MDedge Neurology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic effects mixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic effects mixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic effects mixed

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

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

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

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

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

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccine decisions voted unanimously Oct. 14 to approve booster doses of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The 19 members of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted to authorize a 50-milligram dose -- half the dose used in the primary series of shots -- to boost immunity against COVID-19 at least 6 months after the second dose. Those who might need a booster are the same groups who’ve gotten a green light for third Pfizer doses. They include people:

• Over age 65
• Ages 18 to 64 who are at higher risk for severe COVID
• Who are at higher risk of catching COVID because they live in group settings like nursing homes or prisons, or because they are frequently exposed at work, as health care workers are

The agency is not bound by the committee’s vote but usually follows its recommendations.

Some members of the committee said they weren’t satisfied with the data Moderna submitted to support its application but, for practical reasons, said it wouldn’t be fair to take booster doses off the table for Moderna recipients when Pfizer’s boosters were already available.

“The data are not perfect, but these are extraordinary times and we have to work with data that are not perfect,” said Eric Rubin, MD, editor-in-chief of TheNew England Journal of Medicine and a temporary voting member on the committee.

Patrick Moore, MD, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute who is also a temporary voting member, said he voted to approve the Moderna boosters based “more on a gut feeling than on truly serious data.”

“I’ve got some real issues with this vote,” he said.

“We need to see good solid data, and it needs to be explained well,” Dr. Moore said, challenging companies making future applications to do better.

Next, the FDA will have to formally sign off on the emergency use authorization, which it is expected to do. Then, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet to make formal recommendations on use of the Moderna boosters. That group is scheduled to meet Oct. 21 to take up questions of exactly how these boosters should be used.

Peter Marks, MD, head of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, cautioned that the CDC is more constrained in making recommendations under an emergency use authorization than it would be if the boosters had gotten full approval. So it will likely align its vote with the conditions of the emergency use authorization from the FDA.

After the advisory committee votes, the director of the CDC has to approve its recommendation.

Overall, data show that two doses of the Moderna vaccine remains highly effective at preventing hospitalization and death. But over time, levels of the body’s first line of defense against a virus -- its neutralizing antibodies -- fall somewhat. This drop seems to correspond with an increased risk for breakthrough cases of COVID-19.

Data presented by Moderna Oct. 14 showed the risk of breakthrough infections increased by 36% in study participants who received the vaccine in their clinical trials, compared to people in the same study who received a placebo first, and got the vaccine later, when the trial was unblended. Their protection was more recent, and they had fewer breakthrough infections.

In considering booster doses, the FDA has asked drugmakers to do studies that look at the immune responses of small groups of study participants and compare them to the immune responses seen in study participants after their first two vaccine doses.

To be considered effective, boosters have to clear two bars. The first looks at the concentration of antibodies generated in the blood of boosted study volunteers. The second looks at how many boosted study participants saw a four-fold increase in their blood antibody levels a month after the booster minus the number of people who saw the same increase after their original two doses.

Moderna presented data that its boosters met the first criteria, but failed to meet the second, perhaps because so many people in the study had good responses after their first two doses of the vaccines.

The FDA’s advisory committee will reconvene Oct. 15 to hear evidence supporting the emergency use authorization of a booster dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

This article was updated Oct. 15 and first appeared on WebMD.com.

A new position statement from the American Academy of Neurology and other organizations warns that soaring prices for neurologic and other prescription medications is leading to rationing of care and diverting clinicians’ time from the clinic to insurance bureaucracy.

This situation is also taking a toll on neurologists’ mental health, who already have the second-highest burnout rate across medical specialties, the statement adds.

The statement was published online Oct. 5, 2021, in Neurology.
 

Dramatic price increases

Drafted by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee – a joint committee that includes the AAN, the American Neurological Association, and the Child Neurology Society – the statement was prompted by a 2018 report from the AAN Neurology Drug Pricing Task Force to address challenges associated with high drug costs.

It highlights ethical concerns from high drug costs, policy proposals that might temper the problem, and how clinicians can adjust to the current reality of pharmaceutical pricing and better advocate for changes to the healthcare system.

“Runaway drug costs continue to be a pressing problem with recent dramatic price increases not only for specialty drugs, but also generic ones,” said lead author Amy Tsou, MD, MSc, codirector of the ECRI Evidence-Based Practice Center at the Center for Evidence and Guidelines in Plymouth Meeting, Pa.

She noted that one in four Americans has difficulty paying for medication, and many report going without a medication because of cost.

“Ensuring a fair system for drug pricing and coverage rules that balance the goods of individual patients with the needs of broader populations when resources are limited remains more important than ever,” Dr. Tsou said.

Out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications have risen dramatically over the past decade, with the fastest rise reported among drugs for multiple sclerosis. Results from a study published in 2019 showed that, between 2004 and 2016, patients’ out-of-pocket expenses skyrocketed from $15 a month to $309 a month.

The steep increases have forced some neurology patients to ration their medication or stop taking it altogether, which is one of the ethical concerns cited in the AAN statement.
 

Patient self-rationing

Commenting on the statement, Ilana Katz Sand, MD, associate director of the Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, noted that clinicians are already acutely aware of the effect high drug costs have on their patients’ medical decisions. However, statements such as the current one bring much-needed outside attention to the problem.

“I’ve definitely had more and more people struggling with deductibles and copays, even among people who are insured,” said Dr. Katz Sand, who was not involved with the AAN paper.

She has a number of patients who have rationed their medication or stopped taking it altogether when their copays increased or they lost access to a copay assistance program because their insurance company chose to cover a still-expensive generic drug with no assistance program over a slightly costlier brand-name medication that comes with patient discounts.

Too often, patients don’t tell her they’re not taking their medication as prescribed. At a recent appointment, Dr. Katz Sand learned about a patient’s drug rationing only after a routine MRI showed new brain lesions that regular treatment might have prevented.

Another patient, new to her clinic, questioned the treatment plan Dr. Katz Sand recommended because they could not cover the copay. This sort of self-rationing happens in patients with and without insurance, she added.

“It’s a terrible thing and it’s happening to all patients,” Dr. Katz Sand said, adding that “the old credo of ‘yeah, the drug prices are high, but they are covered by insurance’ is not a sustainable argument anymore.”
 

What neurologists can do

Some sort of rationing is an unavoidable outcome of steep treatment costs, the authors noted. But what does that mean in clinical practice?

Neurologists should be aware of the costs involved in ordering diagnostic tests, treatment, or medication – and shouldn’t feel compelled to order treatments or tests that they feel are medically inappropriate just because a patient requests them, the authors wrote.

The statement also encourages clinicians to include financial realities in the shared decision-making process with patients.

However, Dr. Katz Sand said that is not always possible. Drug prices aren’t fixed, with different insurance plans offering different pricing, deductibles, and copays. “It’s hard for us to attempt to incorporate discussions about price in our discussions with patients when we can’t even predict what their out-of-pocket cost is going to be,” she said.

“Every single prescription we write requires prior authorization, and that’s directly related to the fact that the cost of these drugs is so high,” she added.

As do many other clinicians, Dr. Katz Sand spends hours each week on preauthorization forms and haggling with insurance companies on behalf of her patients. To get needed medication at a cost they can afford sometimes takes creative problem solving and almost always takes a lot of time. “It all adds to the administrative burden, patients’ stress, and our stress,” she said.
 

Physician-advocates needed

The AAN paper identifies a number of policy reforms to address drug pricing at a national level, including giving Medicare officials the power to negotiate drug prices, allowing the safe importation of drugs from other countries, and speeding the Food and Drug Administration approval process for generic drugs.

There is also a need to address systemic problems that, the authors noted, help create and perpetuate health care disparities. Lawmakers at the state and federal level are considering a number of these policy ideas and others that could address the kinds of issues Dr. Katz Sand described. However, the chances of their success are slim at best, said Bruce H. Cohen, MD, chair of the AAN advocacy committee and director of the NeuroDevelopmental Science Center at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital.

“On a federal level, we’re watching in real time how the entrenched divisions, even within parties, are resulting in continued stalemate,” said Dr. Cohen, who is not one of the statement authors.

Those ideas need advocates and the AAN paper suggests neurologists should be among the ones championing these changes, he added.

“One of the most effective strategies is to bring attention to the impact high drug costs have on neurology patients and medical practices,” Dr. Cohen said. “It’s so important to make sure policy makers know the significant impact of high drug costs in neurology and within the context of finite resources.”

One way to do that is to share statements such as the current one with members of Congress working on policy reform, Dr. Cohen said. Another is through programs such as the academy’s annual Neurology on the Hill conference.

A third strategy is to encourage individuals such as Dr. Katz Sand to speak out when and where they can, he added.

