MDedge Psychiatry

As people begin to return to offices after working remotely, a new study suggests that clutter on the job is more than just an annoyance to neatniks. It might also be an indicator that employees are unhappy at work, especially if they have upper-level positions.

Researchers surveyed 202 office workers and linked higher perceived levels of clutter to less satisfaction/pleasure from work and more work-related burnout/tension. While the findings don’t confirm which came first – clutter or unhappiness on the job – they do suggest that the office work environment is more than an matter of appearances.

Study lead author Joseph R. Ferrari, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, goes even further and suggests that clutter might undermine well-being. “If someone comes into [a therapist’s office] with lots of clutter, they probably have it at home and work, and it’s hindering their life,” Dr. Ferrari said in an interview. “Having a lot of clutter piles is really not a good thing. It makes you less effective.”

Dr. Ferrari has conducted several studies into clutter. He and colleagues launched the new study, published in the International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, to explore the impact of clutter at the office.

“The impact of clutter on employee well-being may affect profit, staff motivation, the buildup of slack/extraneous resources, interpersonal conflict, attitudes about work, and employee behavior,” Dr. Ferrari and colleagues wrote.

The researchers surveyed participants in 290 workers in 2019 and focused on 209 who worked in offices (60% were men, 87% were 45 years old or younger, 65% held a college or advanced degree, and 79% were White). Most were lower-level employees rather than higher-level employees with management responsibilities.

Both upper-and lower-level employees mentioned the same types of clutter most often – paper, office equipment, and trash, such as used coffee cups. The upper-level workers reported more problems with clutter, although this might be because they are more sensitive to it than lower-level workers, Dr. Ferrari said.

The researchers found that “office clutter was significantly negatively related to ... satisfaction/pleasure from work and significantly positively related to a risk for burnout/tension from work.” They also reported that “upper-level workers were significantly more likely to report clutter and being at risk for burnout/tension than lower-level workers.”

Specifically, a technique known as exploratory factor analysis determined that “63% of office clutter behavior can be explained by either satisfaction/pleasure with one’s work or risk for burnout,” Dr. Ferrari said. The findings suggest that clutter leads to negative feelings about work, not the other way around, he said.

The new study does not address whether clutter has positive attributes, as suggested by a 2013 report published in Psychological Science.

Darby Saxbe, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who studies work stress, said in an interview that it can be difficult to figure out the direction of causality in a study like this. “Someone who’s overwhelmed might generate more clutter and not have the bandwidth to put things away. If the space is really cluttered, you won’t be able to find things as effectively, or keep track of projects as well, and that will feed more feelings of stress and burnout.”

David Spiegel, MD, Willson Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed.

“The idea of clutter in the environment having a negative effect on mood is interesting, but it is equally likely that clutter reflects burnout, inability to complete tasks and dispose of their remnants,” he said in an interview. “There may be a relationship, and they may interact, but the direction is not clear,” said Dr. Spiegel, who is also director of Stanford’s Center on Stress and Health.

Still, he said, “in these days of Zoom therapy, observing clutter in a patient’s room or office may provide a hint about potential burnout and depression.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Saxbe, and Dr. Spiegel reported no disclosures.

As people begin to return to offices after working remotely, a new study suggests that clutter on the job is more than just an annoyance to neatniks. It might also be an indicator that employees are unhappy at work, especially if they have upper-level positions.

Researchers surveyed 202 office workers and linked higher perceived levels of clutter to less satisfaction/pleasure from work and more work-related burnout/tension. While the findings don’t confirm which came first – clutter or unhappiness on the job – they do suggest that the office work environment is more than an matter of appearances.

Study lead author Joseph R. Ferrari, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, goes even further and suggests that clutter might undermine well-being. “If someone comes into [a therapist’s office] with lots of clutter, they probably have it at home and work, and it’s hindering their life,” Dr. Ferrari said in an interview. “Having a lot of clutter piles is really not a good thing. It makes you less effective.”

Dr. Ferrari has conducted several studies into clutter. He and colleagues launched the new study, published in the International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, to explore the impact of clutter at the office.

“The impact of clutter on employee well-being may affect profit, staff motivation, the buildup of slack/extraneous resources, interpersonal conflict, attitudes about work, and employee behavior,” Dr. Ferrari and colleagues wrote.

The researchers surveyed participants in 290 workers in 2019 and focused on 209 who worked in offices (60% were men, 87% were 45 years old or younger, 65% held a college or advanced degree, and 79% were White). Most were lower-level employees rather than higher-level employees with management responsibilities.

Both upper-and lower-level employees mentioned the same types of clutter most often – paper, office equipment, and trash, such as used coffee cups. The upper-level workers reported more problems with clutter, although this might be because they are more sensitive to it than lower-level workers, Dr. Ferrari said.

The researchers found that “office clutter was significantly negatively related to ... satisfaction/pleasure from work and significantly positively related to a risk for burnout/tension from work.” They also reported that “upper-level workers were significantly more likely to report clutter and being at risk for burnout/tension than lower-level workers.”

Specifically, a technique known as exploratory factor analysis determined that “63% of office clutter behavior can be explained by either satisfaction/pleasure with one’s work or risk for burnout,” Dr. Ferrari said. The findings suggest that clutter leads to negative feelings about work, not the other way around, he said.

The new study does not address whether clutter has positive attributes, as suggested by a 2013 report published in Psychological Science.

Darby Saxbe, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who studies work stress, said in an interview that it can be difficult to figure out the direction of causality in a study like this. “Someone who’s overwhelmed might generate more clutter and not have the bandwidth to put things away. If the space is really cluttered, you won’t be able to find things as effectively, or keep track of projects as well, and that will feed more feelings of stress and burnout.”

David Spiegel, MD, Willson Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed.

“The idea of clutter in the environment having a negative effect on mood is interesting, but it is equally likely that clutter reflects burnout, inability to complete tasks and dispose of their remnants,” he said in an interview. “There may be a relationship, and they may interact, but the direction is not clear,” said Dr. Spiegel, who is also director of Stanford’s Center on Stress and Health.

Still, he said, “in these days of Zoom therapy, observing clutter in a patient’s room or office may provide a hint about potential burnout and depression.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Saxbe, and Dr. Spiegel reported no disclosures.

As people begin to return to offices after working remotely, a new study suggests that clutter on the job is more than just an annoyance to neatniks. It might also be an indicator that employees are unhappy at work, especially if they have upper-level positions.

Researchers surveyed 202 office workers and linked higher perceived levels of clutter to less satisfaction/pleasure from work and more work-related burnout/tension. While the findings don’t confirm which came first – clutter or unhappiness on the job – they do suggest that the office work environment is more than an matter of appearances.

Study lead author Joseph R. Ferrari, PhD, a professor of psychology at DePaul University, Chicago, goes even further and suggests that clutter might undermine well-being. “If someone comes into [a therapist’s office] with lots of clutter, they probably have it at home and work, and it’s hindering their life,” Dr. Ferrari said in an interview. “Having a lot of clutter piles is really not a good thing. It makes you less effective.”

Dr. Ferrari has conducted several studies into clutter. He and colleagues launched the new study, published in the International Journal of Psychological Research and Reviews, to explore the impact of clutter at the office.

“The impact of clutter on employee well-being may affect profit, staff motivation, the buildup of slack/extraneous resources, interpersonal conflict, attitudes about work, and employee behavior,” Dr. Ferrari and colleagues wrote.

The researchers surveyed participants in 290 workers in 2019 and focused on 209 who worked in offices (60% were men, 87% were 45 years old or younger, 65% held a college or advanced degree, and 79% were White). Most were lower-level employees rather than higher-level employees with management responsibilities.

Both upper-and lower-level employees mentioned the same types of clutter most often – paper, office equipment, and trash, such as used coffee cups. The upper-level workers reported more problems with clutter, although this might be because they are more sensitive to it than lower-level workers, Dr. Ferrari said.

The researchers found that “office clutter was significantly negatively related to ... satisfaction/pleasure from work and significantly positively related to a risk for burnout/tension from work.” They also reported that “upper-level workers were significantly more likely to report clutter and being at risk for burnout/tension than lower-level workers.”

Specifically, a technique known as exploratory factor analysis determined that “63% of office clutter behavior can be explained by either satisfaction/pleasure with one’s work or risk for burnout,” Dr. Ferrari said. The findings suggest that clutter leads to negative feelings about work, not the other way around, he said.

The new study does not address whether clutter has positive attributes, as suggested by a 2013 report published in Psychological Science.

Darby Saxbe, PhD, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who studies work stress, said in an interview that it can be difficult to figure out the direction of causality in a study like this. “Someone who’s overwhelmed might generate more clutter and not have the bandwidth to put things away. If the space is really cluttered, you won’t be able to find things as effectively, or keep track of projects as well, and that will feed more feelings of stress and burnout.”

David Spiegel, MD, Willson Professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed.

“The idea of clutter in the environment having a negative effect on mood is interesting, but it is equally likely that clutter reflects burnout, inability to complete tasks and dispose of their remnants,” he said in an interview. “There may be a relationship, and they may interact, but the direction is not clear,” said Dr. Spiegel, who is also director of Stanford’s Center on Stress and Health.

Still, he said, “in these days of Zoom therapy, observing clutter in a patient’s room or office may provide a hint about potential burnout and depression.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Ferrari, Dr. Saxbe, and Dr. Spiegel reported no disclosures.

Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.

Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.

“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.

“Monitoring prolactinemia and addressing hyperprolactinemia are important in women with schizophrenia who are treated with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics,” he said.

The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
 

A ‘relevant contribution’

Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.

