Kingdom, researchers tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year of life could prevent eczema in high-risk children, which was defined as having at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years. The researchers found no evidence to suggest that daily emollient use during the first year of life prevents eczema.

Another study, the PreventADALL trial of 2,397 infants, consisted of four treatment arms: a control group advised to follow national guidelines on infant nutrition; a skin intervention group that was asked to use skin emollients, a food intervention group with early introduction of peanut, cow’s milk, wheat, and egg, and a combined skin and food intervention. The investigators found no difference in the risk reduction of developing AD among patients who were treated with skin emollients or early complementary feeding, and concluded that these types of interventions should not be considered as interventions to prevent AD in this cohort of patients.

However, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench emphasized that emollients and moisturizers are an important part of the treatment regimen for AD patients. A Cochrane systematic review of nearly 80 randomized, controlled trials evaluating the use of emollients in eczema found that most moisturizers showed some beneficial effects in addition to active treatment, including prolonging the time to flare, reducing the number of flares, and reducing the amount of topical corticosteroids used.

For treatment, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench recommends a proactive approach focused on short-term induction therapy with intensive topical anti-inflammatories until the affected area is almost healed, followed by maintenance therapy that involves use of a long-term, low- to mid-potency steroid or a topical calcineurin inhibitor to previously affected areas. “These interventions have been shown to decrease the risk of recurrence and can shorten the treatment duration in the event of a flare,” she said.

She also favors a time-contingent approach to treating patients with AD. “As physicians, we tend to do our visits more as symptom contingent, which means when a patient is flaring. This reinforces the view that this is a difficult disease to treat, and that there is no hope,” she pointed out. But for chronic diseases, she added, “a time-contingent approach with appointments at set intervals leads to a different perception. It can result in better compliance, because skin care might be performed more regularly. It’s analogous to when you know you’re going to see the dentist so you floss more regularly the week before your appointment. There also seems to be less pressure on physicians and patients because you are seeing each other more frequently; you can talk more openly about what’s working and what’s not.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.

[email protected]

Loss-of-function mutations in the FLG gene are the strongest known genetic risk factor for developing atopic dermatitis (AD), according to Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD.

This gene codes for profilaggrin, a protein, which is then cleaved to form filaggrin, which helps to organize the cytoskeleton of the skin and is an important structural component of the skin. The understanding is that patients who have filaggrin mutations tend to have earlier onset and more persistent disease, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium.

“Prior studies have shown that mutations in the FLG gene can confer a risk of developed AD that is two- to sevenfold with variants R501X and the 22804del4 frequently described. It is important to note that most of these findings have been described primarily in populations of European descent, with other variants being found in populations of African nation descent, and seem to be more prevalent in populations with early onset disease.”
 

Environmental factors

Other AD-related risk factors that have been previously described in the literature include environmental factors such as climate, diet, breastfeeding, obesity, pollution, tobacco smoke, pet ownership, and microbiome or gut microflora. “The list of culprits is ever increasing,” she said. “However, it’s important to recognize that data to support some of these associations are lacking, and oftentimes, a lot of the results are contradictory.”

As part of the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, researchers evaluated the association between climate factors with the 12-month period prevalence rates of symptoms of atopic eczema in children. They found that patients who lived at higher latitudes and those who lived in areas where there were lower mean outdoor temperatures tended to have a higher prevalence of eczema symptoms. Worldwide, they found that symptoms of eczema were also prevalent in areas where there was lower indoor humidity.

“The authors concluded that they can’t really demonstrate a cause and effect, and that while latitude and temperature changes appear to affect the prevalence of eczema, they may do so indirectly, perhaps to changes in behavior and differences in sun exposure,” said Dr. Chiesa Fuxench, who was not involved with the study. “For example, we know that vitamin D is a protective risk factor for AD. Low vitamin D has been associated with more severe disease in some studies. We also know that UV exposure leads to the conversion of filaggrin degradation products such as trans-urocanic acid into cis-urocanic acid, which has been demonstrated to have immunosuppressive effects.”

A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine articles found small associations, which were significant, between being born in the winter (odds ratio, 1.15) and fall (OR, 1.16) and the risk of developing AD, compared with being born in the spring and summer. However, an analysis of satellite-derived data on air temperature across the United States from 1993 to 2011 found that as ambient air temperature increases, so did the risk for an ambulatory visit for AD to physicians from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

In all areas but the south, the largest number of AD visits occur in the spring. In the south, more AD visits occur in the summer. “This raises the point that we don’t really know everything when it comes to the influence of temperature and climate change on AD,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said.