While she agrees with the idea, finding time for advocacy work amid patient care, administrative work, and research is challenging. Dr. Katz Sand would like to see groups like the AAN work with health care institutions to implement policies that allocate time and resources to train clinicians in advocacy – and then support their efforts on that front.

“I’m really glad they wrote this and think they did a good job of crystallizing the issues,” Dr. Katz Sand said. “It’s good to put it out there as a document that could help serve as the basis for the requests we make collectively. I just hope that people listen.”

The paper received no funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new position statement from the American Academy of Neurology and other organizations warns that soaring prices for neurologic and other prescription medications is leading to rationing of care and diverting clinicians’ time from the clinic to insurance bureaucracy.

This situation is also taking a toll on neurologists’ mental health, who already have the second-highest burnout rate across medical specialties, the statement adds.

The statement was published online Oct. 5, 2021, in Neurology.
 

Dramatic price increases

Drafted by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee – a joint committee that includes the AAN, the American Neurological Association, and the Child Neurology Society – the statement was prompted by a 2018 report from the AAN Neurology Drug Pricing Task Force to address challenges associated with high drug costs.

It highlights ethical concerns from high drug costs, policy proposals that might temper the problem, and how clinicians can adjust to the current reality of pharmaceutical pricing and better advocate for changes to the healthcare system.

“Runaway drug costs continue to be a pressing problem with recent dramatic price increases not only for specialty drugs, but also generic ones,” said lead author Amy Tsou, MD, MSc, codirector of the ECRI Evidence-Based Practice Center at the Center for Evidence and Guidelines in Plymouth Meeting, Pa.

She noted that one in four Americans has difficulty paying for medication, and many report going without a medication because of cost.

“Ensuring a fair system for drug pricing and coverage rules that balance the goods of individual patients with the needs of broader populations when resources are limited remains more important than ever,” Dr. Tsou said.

Out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications have risen dramatically over the past decade, with the fastest rise reported among drugs for multiple sclerosis. Results from a study published in 2019 showed that, between 2004 and 2016, patients’ out-of-pocket expenses skyrocketed from $15 a month to $309 a month.

The steep increases have forced some neurology patients to ration their medication or stop taking it altogether, which is one of the ethical concerns cited in the AAN statement.
 

Patient self-rationing

Commenting on the statement, Ilana Katz Sand, MD, associate director of the Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, noted that clinicians are already acutely aware of the effect high drug costs have on their patients’ medical decisions. However, statements such as the current one bring much-needed outside attention to the problem.

“I’ve definitely had more and more people struggling with deductibles and copays, even among people who are insured,” said Dr. Katz Sand, who was not involved with the AAN paper.

She has a number of patients who have rationed their medication or stopped taking it altogether when their copays increased or they lost access to a copay assistance program because their insurance company chose to cover a still-expensive generic drug with no assistance program over a slightly costlier brand-name medication that comes with patient discounts.

Too often, patients don’t tell her they’re not taking their medication as prescribed. At a recent appointment, Dr. Katz Sand learned about a patient’s drug rationing only after a routine MRI showed new brain lesions that regular treatment might have prevented.

Another patient, new to her clinic, questioned the treatment plan Dr. Katz Sand recommended because they could not cover the copay. This sort of self-rationing happens in patients with and without insurance, she added.

“It’s a terrible thing and it’s happening to all patients,” Dr. Katz Sand said, adding that “the old credo of ‘yeah, the drug prices are high, but they are covered by insurance’ is not a sustainable argument anymore.”
 

What neurologists can do

Some sort of rationing is an unavoidable outcome of steep treatment costs, the authors noted. But what does that mean in clinical practice?

Neurologists should be aware of the costs involved in ordering diagnostic tests, treatment, or medication – and shouldn’t feel compelled to order treatments or tests that they feel are medically inappropriate just because a patient requests them, the authors wrote.

The statement also encourages clinicians to include financial realities in the shared decision-making process with patients.

However, Dr. Katz Sand said that is not always possible. Drug prices aren’t fixed, with different insurance plans offering different pricing, deductibles, and copays. “It’s hard for us to attempt to incorporate discussions about price in our discussions with patients when we can’t even predict what their out-of-pocket cost is going to be,” she said.

“Every single prescription we write requires prior authorization, and that’s directly related to the fact that the cost of these drugs is so high,” she added.

As do many other clinicians, Dr. Katz Sand spends hours each week on preauthorization forms and haggling with insurance companies on behalf of her patients. To get needed medication at a cost they can afford sometimes takes creative problem solving and almost always takes a lot of time. “It all adds to the administrative burden, patients’ stress, and our stress,” she said.
 

Physician-advocates needed

The AAN paper identifies a number of policy reforms to address drug pricing at a national level, including giving Medicare officials the power to negotiate drug prices, allowing the safe importation of drugs from other countries, and speeding the Food and Drug Administration approval process for generic drugs.

There is also a need to address systemic problems that, the authors noted, help create and perpetuate health care disparities. Lawmakers at the state and federal level are considering a number of these policy ideas and others that could address the kinds of issues Dr. Katz Sand described. However, the chances of their success are slim at best, said Bruce H. Cohen, MD, chair of the AAN advocacy committee and director of the NeuroDevelopmental Science Center at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital.

“On a federal level, we’re watching in real time how the entrenched divisions, even within parties, are resulting in continued stalemate,” said Dr. Cohen, who is not one of the statement authors.

Those ideas need advocates and the AAN paper suggests neurologists should be among the ones championing these changes, he added.

“One of the most effective strategies is to bring attention to the impact high drug costs have on neurology patients and medical practices,” Dr. Cohen said. “It’s so important to make sure policy makers know the significant impact of high drug costs in neurology and within the context of finite resources.”

One way to do that is to share statements such as the current one with members of Congress working on policy reform, Dr. Cohen said. Another is through programs such as the academy’s annual Neurology on the Hill conference.

A third strategy is to encourage individuals such as Dr. Katz Sand to speak out when and where they can, he added.

While she agrees with the idea, finding time for advocacy work amid patient care, administrative work, and research is challenging. Dr. Katz Sand would like to see groups like the AAN work with health care institutions to implement policies that allocate time and resources to train clinicians in advocacy – and then support their efforts on that front.

“I’m really glad they wrote this and think they did a good job of crystallizing the issues,” Dr. Katz Sand said. “It’s good to put it out there as a document that could help serve as the basis for the requests we make collectively. I just hope that people listen.”

The paper received no funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new position statement from the American Academy of Neurology and other organizations warns that soaring prices for neurologic and other prescription medications is leading to rationing of care and diverting clinicians’ time from the clinic to insurance bureaucracy.

This situation is also taking a toll on neurologists’ mental health, who already have the second-highest burnout rate across medical specialties, the statement adds.

The statement was published online Oct. 5, 2021, in Neurology.
 

Dramatic price increases

Drafted by the Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee – a joint committee that includes the AAN, the American Neurological Association, and the Child Neurology Society – the statement was prompted by a 2018 report from the AAN Neurology Drug Pricing Task Force to address challenges associated with high drug costs.

It highlights ethical concerns from high drug costs, policy proposals that might temper the problem, and how clinicians can adjust to the current reality of pharmaceutical pricing and better advocate for changes to the healthcare system.

“Runaway drug costs continue to be a pressing problem with recent dramatic price increases not only for specialty drugs, but also generic ones,” said lead author Amy Tsou, MD, MSc, codirector of the ECRI Evidence-Based Practice Center at the Center for Evidence and Guidelines in Plymouth Meeting, Pa.

She noted that one in four Americans has difficulty paying for medication, and many report going without a medication because of cost.

“Ensuring a fair system for drug pricing and coverage rules that balance the goods of individual patients with the needs of broader populations when resources are limited remains more important than ever,” Dr. Tsou said.

Out-of-pocket costs for neurologic medications have risen dramatically over the past decade, with the fastest rise reported among drugs for multiple sclerosis. Results from a study published in 2019 showed that, between 2004 and 2016, patients’ out-of-pocket expenses skyrocketed from $15 a month to $309 a month.

The steep increases have forced some neurology patients to ration their medication or stop taking it altogether, which is one of the ethical concerns cited in the AAN statement.
 

Patient self-rationing

Commenting on the statement, Ilana Katz Sand, MD, associate director of the Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis at Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, noted that clinicians are already acutely aware of the effect high drug costs have on their patients’ medical decisions. However, statements such as the current one bring much-needed outside attention to the problem.

“I’ve definitely had more and more people struggling with deductibles and copays, even among people who are insured,” said Dr. Katz Sand, who was not involved with the AAN paper.

She has a number of patients who have rationed their medication or stopped taking it altogether when their copays increased or they lost access to a copay assistance program because their insurance company chose to cover a still-expensive generic drug with no assistance program over a slightly costlier brand-name medication that comes with patient discounts.