In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.

Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”

The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.

Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.

Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.

In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 

‘Clinically meaningful’ risk

Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.

A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.

On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.

Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).

“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.

“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”

Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
 

Clinical implications premature?

Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”

Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”

Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.

Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”

Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”

The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.

Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.

“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.

“Monitoring prolactinemia and addressing hyperprolactinemia are important in women with schizophrenia who are treated with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics,” he said.

The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
 

A ‘relevant contribution’

Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.

In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.

Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”

The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.

Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.

Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.

In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 

‘Clinically meaningful’ risk

Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.

A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.

On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.

Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).

“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.

“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”

Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
 

Clinical implications premature?

Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”

Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”

Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.

Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”

Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”

The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of antipsychotics that increase prolactin levels is significantly associated with an increased risk for breast cancer in women with schizophrenia, new research suggests. However, at least one expert says that, at this point, clinical implications are premature.

Investigators compared data from Finnish nationwide registers on more than 30,000 women diagnosed with schizophrenia. Of those patients, 1,069 were diagnosed with breast cancer. Results showed that long-term exposure to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with a 56% increased risk of developing breast cancer in comparison with exposure of short duration. No significant association was found with cumulative exposure to prolactin-sparing antipsychotics.

“In case of planning for long-term antipsychotic [therapy], prefer non–prolactin-raising antipsychotics in females and inform patients about a potential risk to allow for informed shared decision-making,” study coauthor Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry and molecular medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., told this news organization.

“Monitoring prolactinemia and addressing hyperprolactinemia are important in women with schizophrenia who are treated with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics,” he said.

The study was published online Aug. 30, 2021, in The Lancet.
 

A ‘relevant contribution’

Breast cancer is 25% more prevalent among women with schizophrenia than among women in the general population. Antipsychotics have long been suspected as a potential culprit, but research results have been inconsistent, said Dr. Correll.

In addition, high concentrations of prolactin are associated with a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but most previous research did not distinguish between antipsychotics that increased prolactin levels those that did not.

Dr. Correll and colleagues “wanted to add to this literature by utilizing a generalizable nationwide sample with a sufficient large number of patients and sufficiently long follow-up to address the clinically very relevant question whether antipsychotic use could increase the risk of breast cancer.”

They also believed that grouping antipsychotics into prolactin-raising and non–prolactin-raising agents would be “a relevant contribution.”

The researchers drew on data from several large Finnish databases to conduct a nested case-control study of 30,785 women aged at least16 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1972 and 2014.

Of these patients, 1,069 received an initial diagnosis of invasive breast cancer (after being diagnosed with schizophrenia) between 2000 and 2017. These case patients were compared to 5,339 matched control patients. The mean age of the case patients and the control patients was 62 years. The mean time since initial diagnosis of schizophrenia was 24 years.

Antipsychotic use was divided into three periods: less than 1 year, 1-4 years, and ≥5 years. Antipsychotics were further divided into prolactin-increasing or prolactin-sparing drugs (for example, clozapine, quetiapine, or aripiprazole). Breast cancer was divided into either lobular or ductal adenocarcinoma.

In their statistical analyses, the researchers adjusted for an array of covariates, including previous diagnoses of other medical conditions, drugs that may modify the risk for breast cancer (for example, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, spironolactone, loop diuretics, and statins), substance misuse, suicide attempt, parity, and use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT).
 

‘Clinically meaningful’ risk

Ductal adenocarcinoma was more common than lobular adenocarcinoma (73% vs. 20% among case patients). A higher proportion of case patients used cardiovascular medications and HRT, compared with control patients.

A higher proportion of case patients had used prolactin-increasing antipsychotics for at least 5 years, compared with control patients (71.4% vs. 64.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.27-1.92; P < .0001) in comparison with minimal exposure (<1 year) to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics.

On the other hand, a similar proportion of case patients and control patients used prolactin-sparing antipsychotics for at least 5 years (8.3 vs. 8.2%; aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.90-1.58); the OR of 1.19 was not deemed significant.

Although exposure of ≥5 years to prolactin-increasing antipsychotics was associated with an increased risk for both types of adenocarcinoma, the risk was higher for lobular than for ductal disease (aOR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.46-3.82 vs. aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.12-1.80).

“Conservatively, if we subtract the 19% nonsignificantly increased odds with prolactin-sparing antipsychotics from the 56% significantly increased odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotics, we obtain a 37% relative increase in odds,” the authors noted.

“Using a lifetime incidence of breast cancer in women in the general population of about 12%, with a somewhat higher lifetime incidence in patients with schizophrenia than the general population, this difference between prolactin-increasing versus prolactin-sparing antipsychotics in breast cancer risk upon exposure of 5 or more years would correspond to about a 4% (37% x 12%) increase in absolute breast cancer odds with prolactin-increasing antipsychotic treatment” – a difference the authors call “clinically meaningful.”

Correll noted that although the study was conducted in a Finnish population, the findings are generalizable to other populations.
 

Clinical implications premature?

Commenting on the study, Anton Pottegård, MScPharm, PhD, DMSc, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, department of public health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, expressed concern that “this new study is fairly aggressive in its recommendation [that] we need to pay attention to hyperprolactinemia, as this seems to cause breast cancer.”

Dr. Pottegård, who is also the head of research, Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital, who was not involved with the study, said he does not “think that the full body of the literature supports such a direct conclusion and/or direct inference to clinical practice.”

Although “this is an important study to further this work, I do not think we are at a place (yet) where it should lead to different action from clinicians,” Dr. Pottegård cautioned.

Also commenting on the study, Mary Seeman, MDCM, DSc, professor emeritus of neurosciences and clinical translation, department of psychiatry, University of Toronto, called the question of whether prolactin-increasing antipsychotics increase breast cancer risk “very complicated because the incidence of breast cancer ... is higher in women with schizophrenia than in other women.”

Dr. Seeman, who was not involved with the study, pointed to other reasons for the increased risk, including higher rates of obesity, substance abuse, cigarette smoking, stress, and sedentary behavior, all of which raise prolactin levels. Additionally, “protective factors such as pregnancies and breastfeeding are less frequent in women with schizophrenia than in their peers.” Women with schizophrenia also “tend not to do breast screening, see their doctors less often, follow doctors’ orders less rigorously, and obtain treatment less often.”

The take-home message “is to prescribe prolactin-sparing medication to women if at all possible – but until we know more, that is good advice, although not always possible because the illness for which the antipsychotics are prescribed may not respond to those particular medications,” Dr. Seeman said.

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health through the developmental fund for Niuvanniemi Hospital. Funding was also provided to individual researchers by the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Medical Foundation, and the Emil Aaltonen foundation. Dr. Correll has been a consultant or advisor to or has received honoraria from numerous companies. He has provided expert testimony for Janssen and Otsuka; received royalties from UpToDate and is a stock option holder of LB Pharma; served on a data safety monitoring board for Lundbeck, Rovi, Supernus, and Teva; and received grant support from Janssen and Takeda. Dr. Pottegård and Dr. Seeman disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

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

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

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

Telehealth can be effective for delivering cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) – and is not inferior to in-person treatment, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 60 adults with insomnia disorder showed no significant between-group difference at 3-month follow-up between those assigned to receive in-person CBT-I and those assigned to telehealth CBT-I in regard to change in score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI).

In addition, both groups showed significant change compared with a wait-list group, indicating that telehealth was not inferior to the in-person mode of delivery, the investigators note.

Telehealth ‘explosion’

Although CBT-I is the recommended intervention for insomnia, “widespread implementation of CBT-I is limited by the lack of clinicians who are trained in this treatment,” the investigators note. There is a “need for strategies to increase access, particularly for patients in areas with few health care providers.”

Telehealth is a promising technology for providing treatment, without the necessity of having the patient and the practitioner in the same place. There has been an “explosion” in its use because of restrictions necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the “rapid deployment of telehealth interventions did not allow time to assess this approach in a controlled manner,” so it is possible that this type of communication might reduce treatment efficacy, the investigators note.

Previous research suggests that telehealth psychotherapeutic treatments in general are not inferior to in-person treatments. One study showed that CBT-I delivered via telehealth was noninferior to in-person delivery. However, that study did not include a control group.

“I have been doing telehealth clinical work for about 10 years – so way before the pandemic pushed everything virtual,” Dr. Gehrman said. “But when I would talk about my telehealth work to other providers, I would frequently get asked whether the advantages of telehealth (greater access to care, reduced travel costs) came at a price of lower efficacy.”

Dr. Gehrman said he suspected that telehealth treatment was just as effective and wanted to formally test this impression to see whether he was correct.

The investigators randomly assigned 60 adults (mean age, 32.72 years; mean ISI score, 17.0; 65% women) with insomnia disorder to in-person CBT-I (n = 20), telehealth-delivered CBT-I (n = 21), or to a wait-list control group (n = 19). For the study, insomnia disorder was determined on the basis of DSM-5 criteria.

Most participants had completed college or postgraduate school (43% and 37%, respectively) and did not have many comorbidities.

The primary outcome was change on the ISI. Other assessments included measures of depression, anxiety, work and social adjustment, fatigue, and medical outcomes. Participants also completed a home unattended sleep study using a portable monitor to screen participants for obstructive sleep apnea.

Both types of CBT-I were delivered over 6 to 8 weekly sessions, with 2-week and 3-month post-treatment follow-ups.

An a priori margin of -3.0 points was used in the noninferiority analysis, and all analyses were conducted using mixed-effects models, the authors explain.
 

Necessary evil?

In the primary noninferiority analyses, the mean change in ISI score from baseline to 3-month follow-up was -7.8 points for in-person CBT-I, -7.5 points for telehealth, and -1.6 for wait list.

