MDedge Psychiatry

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday signaled its resistance to President Donald J. Trump’s drive for an accelerated clearance of a COVID-19 vaccine, while medical and trade associations called for a thorough review of any such product before approval.

The FDA took the unusual step of posting background materials much earlier than usual for its planned Oct. 22 advisory committee meeting on potential vaccines for COVID-19. The FDA also on Tuesday afternoon released a new guidance document, expanding on a previous set of recommendations the agency released in June.

In the new guidance document, FDA officials outline what will be required for even a limited clearance, known as an emergency use authorization (EUA), for a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Data from phase 3 studies should include a median follow-up duration of at least 2 months after completion of the full vaccination regimen to help provide adequate information to assess a vaccine’s benefit-risk profile,” the FDA said in the document.

FDA staff have emphasized the higher bar that drugmakers and regulators face in considering approval of a COVID-19 vaccine.

“Vaccines are complex biological products, and an EUA for a COVID-19 vaccine may allow for rapid and widespread deployment for administration of the vaccine to millions of individuals, including healthy people,” the agency staff said in the briefing documents.

The FDA’s briefing document for the Oct. 22 meeting appears to be markedly at odds with the claim Trump made in a video Monday night, in which he told the American public that “vaccines are coming momentarily.”

Trump, who is in a tightly contested presidential race against Democratic candidate Joe Biden, has repeatedly made claims of the potential arrival of COVID vaccines that are at odds with timelines offered with guarded optimism by experts in infectious diseases.

But based on these new guidelines from the FDA, it appears that the White House may now endorse the FDA’s stance, according to a Wall Street Journal report based on “people familiar with the matter.”

The publication reports that the White House, which has yet to officially comment, “endorsed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s plans for assessing whether a Covid-19 vaccine should be given widely, casting aside objections to requirements that would likely mean a shot won’t be cleared until after Election Day, people familiar with the matter said.”

Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, on Monday night said during a virtual appearance at the twenty-first annual New Yorker Festival that there could be evidence as early as November or December about whether one of the vaccines now in testing will work out. He declared himself to have “cautious optimism” about potential rollout of vaccines as early as late 2020 or early 2021.

Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, who earlier served as the FDA’s associate commissioner for public health strategy and analysis, described the agency’s release of the briefing document as being a positive development.

News organizations, including the New York Times, have reported that the White House had sought to block the FDA from releasing further instructions for companies developing COVID-19 vaccines. The Associated Press on Tuesday said that a senior Trump administration official confirmed that the White House had blocked earlier FDA plans to formally publish the safety guidelines based on the 2-month data requirement, arguing that there was “no clinical or medical reason” for it.

“It is an encouraging sign that, despite opposition from the White House, the Food and Drug Administration has effectively published guidelines for emergency release of a vaccine for COVID-19 by disclosing the advice it has been providing to individual sponsors,” said Dr. Lurie, who is now executive director and president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

In a news release, he said the White House had sought to keep the FDA guidance under wraps “so it could maintain the public fiction that a safe and effective vaccine could be available before Election Day or even so that it could force emergency authorization of a vaccine with more limited follow-up.”

“Even the pharmaceutical industry has been clamoring for the release of these guidelines. We all want a safe and effective vaccine to end the pandemic, and we want it sooner rather than later,” Dr. Lurie said. “But we can’t afford for the Trump administration to bungle vaccine review the way they’ve bungled nearly every other aspect of its pandemic response.”

Tuesday also saw a flood of statements in support of FDA officials, including tweets from the chief executive of Pfizer, which is among the leaders in the race to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. Pfizer’s Albert Bourla, DVM, PhD, said that the FDA’s “public servants are known for their high integrity and scientific expertise and we have full faith in their ability to set appropriate standards for the approval of a COVID vaccine or treatment.”