Too often, patients don’t tell her they’re not taking their medication as prescribed. At a recent appointment, Dr. Katz Sand learned about a patient’s drug rationing only after a routine MRI showed new brain lesions that regular treatment might have prevented.

Another patient, new to her clinic, questioned the treatment plan Dr. Katz Sand recommended because they could not cover the copay. This sort of self-rationing happens in patients with and without insurance, she added.

“It’s a terrible thing and it’s happening to all patients,” Dr. Katz Sand said, adding that “the old credo of ‘yeah, the drug prices are high, but they are covered by insurance’ is not a sustainable argument anymore.”
 

What neurologists can do

Some sort of rationing is an unavoidable outcome of steep treatment costs, the authors noted. But what does that mean in clinical practice?

Neurologists should be aware of the costs involved in ordering diagnostic tests, treatment, or medication – and shouldn’t feel compelled to order treatments or tests that they feel are medically inappropriate just because a patient requests them, the authors wrote.

The statement also encourages clinicians to include financial realities in the shared decision-making process with patients.

However, Dr. Katz Sand said that is not always possible. Drug prices aren’t fixed, with different insurance plans offering different pricing, deductibles, and copays. “It’s hard for us to attempt to incorporate discussions about price in our discussions with patients when we can’t even predict what their out-of-pocket cost is going to be,” she said.

“Every single prescription we write requires prior authorization, and that’s directly related to the fact that the cost of these drugs is so high,” she added.

As do many other clinicians, Dr. Katz Sand spends hours each week on preauthorization forms and haggling with insurance companies on behalf of her patients. To get needed medication at a cost they can afford sometimes takes creative problem solving and almost always takes a lot of time. “It all adds to the administrative burden, patients’ stress, and our stress,” she said.
 

Physician-advocates needed

The AAN paper identifies a number of policy reforms to address drug pricing at a national level, including giving Medicare officials the power to negotiate drug prices, allowing the safe importation of drugs from other countries, and speeding the Food and Drug Administration approval process for generic drugs.

There is also a need to address systemic problems that, the authors noted, help create and perpetuate health care disparities. Lawmakers at the state and federal level are considering a number of these policy ideas and others that could address the kinds of issues Dr. Katz Sand described. However, the chances of their success are slim at best, said Bruce H. Cohen, MD, chair of the AAN advocacy committee and director of the NeuroDevelopmental Science Center at Akron (Ohio) Children’s Hospital.

“On a federal level, we’re watching in real time how the entrenched divisions, even within parties, are resulting in continued stalemate,” said Dr. Cohen, who is not one of the statement authors.

Those ideas need advocates and the AAN paper suggests neurologists should be among the ones championing these changes, he added.

“One of the most effective strategies is to bring attention to the impact high drug costs have on neurology patients and medical practices,” Dr. Cohen said. “It’s so important to make sure policy makers know the significant impact of high drug costs in neurology and within the context of finite resources.”

One way to do that is to share statements such as the current one with members of Congress working on policy reform, Dr. Cohen said. Another is through programs such as the academy’s annual Neurology on the Hill conference.

A third strategy is to encourage individuals such as Dr. Katz Sand to speak out when and where they can, he added.

While she agrees with the idea, finding time for advocacy work amid patient care, administrative work, and research is challenging. Dr. Katz Sand would like to see groups like the AAN work with health care institutions to implement policies that allocate time and resources to train clinicians in advocacy – and then support their efforts on that front.

“I’m really glad they wrote this and think they did a good job of crystallizing the issues,” Dr. Katz Sand said. “It’s good to put it out there as a document that could help serve as the basis for the requests we make collectively. I just hope that people listen.”

The paper received no funding. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

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

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

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

New data on COVID vaccination in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) has shown a reduced humoral response in patients treated with the anti-CD20 antibodies ocrelizumab or rituximab, but not in those receiving the similar product, ofatumumab.

The results also show a reduced response to COVID vaccination in some patients on fingolimod.

The data come from a new series of vaccinated patients with MS from Madrid, which was presented at the annual meeting of the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS).

Presenting the data, Celia Oreja-Guevara, MD, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, concluded that “currently approved COVID-19 vaccines appear safe in MS patients and are effective in most patients. However, vaccine strategy in patients treated with anti-CD20 and S1P inhibitors [such as fingolimod] need further study.”

“We showed that patients on ocrelizumab or rituximab had a very low or no antibody response to COVID vaccination,” she added. “However, some previous studies have shown some T-cell response to vaccination in these patients, and we are looking at that now.”
 

Assessing postvaccination antibody response

For the current study, the researchers analyzed the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination at week 3, week 6, and month 3 after the first dose in 165 patients with MS and 200 healthy controls.

Of the patients with MS, 120 received both doses of mRNA vaccine and 42 received the AstraZeneca vaccine. The mean age of the MS patients was 45 years and 46 years in the healthy controls.

Adverse events were similar in the two groups, and no increase in relapse activity was seen in the patients with MS.

Mean antibody titers were slightly lower in the patients with MS versus the healthy controls. At 3 weeks, mean titers were 7,910 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 9,397 in the healthy controls. At 6 weeks, mean levels were 16,347 AU/mL in the patients with MS and 18,120 in the healthy controls.

Patients with MS treated with interferon-beta, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, cladribine, and natalizumab who received mRNA vaccines developed a similar postvaccination humoral response as the healthy controls at each of 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the first dose.

Patients with MS receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine mounted a lower humoral response than those receiving the mRNA vaccine, but this same effect was also seen in the healthy controls.

However, patients on the anti-CD20 drugs ocrelizumab or rituximab showed a lower humoral response to COVID vaccination. Only 3 of 20 patients who had been treated with ocrelizumab developed antibodies, but these patients had longer washout periods (at least 6 months) between receiving ocrelizumab and the COVID vaccine. All six patients treated with rituximab had no antibody response to the COVID vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that ocrelizumab-treated patients may have a worse outcome after COVID-19 infection. “In the first wave of infection in Madrid, we recorded five patients on ocrelizumab with COVID-19, four of whom were hospitalized,” she noted.

“In patients on ocrelizumab we need to try and have a long interval between giving this drug and giving the COVID vaccine. The longer the washout period, the more antibodies are seen,” she said.

She noted that two patients in the study received the COVID vaccine 1 year after ocrelizumab administration and had a normal humoral response, similar to the healthy controls.

The new anti-CD20 drug, ofatumumab, did not seem to affect the COVID vaccine antibody response as much as ocrelizumab or rituximab. In the current study, four of five patients treated with ofatumumab had an antibody response.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara suggested that this was probably because the depletion of B cells is not so strong with ofatumumab. “This drug is dosed every 4 weeks and it doesn’t deplete all the B cells and they are replaced quite quickly.”

Fingolimod is another MS drug that seems to affect the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination.

Dr. Oreja-Guevara described the response to COVID vaccination in patients on fingolimod as “very variable.” Of 16 patients treated with fingolimod, 4 failed to develop a humoral response, 7 had a low antibody response, and 5 had a similar response to that seen in the healthy controls (three of these patients had also had a previous COVID-19 infection). The response to vaccination in fingolimod-treated patients did not appear to be related to lymphopenia.
 

Cellular response also impaired with fingolimod

These data are consistent with those from another cohort from Israel reported previously.

In that study, which was published earlier in 2021, a team led by Anat Achiron, MD, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Aviv, analyzed humoral immunity in 125 patients with MS 1 month after the second dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. A group of healthy people similarly vaccinated served as control.

Results showed that protective humoral immunity occurred in 97.9% of the control group after vaccination, compared with 100% in untreated patients and 100% in patients treated with cladribine but in just 22.7% of those treated with ocrelizumab and only 3.8% of those taking fingolimod.

For ocrelizumab-treated patients, the failure to mount appropriate IgG immune response was regardless of the absolute lymphocyte counts that were in the normal range or to the time interval from the last ocrelizumab treatment dose that ranged from 3.1 to 8.9 months, “suggesting the need to postpone the next dosing to enable an effective postvaccination humoral response,” the authors said.

They noted that the majority of the fingolimod-treated patients in the study had a low lymphocyte count (<1,000 cells/mm³), which may be the cause for failing to mount an immune response. But even in the small group of fingolimod-treated MS patients with an absolute lymphocyte count above 1,000 cells/mm³, no humoral response was detected.

At the ECTRIMS meeting, Dr. Achiron presented further results from this study on memory B-cell and T-cell responses to the COVID vaccine in these patients.

The results showed that COVID-specific B- and T-cell responses were only present in about half of healthy subjects, untreated patients with MS, and those treated with cladribine.

While the B-cell response was almost completely impaired in the ocrelizumab-treated patients, the T-cell response was present to the same extent as in the control group. But fingolimod patients showed no B- or T-cell responses.