The difference between the CBT-I groups was not statistically significant (t 28 = -0.98, P = .33).

“The lower confidence limit of this between-group difference in the mean ISI changes was greater than the a priori margin of -3.0 points, indicating that telehealth treatment was not inferior to in-person treatment,” the investigators write.

Although there were significant improvements on most secondary outcome measures related to mood/anxiety and daytime functioning, the investigators found no group differences.

The findings suggest that the benefits of telehealth, including increased access and reduced travel time, “do not come with a cost of reduced efficacy,” the researchers write.

The study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the investigators note. However, the results “underscore that the use of telehealth during the pandemic is not a ‘necessary evil,’ but rather a means of providing high quality care while reducing risks of exposure,” they write.
 

Benefits, fidelity maintained

Commenting on the study, J. Todd Arnedt, PhD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and co-director of the Sleep and Circadian Research Laboratory, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said it is “one of the first studies to clearly demonstrate that the benefits and fidelity of CBT for insomnia, which is most commonly delivered in-person, can be maintained with telehealth delivery.”

Dr. Arnedt is also director of the Behavioral Sleep Medicine Program and was not involved in the study. He said the findings “support the use of this modality by providers to expand access to this highly effective but underutilized insomnia treatment.”

Additionally, telehealth delivery of CBT-I “offers a safe and effective alternative to in-person care for improving insomnia and associated daytime consequences and has the potential to reduce health care disparities by increasing availability to underserved communities,” Dr. Arnedt said.

However, the investigators point out that the utility of this approach for underserved communities needs further investigation. A study limitation was that the participants were “generally healthy and well educated.”

In addition, further research is needed to see whether the findings can be generalized to individuals who have “more complicated health or socioeconomic difficulties,” they write.

The study was funded by a grant from the American Sleep Medicine Foundation and the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clinical Scientist Development Award. Dr. Gehrman has received research funding from Merck, is a consultant to WW, and serves on the scientific advisory board of Eight Sleep. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Arnedt reports no relevant financial relationships but notes that he was the principal investigator of a similar study run in parallel to this one that was also funded by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine Foundation at the same time.

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

A middle-of-the-road dose of an antipsychotic appears to be optimal for relapse prevention in stable schizophrenia, new research suggests.

Results of a meta-analysis show a 5-mg/day equivalent risperidone dose worked best. Higher doses were associated with more adverse events without showing substantial gains in relapse prevention, and lower doses were associated with greater relapse risk.

“The safest approach is to just to carry on with 5 mg,” which in many cases represents a full dose, lead author Stefan Leucht, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich School of Medicine, Germany, told this news organization.

However, he added, patient preferences and other factors should be considered in dosage decision-making.

The findings were published online August 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Unique meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are effective for short-term treatment of schizophrenia and prevention of relapse but are associated with movement disorders, weight gain, and other metabolic changes. They are also associated with even more severe adverse events, including tardive dyskinesia and increased cardiovascular risk.

For years, researchers have tried to find the optimal dose of antipsychotic drugs to prevent relapse in patients with stable schizophrenia while mitigating adverse event risk.

For the meta-analysis, researchers searched for fixed-dose, randomized, blinded, or open trials that lasted longer than 3 months and compared two first-generation antipsychotics – haloperidol or fluphenazine – or a second-generation antipsychotic with placebo or a different dose of the same drug.

The analysis included 26 studies with 72 individual dose arms and 4,776 participants with stable schizophrenia.  

Researchers used a dose-response meta-analysis. Unlike a simple meta-analysis that provides an “arbitrary” cut-off of superiority of one drug over placebo or another drug, a dose-response meta-analysis gives a plot or curve “that shows how this evolves with different doses,” Dr. Leucht noted.

The investigators estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic drug compared with placebo separately and as a group.

They did not have enough data for most of the single antipsychotics, so they converted doses to risperidone equivalents for a pooled analysis across drugs. They chose risperidone because its equivalents “are pretty well-defined,” said Dr. Leucht.
 

Go slow to go low

For the primary outcome of relapse, the dose-response curve showed a hyperbolic shape with a clear plateau. Initially, the plot decreased sharply but then flattened at about 5-mg/day risperidone equivalent (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.31; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57).

“We were a little disappointed because we hoped that a dose lower than 5 mg would be most efficacious in terms of relapse rate because this would have reduced the side-effect burden,” Dr. Leucht said.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that doses lower than 5 mg/day risperidone equivalent are not completely ineffective. For example, the 2.5-mg dose reduced risk to relapse in relative terms by about 40% (RR, 0.63).

Dr. Leucht also pointed out there is “huge interindividual variability.” Therefore, 2.5 mg or even 1 mg may be sufficient for some patients. “It just means for the average patient it’s safest, let’s say, to keep her or him on 5 mg,” he said.  

When lowering the dose, Dr. Leucht noted clinicians should “be very careful and to do it very slowly. It should be very small reductions every 3 to 6 months.”

For the secondary endpoint of rehospitalizations, the shape of the curve was similar to the one for relapse but with lower rates.

“If patients need to be rehospitalized, it usually means that the relapse was major and not only a minor increase in symptoms,” said Dr. Leucht.

The curves for all-cause discontinuation and reduction in overall symptoms were also similar to that of relapse.

However, the curve for dropouts because of adverse events showed that higher doses led to more adverse events. For example, with 5-mg/day dose, the OR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.87-2.25) and the RR was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.87-2.15), but for the 15-mg/day dose, the OR was 2.88 (95% CI, 1.52-5.45) and the RR was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.49-4.62).
 

Patient preference key

The data were insufficient to assess differences between men and women or between older and younger patients, Dr. Leucht noted.

However, post-hoc subgroup analyses turned up some interesting findings, he added. For example, patients who take high-potency first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol might do well on a lower dose, said Dr. Leucht.

“They may need a dose even lower than 5 mg, perhaps something like 2.5 mg, because these drugs bind so strongly to dopamine receptors,” he said.

He reiterated that patient preferences should always be considered when deciding on antipsychotic dosage.

“Many patients will say they don’t want to relapse anymore, but others will say these drugs have horrible side effects, and they want to go on a lower dose,” said Dr. Leucht.

Clinicians should also factor in patient characteristics, such as comorbidities or substance abuse, as well as severity of past relapses and properties of individual drugs, he added.
 

Reflects real-world experience

Commenting on the findings, Thomas Sedlak, MD, PhD, director, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Consult Clinic and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the research “is a fine addition” to a previous analysis that explored dose-response relationships of antipsychotic drugs in the acute phase.

Crunching all the data from studies that have different types of patients and extracting a single dosage that provides maximum benefit is “a great challenge,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.

The fact that most patients won’t get additional benefit above 5 mg, at which point they start getting more adverse events, and that 2.5 mg is sufficient for certain subgroups “agrees well with the experience of many who use these medications regularly,” Dr. Sedlak said.

However, he cautioned that psychiatrists “don’t always intuitively know which patients fall into which dose category or who might require clozapine.”

“Clinicians need to be mindful that it’s easy to overshoot an optimal dose and elicit side effects,” said Dr. Sedlak.

He also noted that severely ill patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials because they are too impaired to participate, “so they may have a different optimal dosage,” he concluded.

Dr. Leucht has reported receiving personal fees for consulting, advising, and/or speaking outside the submitted work from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Geodon & Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, Teva, Eisai, Rovi, and Amiabel. Dr. Sedlak has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A middle-of-the-road dose of an antipsychotic appears to be optimal for relapse prevention in stable schizophrenia, new research suggests.

Results of a meta-analysis show a 5-mg/day equivalent risperidone dose worked best. Higher doses were associated with more adverse events without showing substantial gains in relapse prevention, and lower doses were associated with greater relapse risk.

“The safest approach is to just to carry on with 5 mg,” which in many cases represents a full dose, lead author Stefan Leucht, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich School of Medicine, Germany, told this news organization.

However, he added, patient preferences and other factors should be considered in dosage decision-making.

The findings were published online August 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Unique meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are effective for short-term treatment of schizophrenia and prevention of relapse but are associated with movement disorders, weight gain, and other metabolic changes. They are also associated with even more severe adverse events, including tardive dyskinesia and increased cardiovascular risk.

For years, researchers have tried to find the optimal dose of antipsychotic drugs to prevent relapse in patients with stable schizophrenia while mitigating adverse event risk.

For the meta-analysis, researchers searched for fixed-dose, randomized, blinded, or open trials that lasted longer than 3 months and compared two first-generation antipsychotics – haloperidol or fluphenazine – or a second-generation antipsychotic with placebo or a different dose of the same drug.

The analysis included 26 studies with 72 individual dose arms and 4,776 participants with stable schizophrenia.  

Researchers used a dose-response meta-analysis. Unlike a simple meta-analysis that provides an “arbitrary” cut-off of superiority of one drug over placebo or another drug, a dose-response meta-analysis gives a plot or curve “that shows how this evolves with different doses,” Dr. Leucht noted.

The investigators estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic drug compared with placebo separately and as a group.

They did not have enough data for most of the single antipsychotics, so they converted doses to risperidone equivalents for a pooled analysis across drugs. They chose risperidone because its equivalents “are pretty well-defined,” said Dr. Leucht.
 

Go slow to go low

For the primary outcome of relapse, the dose-response curve showed a hyperbolic shape with a clear plateau. Initially, the plot decreased sharply but then flattened at about 5-mg/day risperidone equivalent (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.31; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57).