The American Medical Association on Tuesday announced a public webinar on Wednesday where its president, Susan R. Bailey, MD, will discuss the COVID-19 vaccine review process with Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at the FDA. The AMA described this webinar as part of work “to restore trust in science and science-based decision-making among policymakers and the public.”

“To ensure media and the physician community are continuously informed about the federal review process for COVID-19 vaccine candidates, the AMA will host a webinar series to gain fact-based insights from the nation’s highest-ranking subject matter experts working to protect the health of the public,” the organization said in announcing the webinar.

In a statement, leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges said that the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee should evaluate any COVID-19 candidate vaccines prior to the FDA issuing an EUA.

“Full approval of a new vaccine or biologic requires demonstration of safety and effectiveness through a process that includes evaluation by the VRBPAC. Their recommendations are considered by FDA staff who ultimately have the authority to approve the new product,” said AAMC chief scientific officer Ross McKinney Jr, MD, and AAMC CEO David J. Skorton, MD, in the statement.

Thomas M. File Jr., MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said in a statement that his association again asked the White House to “follow medical and scientific expertise in efforts to combat COVID-19.”

“It is imperative that a vaccine be approved on the basis of FDA’s quality standards and that its safety and efficacy are established before it is authorized,” Dr. File said. “A vaccine that has been approved with speed, rather than safety and efficacy, at the forefront will compound the challenges posed by this pandemic. FDA guidelines for approval that set standards the American people can trust are essential to the success of a vaccine.”

Stephen J. Ubl, chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement that his association “supports any efforts by FDA to provide clarifying guidance and we have engaged with the agency to support bringing greater transparency to the review process for COVID-19 vaccines.”

“To help address this public health crisis, our companies have also taken unprecedented steps to share vaccine clinical trial protocols and data in real time,” Mr. Ubl said. “We welcome the agency’s efforts to instill confidence in the rigorous safety of these potential vaccines.”

On Oct. 1, Michelle McMurry-Heath, MD, PhD, president and chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, released publicly her letter urging Department of Health & Human Services Secretary Alex Azar to “publicly release all new guidance” related to a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a move would bolster public confidence in the vaccine, she said.

“We cannot allow a lack of transparency to undermine confidence in the vaccine development process. The public must have full faith in the scientific process and the rigor of FDA’s regulatory oversight if we are to end the pandemic,” she wrote in the Oct. 1 letter to Azar. “Releasing any additional guidance on granting emergency use authorization for a vaccine will go a long way in accomplishing this critical goal.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), new research suggests. However, until further studies are conducted, the treatment should only be considered for the most severe cases.

ipopba/Getty Images

The first clinical trial to assess DBS in this challenging patient population included eight patients initially randomly assigned to receive electrode placement in one of two locations in the brain. Once a clinical response was achieved and participants were stabilized, they were randomly assigned to a second crossover phase.

Preliminary findings from the first phase of the DBS-SCHIZO pilot study, which were reported in 2017, showed promising efficacy.

The newly released final results revealed an association between DBS and significant improvements in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) scores, as well as reductions in doses of antipsychotic medication. Moreover, the effect reversed when the electrode was switched off.

“DBS may be a potential option for severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients,” lead investigator Iluminada Corripio, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, said during her presentation at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The new data were updated results of a study published in EBioMedicine earlier this year.

Dr. Corripio underlined that it is important to balance the risks and benefits of the intervention. DBS is “not useful for all phenotypes,” and benefits have been seen in patients with hallucinations but not in those with a disorganized phenotype, she added.
 

High economic burden

Managing TRS is challenging and is associated with a high clinical and economic burden, Corripio noted. Relapse rates can reach 80%, increasing resource use by between 200% and 900%.

There is a strong rationale for studying the use of DBS in schizophrenia, because schizophrenia shares a neurologic basis with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders centered around the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical circuit, said Dr. Corripio.