Dr. Achiron concluded that patients on ocrelizumab should wait at least 9 months following the last dose before receiving COVID vaccination, and that patients taking fingolimod should consider a switch to a different medication.

But she pointed out that, despite the lack of humoral cellular responses in the fingolimod group, in this study there does not seem to have been an increase in COVID infection in patients taking fingolimod in a large registry study.

“This leads us to the idea that maybe lymphopenia is not the only story, and maybe innate immunity is playing a role. We still don’t really know the answer for that.”

Dr. Achiron said she was also surprised to see that even untreated and healthy subjects did not develop complete B-cell and T-cell responses after double COVID vaccination. And similar results have been seen in patients who have recovered from natural COVID infection, where the B-cell response is “not 100%,” she added.

“This points to the suggestion that everyone might need a third vaccination, MS patients or not,” she concluded.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Parsonage-Turner syndrome has been highlighted as a potential adverse effect of mRNA COVID vaccines in a recent pharmacovigilance monitoring report from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM).

The rare condition — more common in men than in women — is characterized by the sudden onset of severe pain in the shoulder, followed by arm paralysis. Its etiopathogenesis is not well understood, but vaccines, in particular the flu vaccine, have been implicated in some cases, the report states.

Six serious cases of the syndrome related to the Comirnaty (Pfizer) vaccine were reported by healthcare professionals and vaccinated individuals or their family and friends since the start of the monitoring program. Four of these cases occurred from September 3 to 16.

All six cases involved patients 19 to 69 years of age — two women and four men — who developed symptoms in the 50 days after vaccination. Half were reported after the first dose and half after the second dose. Four of the patients are currently recovering; the outcomes of the other two are unknown.

In the case of the Spikevax vaccine (Moderna), two cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome were reported after vaccination (plus one that occurred after 50 days, which is currently being managed). The onset of symptoms in these two men — one in his early 30s and one in his early 60s — occurred less than 18 days after vaccination. One occurred after the first dose and one after the second dose. This timing indicates a possible link between the syndrome and the vaccine. Both men are currently in recovery.

This signal of mRNA vaccines is now “officially recognized,” according to the Pfizer and Moderna reports.

It is also considered a “potential signal” in the Vaxzevria (AstraZeneca) pharmacovigilance report, released October 8, which describes eight cases of Parsonage-Turner syndrome after vaccination.
 

Safety profile of mRNA COVID vaccines in youth

Between June 15, when children 12 years and older became eligible for vaccination, and August 26, there were 591 reports of potential adverse events — out of 6 million Pfizer doses administered — in 12- to 18-year-old children.

Of the 591 cases, 35.2% were deemed serious. The majority of these were cases of reactogenicity, malaise, or postvaccine discomfort (25%), followed by instances of myocarditis and pericarditis (15.9% and 7.2%, respectively). In eight of 10 cases, one of the first symptom reported was chest pain.

Myocarditis occurred in 39.4% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days) and 54.5% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days). Recorded progress was favorable in nearly nine of 10 cases.

Pericarditis occurred in 53.3% of people after the first injection (mean time to onset, 13 days), and 40.0% after the second (mean time to onset, 4 days).

Three cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MISC) were reported after monitoring ended.

For this age group, “all reported events will continue to be monitored, especially serious events and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children,” report authors conclude.

Data for adverse events after the Moderna vaccine remain limited, but the report stipulates that “the adverse events reported in 12- to 18-year-olds who received an injection do not display any particular pattern, compared with those reported in older subjects, with the exception of a roughly 100-fold lower incidence of reported adverse effects in the 12- to 17-year age group.”
 

No safety warnings for pregnant women

The pharmacovigilance report — which covered the period from December 27, 2020 to September 9, 2021 — “raises no safety warnings for pregnant or nursing women with any of the COVID-19 vaccines.” In addition, two recent studies — one published in JAMA and one in the New England Journal of Medicine — have shown no link between spontaneous miscarriage and mRNA vaccines.

“Moreover, it should be stressed that current data from the international literature consistently show that maternal SARS COV-2 infection increases the risk for fetal, maternal, and neonatal complications, and that this risk may increase with the arrival of the Alpha and Delta variants,” they write. “It is therefore important to reiterate the current recommendations to vaccinate all pregnant women, regardless of the stage of pregnancy.”

Some adverse effects, such as thromboembolic effects, in utero death, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, and uterine contractions, will continue to be monitored.
 

Questions regarding menstrual disorders

As for gynecological disorders reported after vaccination, questions still remain. “In most of the reported cases, it is difficult to accurately determine whether the vaccine played a role in the occurrence of menstrual/genital bleeding,” the authors of the pharmacovigilance monitoring report state.

“Nonetheless, these cases warrant attention,” they add, and further discussions with the French National Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the French Society of Endocrinology are needed in regard to these potential safety signals.

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

Risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and susceptibility to severe COVID-19 share a common genetic mechanism involved in the immune response to viruses, investigators report. The findings could lead to new treatment targets to slow progression and severity of both diseases.

Investigators found that a single genetic variant in the oligoadenylate synthetase 1 (OAS1) gene increases the risk for AD and that related variants in the same gene increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

“These findings may allow us to identify new drug targets to slow progression of both diseases and reduce their severity,” Dervis Salih, PhD, senior research associate, UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, said in an interview.

“Our work also suggests new approaches to treat both diseases with the same drugs,” Dr. Salih added.

The study was published online Oct. 7 in Brain.
 

Shared genetic network

The OAS1 gene is expressed in microglia, a type of immune cell that makes up around 10% of all cells in the brain.

In earlier work, investigators found evidence suggesting a link between the OAS1 gene and AD, but the function of the gene in microglia was unknown.

To further investigate the gene’s link to AD, they sequenced genetic data from 2,547 people – half with AD, and half without.

The genotyping analysis confirmed that the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs1131454 within OAS1 is significantly associated with AD.

Given that the same OAS1 locus has recently been linked with severe COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers investigated four variants on the OAS1 gene.

Results indicate that SNPs within OAS1 associated with AD also show linkage to SNP variants associated with critical illness in COVID-19.

The rs1131454 (risk allele A) and rs4766676 (risk allele T) are associated with AD, and rs10735079 (risk allele A) and rs6489867 (risk allele T) are associated with critical illness with COVID-19, the investigators reported. All of these risk alleles dampen expression of OAS1.

“This study also provides strong new evidence that interferon signaling by the innate immune system plays a substantial role in the progression of Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Salih.

“Identifying this shared genetic network in innate immune cells will allow us with future work to identify new biomarkers to track disease progression and also predict disease risk better for both disorders,” he added.
 

‘Fascinating’ link

In a statement from the UK nonprofit organization, Science Media Center, Kenneth Baillie, MBChB, with the University of Edinburgh, said this study builds on a discovery he and his colleagues made last year that OAS1 variants are associated with severe COVID-19.

“In the ISARIC4C study, we recently found that this is probably due to a change in the way cell membranes detect viruses, but this mechanism doesn’t explain the fascinating association with Alzheimer’s disease reported in this new work,” Dr. Baillie said.

“It is often the case that the same gene can have different roles in different parts of the body. Importantly, it doesn’t mean that having COVID-19 has any effect on your risk of Alzheimer’s,” he added.

Also weighing in on the new study, Jonathan Schott, MD, professor of neurology, University College London, noted that dementia is the “main preexisting health condition associated with COVID-19 mortality, accounting for about one in four deaths from COVID-19 between March and June 2020.

“While some of this excessive mortality may relate to people with dementia being overrepresented in care homes, which were particularly hard hit by the pandemic, or due to general increased vulnerability to infections, there have been questions as to whether there are common factors that might increase susceptibility both to developing dementia and to dying from COVID-19,” Dr. Schott explained.

This “elegant paper” provides evidence for the latter, “suggesting a common genetic mechanism both for Alzheimer’s disease and for severe COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Schott said.

“The identification of a genetic risk factor and elucidation of inflammatory pathways through which it may increase risk has important implications for our understanding of both diseases, with potential implications for novel treatments,” he added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schott serves as chief medical officer for Alzheimer’s Research UK and is clinical adviser to the UK Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Baillie has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and susceptibility to severe COVID-19 share a common genetic mechanism involved in the immune response to viruses, investigators report. The findings could lead to new treatment targets to slow progression and severity of both diseases.

Investigators found that a single genetic variant in the oligoadenylate synthetase 1 (OAS1) gene increases the risk for AD and that related variants in the same gene increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

“These findings may allow us to identify new drug targets to slow progression of both diseases and reduce their severity,” Dervis Salih, PhD, senior research associate, UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, said in an interview.

“Our work also suggests new approaches to treat both diseases with the same drugs,” Dr. Salih added.

The study was published online Oct. 7 in Brain.
 