“We were a little disappointed because we hoped that a dose lower than 5 mg would be most efficacious in terms of relapse rate because this would have reduced the side-effect burden,” Dr. Leucht said.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that doses lower than 5 mg/day risperidone equivalent are not completely ineffective. For example, the 2.5-mg dose reduced risk to relapse in relative terms by about 40% (RR, 0.63).

Dr. Leucht also pointed out there is “huge interindividual variability.” Therefore, 2.5 mg or even 1 mg may be sufficient for some patients. “It just means for the average patient it’s safest, let’s say, to keep her or him on 5 mg,” he said.  

When lowering the dose, Dr. Leucht noted clinicians should “be very careful and to do it very slowly. It should be very small reductions every 3 to 6 months.”

For the secondary endpoint of rehospitalizations, the shape of the curve was similar to the one for relapse but with lower rates.

“If patients need to be rehospitalized, it usually means that the relapse was major and not only a minor increase in symptoms,” said Dr. Leucht.

The curves for all-cause discontinuation and reduction in overall symptoms were also similar to that of relapse.

However, the curve for dropouts because of adverse events showed that higher doses led to more adverse events. For example, with 5-mg/day dose, the OR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.87-2.25) and the RR was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.87-2.15), but for the 15-mg/day dose, the OR was 2.88 (95% CI, 1.52-5.45) and the RR was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.49-4.62).
 

Patient preference key

The data were insufficient to assess differences between men and women or between older and younger patients, Dr. Leucht noted.

However, post-hoc subgroup analyses turned up some interesting findings, he added. For example, patients who take high-potency first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol might do well on a lower dose, said Dr. Leucht.

“They may need a dose even lower than 5 mg, perhaps something like 2.5 mg, because these drugs bind so strongly to dopamine receptors,” he said.

He reiterated that patient preferences should always be considered when deciding on antipsychotic dosage.

“Many patients will say they don’t want to relapse anymore, but others will say these drugs have horrible side effects, and they want to go on a lower dose,” said Dr. Leucht.

Clinicians should also factor in patient characteristics, such as comorbidities or substance abuse, as well as severity of past relapses and properties of individual drugs, he added.
 

Reflects real-world experience

Commenting on the findings, Thomas Sedlak, MD, PhD, director, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Consult Clinic and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the research “is a fine addition” to a previous analysis that explored dose-response relationships of antipsychotic drugs in the acute phase.

Crunching all the data from studies that have different types of patients and extracting a single dosage that provides maximum benefit is “a great challenge,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.

The fact that most patients won’t get additional benefit above 5 mg, at which point they start getting more adverse events, and that 2.5 mg is sufficient for certain subgroups “agrees well with the experience of many who use these medications regularly,” Dr. Sedlak said.

However, he cautioned that psychiatrists “don’t always intuitively know which patients fall into which dose category or who might require clozapine.”

“Clinicians need to be mindful that it’s easy to overshoot an optimal dose and elicit side effects,” said Dr. Sedlak.

He also noted that severely ill patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials because they are too impaired to participate, “so they may have a different optimal dosage,” he concluded.

Dr. Leucht has reported receiving personal fees for consulting, advising, and/or speaking outside the submitted work from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Geodon & Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, Teva, Eisai, Rovi, and Amiabel. Dr. Sedlak has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A middle-of-the-road dose of an antipsychotic appears to be optimal for relapse prevention in stable schizophrenia, new research suggests.

Results of a meta-analysis show a 5-mg/day equivalent risperidone dose worked best. Higher doses were associated with more adverse events without showing substantial gains in relapse prevention, and lower doses were associated with greater relapse risk.

“The safest approach is to just to carry on with 5 mg,” which in many cases represents a full dose, lead author Stefan Leucht, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and psychotherapy, Technical University of Munich School of Medicine, Germany, told this news organization.

However, he added, patient preferences and other factors should be considered in dosage decision-making.

The findings were published online August 18 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Unique meta-analysis

Antipsychotic drugs are effective for short-term treatment of schizophrenia and prevention of relapse but are associated with movement disorders, weight gain, and other metabolic changes. They are also associated with even more severe adverse events, including tardive dyskinesia and increased cardiovascular risk.

For years, researchers have tried to find the optimal dose of antipsychotic drugs to prevent relapse in patients with stable schizophrenia while mitigating adverse event risk.

For the meta-analysis, researchers searched for fixed-dose, randomized, blinded, or open trials that lasted longer than 3 months and compared two first-generation antipsychotics – haloperidol or fluphenazine – or a second-generation antipsychotic with placebo or a different dose of the same drug.

The analysis included 26 studies with 72 individual dose arms and 4,776 participants with stable schizophrenia.  

Researchers used a dose-response meta-analysis. Unlike a simple meta-analysis that provides an “arbitrary” cut-off of superiority of one drug over placebo or another drug, a dose-response meta-analysis gives a plot or curve “that shows how this evolves with different doses,” Dr. Leucht noted.

The investigators estimated dose-response curves for each antipsychotic drug compared with placebo separately and as a group.

They did not have enough data for most of the single antipsychotics, so they converted doses to risperidone equivalents for a pooled analysis across drugs. They chose risperidone because its equivalents “are pretty well-defined,” said Dr. Leucht.
 

Go slow to go low

For the primary outcome of relapse, the dose-response curve showed a hyperbolic shape with a clear plateau. Initially, the plot decreased sharply but then flattened at about 5-mg/day risperidone equivalent (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.31; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31-0.57).

“We were a little disappointed because we hoped that a dose lower than 5 mg would be most efficacious in terms of relapse rate because this would have reduced the side-effect burden,” Dr. Leucht said.

Nevertheless, he emphasized that doses lower than 5 mg/day risperidone equivalent are not completely ineffective. For example, the 2.5-mg dose reduced risk to relapse in relative terms by about 40% (RR, 0.63).

Dr. Leucht also pointed out there is “huge interindividual variability.” Therefore, 2.5 mg or even 1 mg may be sufficient for some patients. “It just means for the average patient it’s safest, let’s say, to keep her or him on 5 mg,” he said.  

When lowering the dose, Dr. Leucht noted clinicians should “be very careful and to do it very slowly. It should be very small reductions every 3 to 6 months.”

For the secondary endpoint of rehospitalizations, the shape of the curve was similar to the one for relapse but with lower rates.

“If patients need to be rehospitalized, it usually means that the relapse was major and not only a minor increase in symptoms,” said Dr. Leucht.

The curves for all-cause discontinuation and reduction in overall symptoms were also similar to that of relapse.

However, the curve for dropouts because of adverse events showed that higher doses led to more adverse events. For example, with 5-mg/day dose, the OR was 1.4 (95% CI, 0.87-2.25) and the RR was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.87-2.15), but for the 15-mg/day dose, the OR was 2.88 (95% CI, 1.52-5.45) and the RR was 2.68 (95% CI, 1.49-4.62).
 

Patient preference key

The data were insufficient to assess differences between men and women or between older and younger patients, Dr. Leucht noted.

However, post-hoc subgroup analyses turned up some interesting findings, he added. For example, patients who take high-potency first-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol might do well on a lower dose, said Dr. Leucht.

“They may need a dose even lower than 5 mg, perhaps something like 2.5 mg, because these drugs bind so strongly to dopamine receptors,” he said.

He reiterated that patient preferences should always be considered when deciding on antipsychotic dosage.

“Many patients will say they don’t want to relapse anymore, but others will say these drugs have horrible side effects, and they want to go on a lower dose,” said Dr. Leucht.

Clinicians should also factor in patient characteristics, such as comorbidities or substance abuse, as well as severity of past relapses and properties of individual drugs, he added.
 

Reflects real-world experience

Commenting on the findings, Thomas Sedlak, MD, PhD, director, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Consult Clinic and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said the research “is a fine addition” to a previous analysis that explored dose-response relationships of antipsychotic drugs in the acute phase.

Crunching all the data from studies that have different types of patients and extracting a single dosage that provides maximum benefit is “a great challenge,” said Dr. Sedlak, who was not involved with the research.

The fact that most patients won’t get additional benefit above 5 mg, at which point they start getting more adverse events, and that 2.5 mg is sufficient for certain subgroups “agrees well with the experience of many who use these medications regularly,” Dr. Sedlak said.

However, he cautioned that psychiatrists “don’t always intuitively know which patients fall into which dose category or who might require clozapine.”

“Clinicians need to be mindful that it’s easy to overshoot an optimal dose and elicit side effects,” said Dr. Sedlak.

He also noted that severely ill patients are often underrepresented in clinical trials because they are too impaired to participate, “so they may have a different optimal dosage,” he concluded.

Dr. Leucht has reported receiving personal fees for consulting, advising, and/or speaking outside the submitted work from Angelini, Boehringer Ingelheim, Geodon & Richter, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, LTS Lohmann, MSD, Otsuka, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, Sandoz, Sunovion, Teva, Eisai, Rovi, and Amiabel. Dr. Sedlak has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have shown early promise for refractory childhood epilepsy, but positive media attention, as well as pressure from politicians and marijuana advocacy groups, should not supplant clinical trials and acceptable standards of evidence, according to two leading experts.

In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.

“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.

“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.

According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.

“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”

Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.

“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.

While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.

“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”

They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.

“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
 

A therapy of last resort

Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.

“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”

While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.

“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”

For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.

“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”

For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”

Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.

“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.

Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.

Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have shown early promise for refractory childhood epilepsy, but positive media attention, as well as pressure from politicians and marijuana advocacy groups, should not supplant clinical trials and acceptable standards of evidence, according to two leading experts.

In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.

“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.

“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.

According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.

“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”

Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.

“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.

While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.

“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”

They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.