The study included eight patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia whose conditions were resistant to at least two different atypical antipsychotics and who had not responded to clozapine monotherapy, combination therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DBS electrode implantation in one of two locations. Investigators chose the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), because recent studies have shown that DBS can increase dopamine levels there, and the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Deactivation failure in the ACC region has been observed in patients with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Stimulation began 48-72 hours postoperatively with unilateral left stimulation at 2.5 volts. It was increased in 0.5 volt increments to a maximum of 7.5 volts. Patients who did not respond were switched to bilateral stimulation.

Follow-up was conducted every 2 weeks for up to 20 months. The study’s primary outcome was a symptomatic response, defined as an improvement of at least 25% on the PANSS.

Once that was achieved, patients could enter a second randomization phase in which they were assigned, in a 24-week, double-blind crossover design, to on- or off-treatment DBS arms such that patients received stimulation for 12 weeks before the device was turned off for 12 weeks, or vice versa.

Those who experienced relapse while off treatment were crossed over to the on-treatment arm; those who experienced relapsed while on treatment were withdrawn from the study. The patients’ average age was 42.5 years, and 50% were women. All were taking clozapine in combination with another antipsychotic.
 

Adverse events

Five patients experienced adverse events during the first phase, four of which were associated with rechargeable battery replacement. One experienced akathisia, another experienced behavioral changes, and a third experienced electrical disturbances.

A fourth patient experienced postsurgical hemorrhage of the right internal capsule on day 4, followed by encephalitis at week 8. He had a clinical improvement but experienced relapsed during follow-up.

The fifth patient accidentally switched off the device and withdrew from the study.

During the first randomization phase, DBS was associated with significant improvements on total, positive, and negative PANSS scores in comparison with the postoperative baseline measure in the seven remaining patients (P < .001).

When the team compared the baseline measure with the last observation, the improvement in PANSS scores remained significant for total scores (P = .007) and positive scores (P = .002), but not for negative scores (P = .18).

Three patients entered the second crossover phase of the study. Two began in the off-treatment arm and experienced relapsed within 1 and 2 weeks, respectively. Total PANSS scores increased from 79 to 98 for the first patient and from 47 to 93 for the second patient.

Neuroimaging showed that, among patients who responded to DBS, brain metabolism increased in some brain areas and decreased in others. Dr. Corripio said this suggests a “rebalancing” of neural circuits.

As of July 2020, one of three patients with an electrode placed in the NAcc had experienced remission of positive symptoms and now has predominant negative symptoms. Another experienced significant improvements in negative symptoms. Two patients currently require psychosocial rehabilitation.

Patients for whom an electrode was placed in the ACC required higher voltages and more time to achieve an effect in comparison with those for whom an electrode was placed in the NAcc. Two patients required bilateral stimulation.

However, for all three patients who remained in the study, their clozapine dose was reduced.

Dr. Corripio reported that the team has observed negative thoughts and obsessive symptoms in patients with electrodes in the ACC, and all have needed either psychosocial rehabilitation or cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The investigators are now planning another DBS study involving patients with TRS, although this one will include a clinical recovery program focusing on family interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

“Last-resort” treatment

In the postpresentation debate, Damiaan Denys, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the Academic Medical Canter, University of Amsterdam, said that DBS remains a treatment of “last resort” in TRS.

This is because it is both costly and invasive, and although the associated risk of bleeding and infection is low, he noted that the consequences are significant.

Dr. Denys added that patients need to have the potential for improvement; electrodes can be easily implanted, and the approach may tempt clinicians who sometimes “struggle with a huge amount of treatment-refractory cases.”

He also pointed to results achieved in studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, in which around 50% of patients responded to DBS.

“I think that’s the reason why we should be reluctant and not treat anyone at any stage, but first look for the more severe cases,” Dr. Denys said.
 

Unmet need

Judith M. Gault, PhD, associate research professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also took part in the debate.

She said in an interview that patients with TRS have a lot of unmet needs and that DBS is worth trying in this patient population, with the goal being to “conduct a really good clinical trial” similar to the current study.