Shared genetic network

The OAS1 gene is expressed in microglia, a type of immune cell that makes up around 10% of all cells in the brain.

In earlier work, investigators found evidence suggesting a link between the OAS1 gene and AD, but the function of the gene in microglia was unknown.

To further investigate the gene’s link to AD, they sequenced genetic data from 2,547 people – half with AD, and half without.

The genotyping analysis confirmed that the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs1131454 within OAS1 is significantly associated with AD.

Given that the same OAS1 locus has recently been linked with severe COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers investigated four variants on the OAS1 gene.

Results indicate that SNPs within OAS1 associated with AD also show linkage to SNP variants associated with critical illness in COVID-19.

The rs1131454 (risk allele A) and rs4766676 (risk allele T) are associated with AD, and rs10735079 (risk allele A) and rs6489867 (risk allele T) are associated with critical illness with COVID-19, the investigators reported. All of these risk alleles dampen expression of OAS1.

“This study also provides strong new evidence that interferon signaling by the innate immune system plays a substantial role in the progression of Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Salih.

“Identifying this shared genetic network in innate immune cells will allow us with future work to identify new biomarkers to track disease progression and also predict disease risk better for both disorders,” he added.
 

‘Fascinating’ link

In a statement from the UK nonprofit organization, Science Media Center, Kenneth Baillie, MBChB, with the University of Edinburgh, said this study builds on a discovery he and his colleagues made last year that OAS1 variants are associated with severe COVID-19.

“In the ISARIC4C study, we recently found that this is probably due to a change in the way cell membranes detect viruses, but this mechanism doesn’t explain the fascinating association with Alzheimer’s disease reported in this new work,” Dr. Baillie said.

“It is often the case that the same gene can have different roles in different parts of the body. Importantly, it doesn’t mean that having COVID-19 has any effect on your risk of Alzheimer’s,” he added.

Also weighing in on the new study, Jonathan Schott, MD, professor of neurology, University College London, noted that dementia is the “main preexisting health condition associated with COVID-19 mortality, accounting for about one in four deaths from COVID-19 between March and June 2020.

“While some of this excessive mortality may relate to people with dementia being overrepresented in care homes, which were particularly hard hit by the pandemic, or due to general increased vulnerability to infections, there have been questions as to whether there are common factors that might increase susceptibility both to developing dementia and to dying from COVID-19,” Dr. Schott explained.

This “elegant paper” provides evidence for the latter, “suggesting a common genetic mechanism both for Alzheimer’s disease and for severe COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Schott said.

“The identification of a genetic risk factor and elucidation of inflammatory pathways through which it may increase risk has important implications for our understanding of both diseases, with potential implications for novel treatments,” he added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schott serves as chief medical officer for Alzheimer’s Research UK and is clinical adviser to the UK Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Baillie has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and susceptibility to severe COVID-19 share a common genetic mechanism involved in the immune response to viruses, investigators report. The findings could lead to new treatment targets to slow progression and severity of both diseases.

Investigators found that a single genetic variant in the oligoadenylate synthetase 1 (OAS1) gene increases the risk for AD and that related variants in the same gene increase the likelihood of severe COVID-19 outcomes.

“These findings may allow us to identify new drug targets to slow progression of both diseases and reduce their severity,” Dervis Salih, PhD, senior research associate, UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, said in an interview.

“Our work also suggests new approaches to treat both diseases with the same drugs,” Dr. Salih added.

The study was published online Oct. 7 in Brain.
 

Shared genetic network

The OAS1 gene is expressed in microglia, a type of immune cell that makes up around 10% of all cells in the brain.

In earlier work, investigators found evidence suggesting a link between the OAS1 gene and AD, but the function of the gene in microglia was unknown.

To further investigate the gene’s link to AD, they sequenced genetic data from 2,547 people – half with AD, and half without.

The genotyping analysis confirmed that the single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) rs1131454 within OAS1 is significantly associated with AD.

Given that the same OAS1 locus has recently been linked with severe COVID-19 outcomes, the researchers investigated four variants on the OAS1 gene.

Results indicate that SNPs within OAS1 associated with AD also show linkage to SNP variants associated with critical illness in COVID-19.

The rs1131454 (risk allele A) and rs4766676 (risk allele T) are associated with AD, and rs10735079 (risk allele A) and rs6489867 (risk allele T) are associated with critical illness with COVID-19, the investigators reported. All of these risk alleles dampen expression of OAS1.

“This study also provides strong new evidence that interferon signaling by the innate immune system plays a substantial role in the progression of Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Salih.

“Identifying this shared genetic network in innate immune cells will allow us with future work to identify new biomarkers to track disease progression and also predict disease risk better for both disorders,” he added.
 

‘Fascinating’ link

In a statement from the UK nonprofit organization, Science Media Center, Kenneth Baillie, MBChB, with the University of Edinburgh, said this study builds on a discovery he and his colleagues made last year that OAS1 variants are associated with severe COVID-19.

“In the ISARIC4C study, we recently found that this is probably due to a change in the way cell membranes detect viruses, but this mechanism doesn’t explain the fascinating association with Alzheimer’s disease reported in this new work,” Dr. Baillie said.

“It is often the case that the same gene can have different roles in different parts of the body. Importantly, it doesn’t mean that having COVID-19 has any effect on your risk of Alzheimer’s,” he added.

Also weighing in on the new study, Jonathan Schott, MD, professor of neurology, University College London, noted that dementia is the “main preexisting health condition associated with COVID-19 mortality, accounting for about one in four deaths from COVID-19 between March and June 2020.

“While some of this excessive mortality may relate to people with dementia being overrepresented in care homes, which were particularly hard hit by the pandemic, or due to general increased vulnerability to infections, there have been questions as to whether there are common factors that might increase susceptibility both to developing dementia and to dying from COVID-19,” Dr. Schott explained.

This “elegant paper” provides evidence for the latter, “suggesting a common genetic mechanism both for Alzheimer’s disease and for severe COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Schott said.

“The identification of a genetic risk factor and elucidation of inflammatory pathways through which it may increase risk has important implications for our understanding of both diseases, with potential implications for novel treatments,” he added.

The study was funded by the UK Dementia Research Institute. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Schott serves as chief medical officer for Alzheimer’s Research UK and is clinical adviser to the UK Dementia Research Institute. Dr. Baillie has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cracking down on food fraud

How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.

©Volosina/thinkstockphotos.com

Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.

How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.

“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.

Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews

And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?

clintspencer/E+

The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.

Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.

So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
 

Health care is heading to the hall of fame

We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.

NIHF

No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.

So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.

We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.

First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”

Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.

The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.

Cracking down on food fraud

How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.

©Volosina/thinkstockphotos.com

Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.

How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.

“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.

Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews

And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?

clintspencer/E+

The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.

Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.

So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
 

Health care is heading to the hall of fame

We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.

NIHF

No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.

So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.

We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.

First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”

Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.

The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.

Cracking down on food fraud

How do you know the olive oil in your pantry is from Greece? Or that the avocados on your toast are from Mexico? The label, right? Well, maybe not. False claims of origin are a huge problem in the food industry, costing over $30 billion in economic damage annually.

©Volosina/thinkstockphotos.com

Fear not, citizens, because botanists are on the job, and they’ve found a cheaper and more efficient way to expose that non-Greek olive oil.

How? Florian Cueni, PhD, of the University of Basel, Switzerland, and associates developed a new model to simulate oxygen isotope ratios in plants from a specific region, based on the temperature, precipitation, growing season information, and humidity data. Previously, botanists had to collect reference data from the claimed origin country and from other regions to validate where the product actually came from.

“With minor adjustments to the parameters, our model can be used to determine all plant products,” said senior investigator Ansgar Kahmen. This can open up the door for even more plant forensics, including drug confiscations and illegal timber logging, with information that will hold up in court.

Why pay Greek-olive prices for olives from California?
 

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to unhelpful online reviews

And reading angry online reviews leads to hate and suffering. We may have co-opted Master Yoda’s wise words ever so slightly, but anyone who’s done any shopping online (so everyone) knows that the review section of any product can be downright villainous. Do these reviews affect what we buy?

clintspencer/E+

The angry online product review was the subject of a recent study published in MIS Quarterly. In a series of experiments, participants were shown a series of realistic online reviews with varying amounts of anger but with similar amounts of information. After reading the reviews, participants rated helpfulness, their personal opinion of the product/retailer, and whether or not they would buy the product.

Participants overwhelmingly rated calmly written reviews as more helpful than angrily written ones. One would expect, then, that those unhelpful angry reviews would have little effect on the participant’s view or willingness to buy a product, but the study investigators found the opposite. Reading angry reviews made the participants more likely to reject the product, even though they didn’t think the angry review was useful. And when you think about it, it does make sense. Anger means drama, and we can’t resist a juicy bit of drama.