“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
 

A therapy of last resort

Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.

“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”

While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.

“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”

For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.

“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”

For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”

Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.

“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.

Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.

Cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs) have shown early promise for refractory childhood epilepsy, but positive media attention, as well as pressure from politicians and marijuana advocacy groups, should not supplant clinical trials and acceptable standards of evidence, according to two leading experts.

In a recent invited review article, Martin Kirkpatrick, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), and Finbar O’Callaghan, MD, PhD, of University College London suggested that childhood epilepsy may be easy terrain for commercial interests to break ground, and from there, build their presence.

“Children with epilepsy are at risk of being used as the ‘Trojan horse’ for the cannabis industry,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan wrote in Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

They noted that some of the first publicized success stories involving cannabis oil for epilepsy coincided with the rise of the medicinal and recreational cannabis markets, which will constitute an estimated 55-billion-dollar industry by 2027.

“Pediatric neurologists, imbued with the need to practice evidence-based medicine and wary of prescribing unlicensed medicines that had inadequate safety data, suddenly found themselves at odds with an array of vested interests and, most unfortunately, with the families of patients who were keen to try anything that would alleviate the effects of their child’s seizures,” the investigators wrote.

According to the review, fundamental questions about cannabis remain unanswered, including concerns about safety with long-term use, and the medicinal value of various plant components, such as myrcene, a terpene that gives cannabis its characteristic smell.

“A widely discussed issue is whether the terpenes add any therapeutic benefit, contributing to the so-called entourage effect of ‘whole-plant’ medicines,” the investigators wrote. “The concept is that all the constituents of the plant together create ‘the sum of all the parts that leads to the magic or power of cannabis.’ Although commonly referred to, there is little or no robust evidence to support the entourage effect as a credible clinical concept.”

Clinical evidence for treatment of pediatric epilepsy is also lacking, according to Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan.

“Unfortunately, apart from the studies of pure cannabidiol (CBD) in Lennox–Gastaut and Dravet syndromes and tuberous sclerosis complex, level I evidence in the field of CBMPs and refractory epilepsy is lacking,” they wrote.

While other experts have pointed out that lower-level evidence – such as patient-reported outcomes and observational data – have previously been sufficient for drug licensing, Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan noted that such exceptions “almost always” involve conditions without any effective treatments, or drugs that are undeniably effective.

“This is not the scenario with CBMPs,” they wrote, referring to current clinical data as “low-level” evidence “suggesting … possible efficacy.”

They highlighted concerns about placebo effect with open-label epilepsy studies, citing a randomized controlled trial for Dravet syndrome, in which 27% of patients given placebo had a 50% reduction in seizure frequency.

“We need carefully designed, good-quality CBMP studies that produce results on which we can rely,” Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan concluded. “We can then work with families to choose the best treatments for children and young people with epilepsy. We owe this to them.”
 

A therapy of last resort

Jerzy P. Szaflarski, MD, PhD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, agreed that data are lacking for the use of CBMPs with patients who have epilepsy and other neurologic conditions; however, he also suggested that Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan did not provide adequate real-world clinical context.

“Medical cannabis is not used as a first-, second-, or third-line therapy,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s mostly used as a last resort in the sense that patients have already failed multiple other therapies.” In that respect, patients and parents are desperate to try anything that might work. “We have medical cannabis, and our patients want to try it, and at the point when multiple therapies have failed, it’s a reasonable option.”

While Dr. Szaflarski agreed that more high-quality clinical trials are needed, he also noted the practical challenges involved in such trials, largely because of variations in cannabis plants.

“The content of the cannabis plant changes depending on the day that it’s collected and the exposure to sun and how much water it has and what’s in the soil and many other things,” Dr. Szaflarski said. “It’s hard to get a very good, standardized product, and that’s why there needs to be a good-quality product delivered by the industry, which I have not seen thus far.”

For this reason, Dr. Szaflarski steers parents and patients away from over-the-counter CBMPs and toward Epidiolex, the only FDA-approved form of CBD.

“There is evidence that Epidiolex works,” he said. “I don’t know whether the products that are sold in a local cannabis store have the same high purity as Epidiolex. I tell [parents] that we should try Epidiolex first because it’s the one that is approved. But if it doesn’t work, we can go in that [other] direction.”

For those going the commercial route, Dr. Szaflarski advised close attention to product ingredients, to ensure that CBMPs are “devoid of any impurities, pesticides, fungicides, and other products that could be potentially dangerous.”

Parents considering CBMPs for their children also need to weigh concerns about long-term neurological safety, he added, noting that, on one hand, commercial products lack data, while on the other, epilepsy itself may cause harm.

“They need to consider the potential effects [of CBMPs] on their child’s brain and development versus … the effects of seizures on the brain,” Dr. Szaflarski said.

Dr. Kirkpatrick and Dr. O’Callaghan disclosed an application for a National Institute for Health Research–funded randomized controlled trial on CBMPs and joint authorship of British Paediatric Neurology Association Guidance on the use of CBMPs in children and young people with epilepsy. Dr. Szaflarski disclosed a relationship with Greenwich Biosciences and several other cannabis companies.

Observational data indicate that the number of hospitalizations for cardiac arrests linked to opioid use roughly doubled from 2012 to 2018.

“This was an observational study, so we cannot conclude that all of the arrests were caused by opioids, but the findings do suggest the opioid epidemic is a contributor to increasing rates,” Senada S. Malik, of the University of New England, Portland, Maine, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The data were drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012 to 2018, the most recent period available. Cardiac arrests were considered opioid related if there was a secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. The rates of opioid-associated hospitalizations for these types of cardiac arrests climbed from about 800 per year in 2012 to 1,500 per year in 2018, a trend that was statistically significant (P < .05).

The profile of patients with an opioid-associated cardiac arrest was different from those without secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. This included a younger age and lower rates of comorbidities: heart failure (21.2% vs. 40.6%; P < .05), renal failure (14.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .05), diabetes (19.5% vs. 35.4%; P < .05), and hypertension (43.4% vs. 64.9%; P < .05).
 

Mortality from opioid-associated cardiac arrest is lower

These features might explain the lower rate of in-hospital mortality for opioid-associated cardiac arrests (56.7% vs. 61.2%), according to Ms. Malik, who performed this research in collaboration with Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, director of cardiology research, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y.

When compared to those without a history of opioid use on admission, those with opioid-associated cardiac arrest were more likely to be depressed (18.8% vs. 9.0%), to smoke (37.0% vs. 21.8%) and to abuse alcohol (16.9% vs. 7.1%), according to the NIS data.

While these findings are based on cardiac arrests brought to a hospital, some opioid-induced cardiac arrests never result in hospital admission, according to data included in a recently issued scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Rate of opioid-associated cardiac arrests underestimated

In that statement, which was focused on opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OA-OHCA), numerous studies were cited to support the conclusion that these events are common and underestimated. One problem is that opioid-induced cardiac arrests are not always accurately differentiated from cardiac arrests induced by use of other substances, such as barbiturates, cocaine, or alcohol.

For this and other reasons, the data are inconsistent. One study based on emergency medical service (EMS) response data concluded that 9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid associated.

In another study using potentially more accurate autopsy data, 60% of the non–cardiac-associated cardiac arrests were found to occur in individuals with potentially lethal serum concentrations of opioids. As 40% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were considered non–cardiac related, this suggested that 15% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid related.

In the NIS data, the incident curves of opioid-related cardiac arrests appeared to be flattening in 2018, the last year of data collection, but there was no indication they were declining.
 

Patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrests evolving

The patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrest have changed and are likely to continue to change in response to the evolving opioid epidemic, according to the AHA scientific statement. The authors described three waves of opioid abuse. The first, which was related to the promotion of prescription opioids to treat chronic pain that ultimately led to high rates of opioid addiction, peaked in 2012 when rates of these prescriptions began to fall. At that time a second wave, attributed to patients switching to less expensive nonprescription heroin, was already underway. A third wave, attributed to growth in the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, began in 2013 and is ongoing, according to data cited in the AHA statement.

Recognizing the role of opioids in rising rates of cardiac arrest is important for promoting strategies of effective treatment and prevention, according to Cameron Dezfulian, MD, medical director of the adult congenital heart disease program at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Dr. Dezfulian was vice chair and leader of the writing committee for the AHA scientific statement on OA-OHCA. He said there are plenty of data to support the need for greater attention to the role of opioids in cardiac arrest.

“The recent data affirms the trends many of us have observed without our emergency rooms and ICUs: a steady increase in the proportion of OA-OHCA, primarily in young and otherwise healthy individuals,” he said.

He calls not only for more awareness at the front lines of health are but also for a more comprehensive approach.

“Public health policies and community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to reduce the mortality due to OA-OHCA, which is distinct from the traditional cardiac etiology,” Dr. Dezfulian said.

In opioid-induced cardiac arrest, as in other types of cardiac arrest, prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential, but early administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can also be lifesaving, according to treatment strategies outlined in the AHA scientific statement. The fact that OA-OHCA typically occur in patients with structurally and electrophysiologically normal hearts is emphasized in the AHA statement. So is the enormous public health toll of OA-OHCA.

Death due to opioid overdose, which includes cardiac arrests, is now the leading cause of mortality in the U.S. among individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 years, according to the statement.

Ms. Malik reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Dezfulian reports a financial relationship with Mallinckrodt.

Observational data indicate that the number of hospitalizations for cardiac arrests linked to opioid use roughly doubled from 2012 to 2018.