Several maternal and neonatal risk factors for AD have been described in the literature, including the effect of prenatal exposure to antibiotics. In one large analysis, investigators assessed the association among 18-month-old children in the Danish National Birth Cohort, which included 62,560 mother-child pairs. They found that prenatal antibiotic use was associated with an increased odds of AD among children born to atopic mothers but only when used during all three trimesters (adjusted OR, 1.45). When they further stratified these analyses by type of birth (vaginal versus C-section), the association persisted in both groups, but was stronger among those delivered by C-section.

 

Probiotics

The role of probiotics to reduce the risk for AD has also been investigated. “We do know that probiotics could potentially be helpful, and it is often a readily available intervention,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said. “But the question still is how and when to supplement.”

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, researchers examined supplementation with probiotics given to breastfeeding mothers, pregnant mothers, or directly given to infants, and the risk of developing AD up to 18 months of age. They found that overall, probiotic exposure resulted in decreased risk of developing AD. In stratified analyses, the strongest association was observed for those who received probiotics during their pregnancy, during breastfeeding, and as an infant, which conferred about a 25% reduced risk.
 

Antibiotic exposure

What about early-life exposure to antibiotics on one’s risk for developing AD? A meta-analysis of 22 studies found that children who had been exposed to antibiotics during the first 2 years of life had an increased risk of eczema (OR, 1.26), compared with children who had not been exposed during the same period of time. “Interesting hypotheses can be generated from this study,” she said. “Perhaps future steps should focus on the impact of antibiotic exposure, the gut microbiome, and maternal risk factors for AD.”

In a separate study that supported these findings, researchers evaluated the association between the use of acid-suppressive medications and antibiotics during infancy and the development of allergic disease in early childhood. They found that exposure to either of these medications during the first six months of infancy resulted in a mild increased risk of developing AD, and concluded that they should be used during infancy only in situations of clear clinical benefit. “We should be good stewards of antibiotic use, in particular due to concern for antibiotic resistance in the population overall,” Dr. Chiesa Fuxench said.
 

Prevention strategies

Several AD prevention strategies have also been described in the medical literature, including the use of daily emollients during infancy. In a multicenter trial carried out in the United Kingdom, researchers tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year of life could prevent eczema in high-risk children, which was defined as having at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years. The researchers found no evidence to suggest that daily emollient use during the first year of life prevents eczema.

Another study, the PreventADALL trial of 2,397 infants, consisted of four treatment arms: a control group advised to follow national guidelines on infant nutrition; a skin intervention group that was asked to use skin emollients, a food intervention group with early introduction of peanut, cow’s milk, wheat, and egg, and a combined skin and food intervention. The investigators found no difference in the risk reduction of developing AD among patients who were treated with skin emollients or early complementary feeding, and concluded that these types of interventions should not be considered as interventions to prevent AD in this cohort of patients.

However, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench emphasized that emollients and moisturizers are an important part of the treatment regimen for AD patients. A Cochrane systematic review of nearly 80 randomized, controlled trials evaluating the use of emollients in eczema found that most moisturizers showed some beneficial effects in addition to active treatment, including prolonging the time to flare, reducing the number of flares, and reducing the amount of topical corticosteroids used.

For treatment, Dr. Chiesa Fuxench recommends a proactive approach focused on short-term induction therapy with intensive topical anti-inflammatories until the affected area is almost healed, followed by maintenance therapy that involves use of a long-term, low- to mid-potency steroid or a topical calcineurin inhibitor to previously affected areas. “These interventions have been shown to decrease the risk of recurrence and can shorten the treatment duration in the event of a flare,” she said.

She also favors a time-contingent approach to treating patients with AD. “As physicians, we tend to do our visits more as symptom contingent, which means when a patient is flaring. This reinforces the view that this is a difficult disease to treat, and that there is no hope,” she pointed out. But for chronic diseases, she added, “a time-contingent approach with appointments at set intervals leads to a different perception. It can result in better compliance, because skin care might be performed more regularly. It’s analogous to when you know you’re going to see the dentist so you floss more regularly the week before your appointment. There also seems to be less pressure on physicians and patients because you are seeing each other more frequently; you can talk more openly about what’s working and what’s not.”

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.

[email protected]

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.