So while we should all aspire to be Yoda and rise above anger and hatred, in reality we seem to be channeling Emperor Palpatine. We let the hate flow through us, and in our anger, we ignore perfectly good products. On the plus side, now we can shoot lightning out of our hands, so that’s pretty cool.
 

Health care is heading to the hall of fame

We couldn’t be happier here at LOTME because it’s that time of year again.

NIHF

No, we’re not talking about Healthcare Security and Safety Week or National Metric Week, although those are both kind of important. Hmm, maybe we should talk about health care security or the metric system. After all, in this country, medicine is one of the metric system’s biggest customers. And who doesn’t love picograms? They’re the unit-of-measurement equivalent of a koala.

So we’re doing the metric system, then? Nah.

We’re excited because the 2022 inductees to the National Inventors Hall of Fame were just announced, and, as usual, the world of health care is well represented.

First up is the surprisingly relevant (thanks to the party guest that won’t leave, SARS-CoV-2) pair of Katalin Karikó, PhD, and Drew Weissman, MD, who worked together in the early 2000s to modify mRNA “so it could avoid immediate immune detection, remain active longer and efficiently instruct cells to create antigens to protect against severe disease.” Their discoveries eventually led to the use of modified mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines.

The second, albeit posthumous, physician-inductee is Patricia Bath, MD, who was the first Black female physician to receive a U.S. patent for a medical invention. The laserphaco device and technique to remove cataracts “performed all steps of cataract removal: making the incision, destroying the lens, and vacuuming out the fractured pieces.”

Two other inductees have somewhat tenuous connections to medical care. Lonnie Johnson invented the Super Soaker, a powerful squirt gun that has been criticized by psychologists for encouraging violence, and Carl Benz invented the automobile, which sort of means he invented the ambulance, so there you go.

The induction ceremony takes place on May 5, 2022, in Washington, DC. If you’re attending the black-tie dinner at The Anthem, let us know and we’ll split an Uber. It’s our only night to be fancy.

The World Health Organization and its partners recently released an ambitious plan, Defeating meningitis by 2030: A global road map. The goal is to reduce deaths and disabilities from bacterial meningitis, which kills about 250,000 people annually of the 1.2 million estimated to be infected.

This type of infection around the brain and spinal cord also causes long-term disabilities – deafness, learning problems, seizures, loss of limbs – in about one-quarter of survivors.

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and group B streptococcus. As with malaria, about half of the cases are in children under age 5 years. The most severely affected area for both infections is sub-Saharan Africa.

The main goal of the roadmap is to reduce vaccine-preventable cases of bacterial meningitis by 50% and deaths by 70% by 2030. WHO’s partners included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Meningitis Research Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and numerous global consultants.

For primary prevention and epidemic control, a major goal is to achieve higher vaccine coverage. Another goal is developing and deploying rapid diagnostic tests to guide treatment and prevention activities and measure the impact of vaccination. The lack of laboratory capacity to confirm the bacteria is a significant challenge. Also, patients often receive antibiotics before appropriate tests are conducted, and lumbar punctures are frequently not done.

The commitment to this project emerged in 2017. It was followed by a baseline analysis in 2018 and a draft roadmap the following year. Consultations with experts and with more than 600 patient groups in more than 90 countries followed.

Prevention through greater vaccine uptake was the top priority. Vaccination is considered the first line of defense against antibiotic resistance among the targeted bacteria.

Another goal is to quantify the decrease in antibiotic use for invasive infections or prophylaxis and the subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance in relation to increased vaccination.

Surveillance is weak in many regions, limiting the ability to detect epidemics and to respond appropriately. Similarly, there are limited data on the burden of sequelae, such as deafness, on meningitis survivors.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable vaccines to respond to epidemics.  Currently, routine vaccination against Neisseria meningitidis is occurring in 18 of 26 countries in the meningitis belt. Epidemics of meningococcus occur every few years in the driest time of the year and abate with the rains. Epidemics of pneumococcal meningitis are much rarer but follow a similar pattern; they have also been associated with crowding and alcohol use.

Care for those affected by meningitis is another focus, as is affirming the right to prevention and care. There’s a need for earlier recognition of the complications of meningitis and an increase in efforts to treat those complications.

WHO’s final goal in its roadmap is to boost awareness of meningitis and make it a priority for policymakers. Similarly, there is a need to educate communities about the disease, including how to access vaccines. If someone becomes ill, they need to be aware of the symptoms, the need for early treatment, and what aftercare is available.

Marie-Pierre Préziosi, MD, the core secretariat of WHO’s Technical Taskforce, told this news organization that while the roadmap looks aspirational, “it is feasible … you have strategic goals – each has milestones with time limits and who will do it.”

Regarding vaccinations, Dr. Préziosi said that “the strategy was a victim of its success. The mass campaign knocked down transmission completely.” Some countries are now waiting for multivalent vaccines. She said that vaccine hesitancy is not a significant problem in Africa “because the disease is so feared.”

Major obstacles to implementing the roadmap include the complacency of public health leaders and the COVID-19 lockdowns, which decreased vaccination coverage rates. “The second thing is also sufficient funding to do the research and innovation so that we get the affordable tools that we need globally,” Dr. Préziosi said.

Marilyn Felkner, DrPH, School of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview, “It’s very cliché, but we have often said that communicable diseases do not respect political boundaries. So to expect a country to be able to control that by themselves is a false hope.”

Regarding the roadmap, Dr. Felkner said, “I think that organizing ideas and having them in writing is always a good first step. And it can help people move forward if they’re feeling overwhelmed ... Having a written plan can certainly provide that fundamental basis. So, the important thing is not to say, ‘Oh, we have this great plan done; hope somebody picks up the plan.’ There’s got to be some momentum behind it, and hopefully some funding.”

Dr. Préziosi and Dr. Felkner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization and its partners recently released an ambitious plan, Defeating meningitis by 2030: A global road map. The goal is to reduce deaths and disabilities from bacterial meningitis, which kills about 250,000 people annually of the 1.2 million estimated to be infected.

This type of infection around the brain and spinal cord also causes long-term disabilities – deafness, learning problems, seizures, loss of limbs – in about one-quarter of survivors.

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and group B streptococcus. As with malaria, about half of the cases are in children under age 5 years. The most severely affected area for both infections is sub-Saharan Africa.

The main goal of the roadmap is to reduce vaccine-preventable cases of bacterial meningitis by 50% and deaths by 70% by 2030. WHO’s partners included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Meningitis Research Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and numerous global consultants.

For primary prevention and epidemic control, a major goal is to achieve higher vaccine coverage. Another goal is developing and deploying rapid diagnostic tests to guide treatment and prevention activities and measure the impact of vaccination. The lack of laboratory capacity to confirm the bacteria is a significant challenge. Also, patients often receive antibiotics before appropriate tests are conducted, and lumbar punctures are frequently not done.

The commitment to this project emerged in 2017. It was followed by a baseline analysis in 2018 and a draft roadmap the following year. Consultations with experts and with more than 600 patient groups in more than 90 countries followed.

Prevention through greater vaccine uptake was the top priority. Vaccination is considered the first line of defense against antibiotic resistance among the targeted bacteria.

Another goal is to quantify the decrease in antibiotic use for invasive infections or prophylaxis and the subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance in relation to increased vaccination.

Surveillance is weak in many regions, limiting the ability to detect epidemics and to respond appropriately. Similarly, there are limited data on the burden of sequelae, such as deafness, on meningitis survivors.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable vaccines to respond to epidemics.  Currently, routine vaccination against Neisseria meningitidis is occurring in 18 of 26 countries in the meningitis belt. Epidemics of meningococcus occur every few years in the driest time of the year and abate with the rains. Epidemics of pneumococcal meningitis are much rarer but follow a similar pattern; they have also been associated with crowding and alcohol use.

Care for those affected by meningitis is another focus, as is affirming the right to prevention and care. There’s a need for earlier recognition of the complications of meningitis and an increase in efforts to treat those complications.

WHO’s final goal in its roadmap is to boost awareness of meningitis and make it a priority for policymakers. Similarly, there is a need to educate communities about the disease, including how to access vaccines. If someone becomes ill, they need to be aware of the symptoms, the need for early treatment, and what aftercare is available.

Marie-Pierre Préziosi, MD, the core secretariat of WHO’s Technical Taskforce, told this news organization that while the roadmap looks aspirational, “it is feasible … you have strategic goals – each has milestones with time limits and who will do it.”

Regarding vaccinations, Dr. Préziosi said that “the strategy was a victim of its success. The mass campaign knocked down transmission completely.” Some countries are now waiting for multivalent vaccines. She said that vaccine hesitancy is not a significant problem in Africa “because the disease is so feared.”