“This was an observational study, so we cannot conclude that all of the arrests were caused by opioids, but the findings do suggest the opioid epidemic is a contributor to increasing rates,” Senada S. Malik, of the University of New England, Portland, Maine, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The data were drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012 to 2018, the most recent period available. Cardiac arrests were considered opioid related if there was a secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. The rates of opioid-associated hospitalizations for these types of cardiac arrests climbed from about 800 per year in 2012 to 1,500 per year in 2018, a trend that was statistically significant (P < .05).

The profile of patients with an opioid-associated cardiac arrest was different from those without secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. This included a younger age and lower rates of comorbidities: heart failure (21.2% vs. 40.6%; P < .05), renal failure (14.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .05), diabetes (19.5% vs. 35.4%; P < .05), and hypertension (43.4% vs. 64.9%; P < .05).
 

Mortality from opioid-associated cardiac arrest is lower

These features might explain the lower rate of in-hospital mortality for opioid-associated cardiac arrests (56.7% vs. 61.2%), according to Ms. Malik, who performed this research in collaboration with Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, director of cardiology research, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y.

When compared to those without a history of opioid use on admission, those with opioid-associated cardiac arrest were more likely to be depressed (18.8% vs. 9.0%), to smoke (37.0% vs. 21.8%) and to abuse alcohol (16.9% vs. 7.1%), according to the NIS data.

While these findings are based on cardiac arrests brought to a hospital, some opioid-induced cardiac arrests never result in hospital admission, according to data included in a recently issued scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Rate of opioid-associated cardiac arrests underestimated

In that statement, which was focused on opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OA-OHCA), numerous studies were cited to support the conclusion that these events are common and underestimated. One problem is that opioid-induced cardiac arrests are not always accurately differentiated from cardiac arrests induced by use of other substances, such as barbiturates, cocaine, or alcohol.

For this and other reasons, the data are inconsistent. One study based on emergency medical service (EMS) response data concluded that 9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid associated.

In another study using potentially more accurate autopsy data, 60% of the non–cardiac-associated cardiac arrests were found to occur in individuals with potentially lethal serum concentrations of opioids. As 40% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were considered non–cardiac related, this suggested that 15% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid related.

In the NIS data, the incident curves of opioid-related cardiac arrests appeared to be flattening in 2018, the last year of data collection, but there was no indication they were declining.
 

Patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrests evolving

The patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrest have changed and are likely to continue to change in response to the evolving opioid epidemic, according to the AHA scientific statement. The authors described three waves of opioid abuse. The first, which was related to the promotion of prescription opioids to treat chronic pain that ultimately led to high rates of opioid addiction, peaked in 2012 when rates of these prescriptions began to fall. At that time a second wave, attributed to patients switching to less expensive nonprescription heroin, was already underway. A third wave, attributed to growth in the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, began in 2013 and is ongoing, according to data cited in the AHA statement.

Recognizing the role of opioids in rising rates of cardiac arrest is important for promoting strategies of effective treatment and prevention, according to Cameron Dezfulian, MD, medical director of the adult congenital heart disease program at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Dr. Dezfulian was vice chair and leader of the writing committee for the AHA scientific statement on OA-OHCA. He said there are plenty of data to support the need for greater attention to the role of opioids in cardiac arrest.

“The recent data affirms the trends many of us have observed without our emergency rooms and ICUs: a steady increase in the proportion of OA-OHCA, primarily in young and otherwise healthy individuals,” he said.

He calls not only for more awareness at the front lines of health are but also for a more comprehensive approach.

“Public health policies and community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to reduce the mortality due to OA-OHCA, which is distinct from the traditional cardiac etiology,” Dr. Dezfulian said.

In opioid-induced cardiac arrest, as in other types of cardiac arrest, prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential, but early administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can also be lifesaving, according to treatment strategies outlined in the AHA scientific statement. The fact that OA-OHCA typically occur in patients with structurally and electrophysiologically normal hearts is emphasized in the AHA statement. So is the enormous public health toll of OA-OHCA.

Death due to opioid overdose, which includes cardiac arrests, is now the leading cause of mortality in the U.S. among individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 years, according to the statement.

Ms. Malik reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Dezfulian reports a financial relationship with Mallinckrodt.

Observational data indicate that the number of hospitalizations for cardiac arrests linked to opioid use roughly doubled from 2012 to 2018.

“This was an observational study, so we cannot conclude that all of the arrests were caused by opioids, but the findings do suggest the opioid epidemic is a contributor to increasing rates,” Senada S. Malik, of the University of New England, Portland, Maine, reported at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

The data were drawn from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2012 to 2018, the most recent period available. Cardiac arrests were considered opioid related if there was a secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. The rates of opioid-associated hospitalizations for these types of cardiac arrests climbed from about 800 per year in 2012 to 1,500 per year in 2018, a trend that was statistically significant (P < .05).

The profile of patients with an opioid-associated cardiac arrest was different from those without secondary diagnosis of opioid disease. This included a younger age and lower rates of comorbidities: heart failure (21.2% vs. 40.6%; P < .05), renal failure (14.3% vs. 30.2%; P < .05), diabetes (19.5% vs. 35.4%; P < .05), and hypertension (43.4% vs. 64.9%; P < .05).
 

Mortality from opioid-associated cardiac arrest is lower

These features might explain the lower rate of in-hospital mortality for opioid-associated cardiac arrests (56.7% vs. 61.2%), according to Ms. Malik, who performed this research in collaboration with Wilbert S. Aronow, MD, director of cardiology research, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, N.Y.

When compared to those without a history of opioid use on admission, those with opioid-associated cardiac arrest were more likely to be depressed (18.8% vs. 9.0%), to smoke (37.0% vs. 21.8%) and to abuse alcohol (16.9% vs. 7.1%), according to the NIS data.

While these findings are based on cardiac arrests brought to a hospital, some opioid-induced cardiac arrests never result in hospital admission, according to data included in a recently issued scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

Rate of opioid-associated cardiac arrests underestimated

In that statement, which was focused on opioid-associated out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OA-OHCA), numerous studies were cited to support the conclusion that these events are common and underestimated. One problem is that opioid-induced cardiac arrests are not always accurately differentiated from cardiac arrests induced by use of other substances, such as barbiturates, cocaine, or alcohol.

For this and other reasons, the data are inconsistent. One study based on emergency medical service (EMS) response data concluded that 9% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid associated.

In another study using potentially more accurate autopsy data, 60% of the non–cardiac-associated cardiac arrests were found to occur in individuals with potentially lethal serum concentrations of opioids. As 40% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests were considered non–cardiac related, this suggested that 15% of all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests are opioid related.

In the NIS data, the incident curves of opioid-related cardiac arrests appeared to be flattening in 2018, the last year of data collection, but there was no indication they were declining.
 

Patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrests evolving

The patterns of opioid-induced cardiac arrest have changed and are likely to continue to change in response to the evolving opioid epidemic, according to the AHA scientific statement. The authors described three waves of opioid abuse. The first, which was related to the promotion of prescription opioids to treat chronic pain that ultimately led to high rates of opioid addiction, peaked in 2012 when rates of these prescriptions began to fall. At that time a second wave, attributed to patients switching to less expensive nonprescription heroin, was already underway. A third wave, attributed to growth in the use of synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, began in 2013 and is ongoing, according to data cited in the AHA statement.

Recognizing the role of opioids in rising rates of cardiac arrest is important for promoting strategies of effective treatment and prevention, according to Cameron Dezfulian, MD, medical director of the adult congenital heart disease program at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston. Dr. Dezfulian was vice chair and leader of the writing committee for the AHA scientific statement on OA-OHCA. He said there are plenty of data to support the need for greater attention to the role of opioids in cardiac arrest.

“The recent data affirms the trends many of us have observed without our emergency rooms and ICUs: a steady increase in the proportion of OA-OHCA, primarily in young and otherwise healthy individuals,” he said.

He calls not only for more awareness at the front lines of health are but also for a more comprehensive approach.

“Public health policies and community- and hospital-based interventions are needed to reduce the mortality due to OA-OHCA, which is distinct from the traditional cardiac etiology,” Dr. Dezfulian said.

In opioid-induced cardiac arrest, as in other types of cardiac arrest, prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation is essential, but early administration of the opioid antagonist naloxone can also be lifesaving, according to treatment strategies outlined in the AHA scientific statement. The fact that OA-OHCA typically occur in patients with structurally and electrophysiologically normal hearts is emphasized in the AHA statement. So is the enormous public health toll of OA-OHCA.

Death due to opioid overdose, which includes cardiac arrests, is now the leading cause of mortality in the U.S. among individuals between the ages of 25 and 64 years, according to the statement.

Ms. Malik reports no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Dezfulian reports a financial relationship with Mallinckrodt.

President Joe Biden has announced a host of new plans to rein in COVID-19’s runaway transmission in the United States, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.

As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.

He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.

Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.

“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”

One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.

“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.

“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.

A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.

But the plan was not well received by all.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.

“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.

In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.

President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.

He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.

The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.

He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.

Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.

“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.

Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.

President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.

President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.

“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”

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

President Joe Biden has announced a host of new plans to rein in COVID-19’s runaway transmission in the United States, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.

As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.

He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.

Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.

“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”

One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.

“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.

“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.

A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.

But the plan was not well received by all.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.

“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.

In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.

President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.

He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.

The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.

He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.

Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.

“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.

Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.

President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.

President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.

“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”

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

President Joe Biden has announced a host of new plans to rein in COVID-19’s runaway transmission in the United States, including sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect 100 million American workers, nearly two-thirds of the country’s workforce.

itsmejust/Thinkstock

“As your president, I’m announcing tonight a new plan to get more Americans vaccinated to combat those blocking public health,” he said Sept. 9.