Major obstacles to implementing the roadmap include the complacency of public health leaders and the COVID-19 lockdowns, which decreased vaccination coverage rates. “The second thing is also sufficient funding to do the research and innovation so that we get the affordable tools that we need globally,” Dr. Préziosi said.

Marilyn Felkner, DrPH, School of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview, “It’s very cliché, but we have often said that communicable diseases do not respect political boundaries. So to expect a country to be able to control that by themselves is a false hope.”

Regarding the roadmap, Dr. Felkner said, “I think that organizing ideas and having them in writing is always a good first step. And it can help people move forward if they’re feeling overwhelmed ... Having a written plan can certainly provide that fundamental basis. So, the important thing is not to say, ‘Oh, we have this great plan done; hope somebody picks up the plan.’ There’s got to be some momentum behind it, and hopefully some funding.”

Dr. Préziosi and Dr. Felkner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The World Health Organization and its partners recently released an ambitious plan, Defeating meningitis by 2030: A global road map. The goal is to reduce deaths and disabilities from bacterial meningitis, which kills about 250,000 people annually of the 1.2 million estimated to be infected.

This type of infection around the brain and spinal cord also causes long-term disabilities – deafness, learning problems, seizures, loss of limbs – in about one-quarter of survivors.

The leading causes of bacterial meningitis are Neisseria meningitidis (meningococcus), Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus), Haemophilus influenzae, and group B streptococcus. As with malaria, about half of the cases are in children under age 5 years. The most severely affected area for both infections is sub-Saharan Africa.

The main goal of the roadmap is to reduce vaccine-preventable cases of bacterial meningitis by 50% and deaths by 70% by 2030. WHO’s partners included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), the Meningitis Research Foundation, PATH, UNICEF, and numerous global consultants.

For primary prevention and epidemic control, a major goal is to achieve higher vaccine coverage. Another goal is developing and deploying rapid diagnostic tests to guide treatment and prevention activities and measure the impact of vaccination. The lack of laboratory capacity to confirm the bacteria is a significant challenge. Also, patients often receive antibiotics before appropriate tests are conducted, and lumbar punctures are frequently not done.

The commitment to this project emerged in 2017. It was followed by a baseline analysis in 2018 and a draft roadmap the following year. Consultations with experts and with more than 600 patient groups in more than 90 countries followed.

Prevention through greater vaccine uptake was the top priority. Vaccination is considered the first line of defense against antibiotic resistance among the targeted bacteria.

Another goal is to quantify the decrease in antibiotic use for invasive infections or prophylaxis and the subsequent reduction in antimicrobial resistance in relation to increased vaccination.

Surveillance is weak in many regions, limiting the ability to detect epidemics and to respond appropriately. Similarly, there are limited data on the burden of sequelae, such as deafness, on meningitis survivors.

There is an inadequate supply of affordable vaccines to respond to epidemics.  Currently, routine vaccination against Neisseria meningitidis is occurring in 18 of 26 countries in the meningitis belt. Epidemics of meningococcus occur every few years in the driest time of the year and abate with the rains. Epidemics of pneumococcal meningitis are much rarer but follow a similar pattern; they have also been associated with crowding and alcohol use.

Care for those affected by meningitis is another focus, as is affirming the right to prevention and care. There’s a need for earlier recognition of the complications of meningitis and an increase in efforts to treat those complications.

WHO’s final goal in its roadmap is to boost awareness of meningitis and make it a priority for policymakers. Similarly, there is a need to educate communities about the disease, including how to access vaccines. If someone becomes ill, they need to be aware of the symptoms, the need for early treatment, and what aftercare is available.

Marie-Pierre Préziosi, MD, the core secretariat of WHO’s Technical Taskforce, told this news organization that while the roadmap looks aspirational, “it is feasible … you have strategic goals – each has milestones with time limits and who will do it.”

Regarding vaccinations, Dr. Préziosi said that “the strategy was a victim of its success. The mass campaign knocked down transmission completely.” Some countries are now waiting for multivalent vaccines. She said that vaccine hesitancy is not a significant problem in Africa “because the disease is so feared.”

Major obstacles to implementing the roadmap include the complacency of public health leaders and the COVID-19 lockdowns, which decreased vaccination coverage rates. “The second thing is also sufficient funding to do the research and innovation so that we get the affordable tools that we need globally,” Dr. Préziosi said.

Marilyn Felkner, DrPH, School of Human Ecology, University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview, “It’s very cliché, but we have often said that communicable diseases do not respect political boundaries. So to expect a country to be able to control that by themselves is a false hope.”

Regarding the roadmap, Dr. Felkner said, “I think that organizing ideas and having them in writing is always a good first step. And it can help people move forward if they’re feeling overwhelmed ... Having a written plan can certainly provide that fundamental basis. So, the important thing is not to say, ‘Oh, we have this great plan done; hope somebody picks up the plan.’ There’s got to be some momentum behind it, and hopefully some funding.”

Dr. Préziosi and Dr. Felkner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In frail elderly adults with COVID-19 infections, treatment with omega-3 fatty acids may improve lipid responses and decrease levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, results of a small randomized controlled trial suggest.

Results of the study, which included 22 patients with multiple comorbidities, were presented at the European Geriatric Medicine Society annual congress, a hybrid live and online meeting.

The patients, who had a median age of 81 years, were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of an omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) emulsion containing 10 g of fish oil per 100 mL or a saline placebo.

Those who received the intravenous infusion had significant decreases from baseline to end of treatment in the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), indicating marked reductions in systemic inflammation.

In contrast, patients randomized to a saline placebo had no significant improvements in NLR, Magnus Bäck, MD, PhD, from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm reported at the meeting.

“Our lipidomic analysis also showed that omega-3 treatment skewed the lipid response, with reduced levels of proinflammatory lipid mediators, and increased levels of proresolving mediators,” according to a late-breaking abstract, which Dr. Bäck presented during the session.

Omega-3 treatment was not significantly associated with reduction in either C-reactive protein (CRP) or the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-6, however.
 

‘Eicosanoid storm’

In a review article published in January 2021 in the open-access journal Frontiers in Physiology, Dr. Bäck and colleagues outlined the rationale for their randomized trial.

“Excessive inflammation has been reported in severe cases with respiratory failure and cardiovascular complications,” they wrote. “In addition to the release of cytokines, referred to as cytokine release syndrome or ‘cytokine storm,’ increased proinflammatory lipid mediators derived from the omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) arachidonic acid may cause an ‘eicosanoid storm,’ which contributes to the uncontrolled systemic inflammation.”

Omega-3 PUFA contains proresolving mediators that can limit inflammatory reactions, suggesting the possibility of an inflammation-resolving benefit in patients with COVID-19 without concerns about immunosuppression, the authors hypothesized.
 

Trial details

In the trial, COVID-Omega-F, they enrolled patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis requiring hospitalization. Patients with an allergy to fish oil or who had contraindications to intravenous PUFA administration (for example, risk for bleeding, shock, or emboli) were excluded.

Ten patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of the omega-3 PUFA and 12 were assigned to receive infusions of the placebo, once daily for 5 days. The primary outcome measure was change in inflammatory biomarkers, including white blood cell counts, CRP, cytokines, and lipid mediators.

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two study arms, with a median of about 7 days since the onset of symptoms, and 3.5 days since a diagnosis of COVID-19.

All patients had low lymphocyte responses reflected by a high NLR, a prognostic measure for worse outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infections, Dr. Bäck said.

Inflammation was moderate, with a CRP of 65 mg/L in the placebo group and 62 mg/L in the omega-3 group.

Seven patients in each study arm received concomitant corticoid treatment. Two patients in each arm died in hospital, but there were no serious treatment-related adverse events.
 

Inflammatory markers improve

As noted before, there was a significant decline in NLR from baseline among patients randomized to omega-3 (P = .02) but no corresponding decrease in patients assigned to placebo infusions.

“The significant decrease was largely driven by an increase in the lymphocyte count in the omega-3 treated group (P = .004), whereas lymphocytes did not significantly change,” Dr. Bäck said.

As expected, patients in the omega-3 group had pronounced increases in omega-3 fatty acids, including eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid.

The metabolism of fatty acids also differed markedly between the groups, with a significant decrease in the omega-3 group but not the placebo group in proinflammatory mediators, and an increase in precursors to proresolving mediators, Dr. Bäck noted.
 

AFib concerns

In a question-and-answer part of the session, a physician who identified herself as “Senya from Russia” questioned the safety of omega-3 treatment in this population, “because recently there was a meta-analysis which showed that omega-3 fatty acids will increase the risk of atrial fibrillation in older adults especially.”