As part of a six-part plan unveiled in a speech from the State Dining Room of the White House, President Biden said he would require vaccinations for nearly 4 million federal workers and the employees of companies that contract with the federal government.

He has also directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to develop a rule that will require large employers -- those with at least 100 employees -- to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly.

Nearly 17 million health care workers will face new vaccine mandates as part of the conditions of participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

President Biden said the federal government will require staff at federally funded Head Start programs and schools to be vaccinated. He’s also calling on all states to mandate vaccines for teachers.

“A distinct minority of Americans, supported by a distinct minority of elected officials, are keeping us from turning the corner,” PresidentBiden said. “These pandemic politics, as I refer to them, are making people sick, causing unvaccinated people to die.”

One public health official said he was glad to see the president’s bold action.

“What I saw today was the federal government trying to use its powers to create greater safety in the American population,” said Ashish K. Jha, MD, dean of the school of public health at Brown University, Providence, R.I., in a call with reporters after the speech.

National Nurses United, the largest union of registered nurses in the United States, issued a statement in support of President Biden’s new vaccination requirements, but pushed back on his language.

“…as advocates for public health, registered nurses want to be extremely clear: There is no such thing as a pandemic of only the unvaccinated. The science of epidemiology tells us there is just one deadly, global pandemic that has not yet ended, and we are all in it together. To get out of it, we must act together. All of us,” the statement says.

A host of other professional groups, including the American Medical Association and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, also issued statements of support for President Biden’s plan.

But the plan was not well received by all.

“I will pursue every legal option available to the state of Georgia to stop this blatantly unlawful overreach by the Biden Administration,” said Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a Republican, in a Tweet.

The National Council for Occupational Safety and Health called the plan “a missed opportunity” because it failed to include workplace protections for essential workers such as grocery, postal, and transit workers.

“Social distancing, improved ventilation, shift rotation, and protective equipment to reduce exposure are important components of an overall plan to reduce risk and stop the virus. These tools are missing from the new steps President Biden announced today,” said Jessica Martinez, co-executive director of the group.

In addition to the new vaccination requirements, President Biden said extra doses would be on the way for people who have already been fully vaccinated in order to protect against waning immunity, starting on Sept. 20. But he noted that those plans would be contingent on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for third doses and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of the shots.

President Biden pledged to use the Defense Production Act to ramp up production of at-home tests, which have been selling out across the nation as the Delta variant spreads.

He also announced plans to expand access to COVID-19 testing, including offering testing for free at thousands of pharmacies nationwide and getting major retailers to sell at-home COVID-19 tests at cost.

The BinaxNow test kit, which currently retails for $23.99, will now cost about $15 for two tests at Kroger, Amazon, and Walmart, according to the White House. Food banks and community health centers will get free tests, too.

He called on states to set up COVID-19 testing programs at all schools.

Jha said that in his view, the big, game-changing news out of the president’s speech was the expansion of testing.

“Our country has failed to deploy tests in a way that can really bring this pandemic under control,” Jha said. “There are plenty of reasons, data, experience to indicate that if these were widely available, it would make a dramatic difference in reducing infection numbers across our country.”.

Dr. Jha said the private market had not worked effectively to make testing more widely available, so it was “absolutely a requirement of the federal government to step in and make testing more widely available,” he said.

President Biden also announced new economic stimulus programs, saying he’s expanding loan programs to small businesses and streamlining the loan forgiveness process.

President Biden said he’s boosting help for overburdened hospitals, doubling the number of federal surge response teams sent to hard-hit areas to reduce the strain on local health care workers. He said he would increase the pace of antibody treatments to states by 50%.

“We made so much progress during the past 7 months of this pandemic. Even so, we remain at a critical moment, a critical time,” he said. “We have the tools. Now, we just have to finish the job with truth, with science, with confidence and together as one nation.”

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

Back-to-school jitters are heightened this year, as children head back to the risk of COVID transmission in class, but one upside to the return of in-person school may be better mental health for students.

Courtesy Dr. Matt Hawrilenko

New research shows that virtual schooling, which dominated in many districts last year, was associated with worse mental health outcomes for students – especially older ones – and youth from Black, Hispanic, or lower-income families were hit hardest because they experienced the most closures.

“Schools with lower funding may have had more difficulty meeting guidelines for safe reopening, including updates to ventilation systems and finding the physical space to create safe distancing between children,” explained lead author Matt Hawrilenko, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“In the context of complex school reopening decisions that balance competing risks and benefits, these findings suggest that allocating funding to support safe in-person instruction may reduce mental health inequities associated with race/ethnicity and income,” he and his coauthors noted in the study, published in JAMA Network Open. “Ensuring that all students have access to additional educational and mental health resources must be an important public health priority, met with appropriate funding and work force augmentation, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The study used a cross-sectional population-based survey of 2,324 parents of school-age children in the United States. It was administered in English and Spanish via web and telephone between Dec. 2 and Dec. 21, 2020, and used the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess mental health difficulties of one child per family in four domains: emotional problems, peer problems, conduct, and hyperactivity. Parents were also asked about what kind of schooling their child had received in the last year (remote, in-person, or hybrid) and about demographic information such as child age, gender, household income, parent race and ethnicity, and parent education.

The results showed that, during the 2020 school year, 58.0% of children attended school remotely, 24% attended fully in person, and 18.0% attended in a hybrid format. “Fully remote schooling was strongly patterned along lines of parent race and ethnicity as well as income,” the authors noted. “Parents of 336 children attending school in person (65.8%) but of 597 children attending school fully remotely (44.5%) were White, whereas all other racial/ethnic groups had larger proportions of children attending school fully remotely (P < .001).”

In terms of mental health, the findings showed that older children who attended school remotely had more difficulties, compared with those who attended in-person – but among younger children, remote learning was comparable or slightly better for mental health.

Specifically, “a child aged 17 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 2.4 points higher than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a small effect size in favor of in-person schooling,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, a child aged 4 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 0.5 points lower than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a very small effect size in favor of remote schooling.”

Age of child proves critical

“Our best estimate is that remote schooling was associated with no difference in mental health difficulties at age 6, and with slightly more difficulties with each year of age after that, with differences most clearly apparent for high school–aged kids,” explained Dr. Hawrilenko, adding the finding suggests that school reopenings should prioritize older children.

However, “what kids are doing at home matters,” he added. “In the youngest age group, the biggest work kids are doing in school and childcare settings is social and emotional development. … Finding opportunities for regular, safe social interactions with peers – perhaps during outdoor playdates – can help them build those skills.”

He emphasized with the anticipated starts and stutters of the new school year there is an important role that doctors can play.

“First, they can help families assess their own risk profile, and whether it makes sense for their children to attend school in person or remotely [to the extent that is an option]. Second, they can help families think through how school closures might impact their child specifically. For those kids who wind up with long chunks of remote schooling, scheduling in regular interactions with other kids in safe ways could make a big difference. Another driver of child anxiety might be learning loss, and this is a good place to reinforce that not every mental health problem needs a mental health solution.

“A lot of kids might be rightfully anxious about having fallen behind over the pandemic. These kids are preparing to transition to college or to the workforce and may be feeling increasingly behind while approaching these moments of transition. Pointing families toward the resources to help them navigate these issues could go a long way to helping quell child anxiety.”

Research helps fill vacuum

Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that this research is particularly valuable because there have been very few data on this topic, especially on a large-scale national sample.

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth A. Stuart

“Sadly, many of the results are not surprising,” said Dr. Stuart, a statistician and professor of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Data have shown significant mental health challenges for adults during the pandemic, and it is not surprising that children and youth would experience that as well, especially for those whose daily routines and structures changed dramatically and who were not able to be interacting in-person with teachers, staff, and classmates. This is an important reminder that schools provide not just academic instruction for students, but that the social interactions and other services (such as behavioral health supports, meals, and connections with other social services) students might receive in school are crucial.

“It has been heartening to see a stronger commitment to getting students safely back into school this fall across the country, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted the benefits of in-person schooling in their COVID-19–related guidance for schools.”

Dr. Stuart added that, as students return to classes, it will be important for schools to tackle ongoing mental health challenges.

“Some students may be struggling in obvious ways; for others it may be harder to identify. It will also be important to continue to monitor children’s and youth mental health … as returning to in-person school may bring its own challenges. For some individuals and communities, the mental health impacts of the pandemic may last even after the physical health risks resolve.”

Dr. Hawrilenko agreed.

“From a policy perspective, I am quite frankly terrified about how these inequities – in particular, learning loss – might play out long after school closures are a distant memory,” he said. “It is critical to provide schools the resources not just to minimize risk when reopening, but additional funding for workforce augmentation – both for mental health staffing and for additional educational support – to help students navigate the months and years over which they transition back into the classroom.”

Dr. Hawrilenko and Dr. Stuart had no disclosures.

Back-to-school jitters are heightened this year, as children head back to the risk of COVID transmission in class, but one upside to the return of in-person school may be better mental health for students.

Courtesy Dr. Matt Hawrilenko

New research shows that virtual schooling, which dominated in many districts last year, was associated with worse mental health outcomes for students – especially older ones – and youth from Black, Hispanic, or lower-income families were hit hardest because they experienced the most closures.

“Schools with lower funding may have had more difficulty meeting guidelines for safe reopening, including updates to ventilation systems and finding the physical space to create safe distancing between children,” explained lead author Matt Hawrilenko, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“In the context of complex school reopening decisions that balance competing risks and benefits, these findings suggest that allocating funding to support safe in-person instruction may reduce mental health inequities associated with race/ethnicity and income,” he and his coauthors noted in the study, published in JAMA Network Open. “Ensuring that all students have access to additional educational and mental health resources must be an important public health priority, met with appropriate funding and work force augmentation, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The study used a cross-sectional population-based survey of 2,324 parents of school-age children in the United States. It was administered in English and Spanish via web and telephone between Dec. 2 and Dec. 21, 2020, and used the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess mental health difficulties of one child per family in four domains: emotional problems, peer problems, conduct, and hyperactivity. Parents were also asked about what kind of schooling their child had received in the last year (remote, in-person, or hybrid) and about demographic information such as child age, gender, household income, parent race and ethnicity, and parent education.

The results showed that, during the 2020 school year, 58.0% of children attended school remotely, 24% attended fully in person, and 18.0% attended in a hybrid format. “Fully remote schooling was strongly patterned along lines of parent race and ethnicity as well as income,” the authors noted. “Parents of 336 children attending school in person (65.8%) but of 597 children attending school fully remotely (44.5%) were White, whereas all other racial/ethnic groups had larger proportions of children attending school fully remotely (P < .001).”

In terms of mental health, the findings showed that older children who attended school remotely had more difficulties, compared with those who attended in-person – but among younger children, remote learning was comparable or slightly better for mental health.

Specifically, “a child aged 17 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 2.4 points higher than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a small effect size in favor of in-person schooling,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, a child aged 4 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 0.5 points lower than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a very small effect size in favor of remote schooling.”

Age of child proves critical

“Our best estimate is that remote schooling was associated with no difference in mental health difficulties at age 6, and with slightly more difficulties with each year of age after that, with differences most clearly apparent for high school–aged kids,” explained Dr. Hawrilenko, adding the finding suggests that school reopenings should prioritize older children.

However, “what kids are doing at home matters,” he added. “In the youngest age group, the biggest work kids are doing in school and childcare settings is social and emotional development. … Finding opportunities for regular, safe social interactions with peers – perhaps during outdoor playdates – can help them build those skills.”

He emphasized with the anticipated starts and stutters of the new school year there is an important role that doctors can play.

“First, they can help families assess their own risk profile, and whether it makes sense for their children to attend school in person or remotely [to the extent that is an option]. Second, they can help families think through how school closures might impact their child specifically. For those kids who wind up with long chunks of remote schooling, scheduling in regular interactions with other kids in safe ways could make a big difference. Another driver of child anxiety might be learning loss, and this is a good place to reinforce that not every mental health problem needs a mental health solution.

“A lot of kids might be rightfully anxious about having fallen behind over the pandemic. These kids are preparing to transition to college or to the workforce and may be feeling increasingly behind while approaching these moments of transition. Pointing families toward the resources to help them navigate these issues could go a long way to helping quell child anxiety.”

Research helps fill vacuum

Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that this research is particularly valuable because there have been very few data on this topic, especially on a large-scale national sample.

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth A. Stuart

“Sadly, many of the results are not surprising,” said Dr. Stuart, a statistician and professor of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Data have shown significant mental health challenges for adults during the pandemic, and it is not surprising that children and youth would experience that as well, especially for those whose daily routines and structures changed dramatically and who were not able to be interacting in-person with teachers, staff, and classmates. This is an important reminder that schools provide not just academic instruction for students, but that the social interactions and other services (such as behavioral health supports, meals, and connections with other social services) students might receive in school are crucial.

“It has been heartening to see a stronger commitment to getting students safely back into school this fall across the country, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted the benefits of in-person schooling in their COVID-19–related guidance for schools.”

Dr. Stuart added that, as students return to classes, it will be important for schools to tackle ongoing mental health challenges.

“Some students may be struggling in obvious ways; for others it may be harder to identify. It will also be important to continue to monitor children’s and youth mental health … as returning to in-person school may bring its own challenges. For some individuals and communities, the mental health impacts of the pandemic may last even after the physical health risks resolve.”

Dr. Hawrilenko agreed.

“From a policy perspective, I am quite frankly terrified about how these inequities – in particular, learning loss – might play out long after school closures are a distant memory,” he said. “It is critical to provide schools the resources not just to minimize risk when reopening, but additional funding for workforce augmentation – both for mental health staffing and for additional educational support – to help students navigate the months and years over which they transition back into the classroom.”

Dr. Hawrilenko and Dr. Stuart had no disclosures.

Back-to-school jitters are heightened this year, as children head back to the risk of COVID transmission in class, but one upside to the return of in-person school may be better mental health for students.

Courtesy Dr. Matt Hawrilenko

New research shows that virtual schooling, which dominated in many districts last year, was associated with worse mental health outcomes for students – especially older ones – and youth from Black, Hispanic, or lower-income families were hit hardest because they experienced the most closures.

“Schools with lower funding may have had more difficulty meeting guidelines for safe reopening, including updates to ventilation systems and finding the physical space to create safe distancing between children,” explained lead author Matt Hawrilenko, PhD, of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview.

“In the context of complex school reopening decisions that balance competing risks and benefits, these findings suggest that allocating funding to support safe in-person instruction may reduce mental health inequities associated with race/ethnicity and income,” he and his coauthors noted in the study, published in JAMA Network Open. “Ensuring that all students have access to additional educational and mental health resources must be an important public health priority, met with appropriate funding and work force augmentation, during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The study used a cross-sectional population-based survey of 2,324 parents of school-age children in the United States. It was administered in English and Spanish via web and telephone between Dec. 2 and Dec. 21, 2020, and used the parent-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) to assess mental health difficulties of one child per family in four domains: emotional problems, peer problems, conduct, and hyperactivity. Parents were also asked about what kind of schooling their child had received in the last year (remote, in-person, or hybrid) and about demographic information such as child age, gender, household income, parent race and ethnicity, and parent education.

The results showed that, during the 2020 school year, 58.0% of children attended school remotely, 24% attended fully in person, and 18.0% attended in a hybrid format. “Fully remote schooling was strongly patterned along lines of parent race and ethnicity as well as income,” the authors noted. “Parents of 336 children attending school in person (65.8%) but of 597 children attending school fully remotely (44.5%) were White, whereas all other racial/ethnic groups had larger proportions of children attending school fully remotely (P < .001).”

In terms of mental health, the findings showed that older children who attended school remotely had more difficulties, compared with those who attended in-person – but among younger children, remote learning was comparable or slightly better for mental health.

Specifically, “a child aged 17 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 2.4 points higher than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a small effect size in favor of in-person schooling,” the authors wrote. “Conversely, a child aged 4 years attending school remotely would be expected to have a total difficulty score 0.5 points lower than a child of the same age attending school in person, corresponding to a very small effect size in favor of remote schooling.”

Age of child proves critical

“Our best estimate is that remote schooling was associated with no difference in mental health difficulties at age 6, and with slightly more difficulties with each year of age after that, with differences most clearly apparent for high school–aged kids,” explained Dr. Hawrilenko, adding the finding suggests that school reopenings should prioritize older children.

However, “what kids are doing at home matters,” he added. “In the youngest age group, the biggest work kids are doing in school and childcare settings is social and emotional development. … Finding opportunities for regular, safe social interactions with peers – perhaps during outdoor playdates – can help them build those skills.”

He emphasized with the anticipated starts and stutters of the new school year there is an important role that doctors can play.

“First, they can help families assess their own risk profile, and whether it makes sense for their children to attend school in person or remotely [to the extent that is an option]. Second, they can help families think through how school closures might impact their child specifically. For those kids who wind up with long chunks of remote schooling, scheduling in regular interactions with other kids in safe ways could make a big difference. Another driver of child anxiety might be learning loss, and this is a good place to reinforce that not every mental health problem needs a mental health solution.

“A lot of kids might be rightfully anxious about having fallen behind over the pandemic. These kids are preparing to transition to college or to the workforce and may be feeling increasingly behind while approaching these moments of transition. Pointing families toward the resources to help them navigate these issues could go a long way to helping quell child anxiety.”

Research helps fill vacuum

Elizabeth A. Stuart, PhD, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview that this research is particularly valuable because there have been very few data on this topic, especially on a large-scale national sample.

Courtesy Dr. Elizabeth A. Stuart

“Sadly, many of the results are not surprising,” said Dr. Stuart, a statistician and professor of mental health at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “Data have shown significant mental health challenges for adults during the pandemic, and it is not surprising that children and youth would experience that as well, especially for those whose daily routines and structures changed dramatically and who were not able to be interacting in-person with teachers, staff, and classmates. This is an important reminder that schools provide not just academic instruction for students, but that the social interactions and other services (such as behavioral health supports, meals, and connections with other social services) students might receive in school are crucial.

“It has been heartening to see a stronger commitment to getting students safely back into school this fall across the country, and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted the benefits of in-person schooling in their COVID-19–related guidance for schools.”

Dr. Stuart added that, as students return to classes, it will be important for schools to tackle ongoing mental health challenges.

“Some students may be struggling in obvious ways; for others it may be harder to identify. It will also be important to continue to monitor children’s and youth mental health … as returning to in-person school may bring its own challenges. For some individuals and communities, the mental health impacts of the pandemic may last even after the physical health risks resolve.”

Dr. Hawrilenko agreed.

“From a policy perspective, I am quite frankly terrified about how these inequities – in particular, learning loss – might play out long after school closures are a distant memory,” he said. “It is critical to provide schools the resources not just to minimize risk when reopening, but additional funding for workforce augmentation – both for mental health staffing and for additional educational support – to help students navigate the months and years over which they transition back into the classroom.”

Dr. Hawrilenko and Dr. Stuart had no disclosures.