The systematic review and meta-analysis she referred to, published in Circulation and reported on by this news organization, showed that, among 81,210 patients with a mean age of 65 enrolled in seven randomized controlled trials, omega-3 fatty acid supplementation was associated with a 25% increase in risk for atrial fibrillation. This risk appeared to be higher in trials testing doses greater than 1 g/day, according to the paper.

“This was not monitored in this study,” Dr. Bäck replied. “It is true that the meta-analysis showed an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation, so it would be something to monitor in case this trial would be expanded to a larger population.”

The study was supported by the Karolinska Institute. Dr. Bäck disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Armed with pediatric data from the COVID-19 pandemic, a team of researchers is suggesting that most cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome may not be connected to infectious disease, as is sometimes assumed.

While pediatric cases of various types of infections fell by 45%-95% during the early months of the pandemic, cases of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), an inflammatory neuropathy belonging to the clinical spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome, only fell by about 32%-37%, a rate that’s similar to the 35.1% decline in overall hospital admissions over that time period, researchers found. There was also no apparent link between the appearance of COVID-19 and the number of reported AIDP cases.

“There was no clear association between respiratory or gastrointestinal infections and rates of AIDP. Further, we found that AIDP did not have the expected dramatic reduction when community-acquired infections decreased during the pandemic,” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia neurologist Craig A. Press, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Press and colleagues presented their findings in a poster at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

According to Dr. Press, the cause of AIDP in most patients is unclear, although infections and vaccinations are often linked to cases. “However, the data supporting this link is often weak. Infections with Campylobacter jejuni [bacteria that causes food poisoning] are known to be associated with AIDP, while rates of AIDP in the general population and in those with influenza are similar.”

For the new multicenter, cross-sectional study, researchers tracked AIDP data from the 47 pediatric hospitals that provide statistics to the Pediatric Health Information System. They focused on the period from January 2017 to September 2020, which included the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

“Social distancing, masks, and increased hand hygiene decrease community-acquired infectious rates in a dramatic way,” Dr. Press said. “If these infections were causing AIDP, we hypothesized that the cases of AIDP would drop substantially as a result.”

But this didn’t appear to happen. Researchers found that the numbers of various types of infections declined from April to September 2020: Respiratory infections dipped by 73%-78%, gastrointestinal infections fell by 45%-61%, and influenza infections dipped by 88%-95%. But AIDP cases didn’t fall as precipitously. In fact, their levels were about the same as they were in April 2017, a month when rates of gastrointestinal, respiratory disease and influenza infections were at seasonally low – but not abnormal – ebbs.

“While we must be cautious interpreting the results,” Dr. Press said, “this makes the link between infections as the main driver of pediatric AIDP less likely.”

However, he said, “this study does not exclude the possibility that rare infections cause AIDP – the data supporting that some more rare infections like campylobacter have a connection to AIDP are more robust – or that common infections very rarely lead to AIDP. While we look for triggers causing inflammatory disorders, AIDP maybe an autoinflammatory disorder without a clear trigger.”

Going forward, Dr. Press said, “we hope to look at infectious data in a more granular way to identify if specific viral or bacterial infectious may be associated with this or other inflammatory disorders. We believe that the use of data like this and the natural experiment that COVID-19 provided may help us to explore the impact of infections on disorders thought to be postinfectious.”

No study funding is reported, and the authors report no relevant disclosures.
 

Armed with pediatric data from the COVID-19 pandemic, a team of researchers is suggesting that most cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome may not be connected to infectious disease, as is sometimes assumed.

While pediatric cases of various types of infections fell by 45%-95% during the early months of the pandemic, cases of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), an inflammatory neuropathy belonging to the clinical spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome, only fell by about 32%-37%, a rate that’s similar to the 35.1% decline in overall hospital admissions over that time period, researchers found. There was also no apparent link between the appearance of COVID-19 and the number of reported AIDP cases.

“There was no clear association between respiratory or gastrointestinal infections and rates of AIDP. Further, we found that AIDP did not have the expected dramatic reduction when community-acquired infections decreased during the pandemic,” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia neurologist Craig A. Press, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Press and colleagues presented their findings in a poster at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

According to Dr. Press, the cause of AIDP in most patients is unclear, although infections and vaccinations are often linked to cases. “However, the data supporting this link is often weak. Infections with Campylobacter jejuni [bacteria that causes food poisoning] are known to be associated with AIDP, while rates of AIDP in the general population and in those with influenza are similar.”

For the new multicenter, cross-sectional study, researchers tracked AIDP data from the 47 pediatric hospitals that provide statistics to the Pediatric Health Information System. They focused on the period from January 2017 to September 2020, which included the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

“Social distancing, masks, and increased hand hygiene decrease community-acquired infectious rates in a dramatic way,” Dr. Press said. “If these infections were causing AIDP, we hypothesized that the cases of AIDP would drop substantially as a result.”

But this didn’t appear to happen. Researchers found that the numbers of various types of infections declined from April to September 2020: Respiratory infections dipped by 73%-78%, gastrointestinal infections fell by 45%-61%, and influenza infections dipped by 88%-95%. But AIDP cases didn’t fall as precipitously. In fact, their levels were about the same as they were in April 2017, a month when rates of gastrointestinal, respiratory disease and influenza infections were at seasonally low – but not abnormal – ebbs.

“While we must be cautious interpreting the results,” Dr. Press said, “this makes the link between infections as the main driver of pediatric AIDP less likely.”

However, he said, “this study does not exclude the possibility that rare infections cause AIDP – the data supporting that some more rare infections like campylobacter have a connection to AIDP are more robust – or that common infections very rarely lead to AIDP. While we look for triggers causing inflammatory disorders, AIDP maybe an autoinflammatory disorder without a clear trigger.”

Going forward, Dr. Press said, “we hope to look at infectious data in a more granular way to identify if specific viral or bacterial infectious may be associated with this or other inflammatory disorders. We believe that the use of data like this and the natural experiment that COVID-19 provided may help us to explore the impact of infections on disorders thought to be postinfectious.”

No study funding is reported, and the authors report no relevant disclosures.
 

Armed with pediatric data from the COVID-19 pandemic, a team of researchers is suggesting that most cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome may not be connected to infectious disease, as is sometimes assumed.

While pediatric cases of various types of infections fell by 45%-95% during the early months of the pandemic, cases of acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP), an inflammatory neuropathy belonging to the clinical spectrum of Guillain-Barré syndrome, only fell by about 32%-37%, a rate that’s similar to the 35.1% decline in overall hospital admissions over that time period, researchers found. There was also no apparent link between the appearance of COVID-19 and the number of reported AIDP cases.

“There was no clear association between respiratory or gastrointestinal infections and rates of AIDP. Further, we found that AIDP did not have the expected dramatic reduction when community-acquired infections decreased during the pandemic,” Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia neurologist Craig A. Press, MD, PhD, said in an interview.

Dr. Press and colleagues presented their findings in a poster at the 50th annual meeting of the Child Neurology Society.

According to Dr. Press, the cause of AIDP in most patients is unclear, although infections and vaccinations are often linked to cases. “However, the data supporting this link is often weak. Infections with Campylobacter jejuni [bacteria that causes food poisoning] are known to be associated with AIDP, while rates of AIDP in the general population and in those with influenza are similar.”

For the new multicenter, cross-sectional study, researchers tracked AIDP data from the 47 pediatric hospitals that provide statistics to the Pediatric Health Information System. They focused on the period from January 2017 to September 2020, which included the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

“Social distancing, masks, and increased hand hygiene decrease community-acquired infectious rates in a dramatic way,” Dr. Press said. “If these infections were causing AIDP, we hypothesized that the cases of AIDP would drop substantially as a result.”

But this didn’t appear to happen. Researchers found that the numbers of various types of infections declined from April to September 2020: Respiratory infections dipped by 73%-78%, gastrointestinal infections fell by 45%-61%, and influenza infections dipped by 88%-95%. But AIDP cases didn’t fall as precipitously. In fact, their levels were about the same as they were in April 2017, a month when rates of gastrointestinal, respiratory disease and influenza infections were at seasonally low – but not abnormal – ebbs.

“While we must be cautious interpreting the results,” Dr. Press said, “this makes the link between infections as the main driver of pediatric AIDP less likely.”

However, he said, “this study does not exclude the possibility that rare infections cause AIDP – the data supporting that some more rare infections like campylobacter have a connection to AIDP are more robust – or that common infections very rarely lead to AIDP. While we look for triggers causing inflammatory disorders, AIDP maybe an autoinflammatory disorder without a clear trigger.”

Going forward, Dr. Press said, “we hope to look at infectious data in a more granular way to identify if specific viral or bacterial infectious may be associated with this or other inflammatory disorders. We believe that the use of data like this and the natural experiment that COVID-19 provided may help us to explore the impact of infections on disorders thought to be postinfectious.”

No study funding is reported, and the authors report no relevant disclosures.