Antipsychotic drugs work well in responsive patients, but “in some cases the person is treatment refractory ... and in other cases the patient relapses,” Dr. Gault said.

She believes that DBS has the “potential to be more potent than antipsychotics in modulating the circuit of interest” and so fulfills the unmet needs of these patients while alleviating their symptoms.

Dr. Gault added that some patients experience “breakthrough symptoms” even while they are medication adherent. “That is a call for an intervention that is more potent” and suggests another potential role for DBS.

Overall, there are “a lot of really compelling reasons to pursue” DBS. However, there are also questions about how motivated patients with TRS are to participate in a clinical trial, Dr. Gault noted.

Patients with schizophrenia “tend not to be very motivated, especially if they have negative symptoms.” However, “if you were able to consider more of the population and not just the most severely affected, eventually you would find more people who are interested,” she said.

Still, it will take a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of the intervention for more people to be interested in trying it, said Dr. Gault.

“I think it’s hard early on, when you don’t actually know what the outcomes would be, if it’s even effective at all. But as you get more and more data in the population and at the different targets, people would be more open to it,” she said.

Another issue in generating interest among patients with schizophrenia is that many have not considered DBS as an option.

“It takes a while to think about it,” she noted. “You don’t want to rush into something that you just heard about, and so part of it is just education.”

The study was funded by Instituto Carlos III. Dr. Corripio reported having received research grants and conducting consultancy for Otsuka, Ferrer, Janssen, and Lilly. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), new research suggests. However, until further studies are conducted, the treatment should only be considered for the most severe cases.

ipopba/Getty Images

The first clinical trial to assess DBS in this challenging patient population included eight patients initially randomly assigned to receive electrode placement in one of two locations in the brain. Once a clinical response was achieved and participants were stabilized, they were randomly assigned to a second crossover phase.

Preliminary findings from the first phase of the DBS-SCHIZO pilot study, which were reported in 2017, showed promising efficacy.

The newly released final results revealed an association between DBS and significant improvements in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) scores, as well as reductions in doses of antipsychotic medication. Moreover, the effect reversed when the electrode was switched off.

“DBS may be a potential option for severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients,” lead investigator Iluminada Corripio, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, said during her presentation at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The new data were updated results of a study published in EBioMedicine earlier this year.

Dr. Corripio underlined that it is important to balance the risks and benefits of the intervention. DBS is “not useful for all phenotypes,” and benefits have been seen in patients with hallucinations but not in those with a disorganized phenotype, she added.
 

High economic burden

Managing TRS is challenging and is associated with a high clinical and economic burden, Corripio noted. Relapse rates can reach 80%, increasing resource use by between 200% and 900%.

There is a strong rationale for studying the use of DBS in schizophrenia, because schizophrenia shares a neurologic basis with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders centered around the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical circuit, said Dr. Corripio.

The study included eight patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia whose conditions were resistant to at least two different atypical antipsychotics and who had not responded to clozapine monotherapy, combination therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DBS electrode implantation in one of two locations. Investigators chose the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), because recent studies have shown that DBS can increase dopamine levels there, and the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Deactivation failure in the ACC region has been observed in patients with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Stimulation began 48-72 hours postoperatively with unilateral left stimulation at 2.5 volts. It was increased in 0.5 volt increments to a maximum of 7.5 volts. Patients who did not respond were switched to bilateral stimulation.

Follow-up was conducted every 2 weeks for up to 20 months. The study’s primary outcome was a symptomatic response, defined as an improvement of at least 25% on the PANSS.

Once that was achieved, patients could enter a second randomization phase in which they were assigned, in a 24-week, double-blind crossover design, to on- or off-treatment DBS arms such that patients received stimulation for 12 weeks before the device was turned off for 12 weeks, or vice versa.

Those who experienced relapse while off treatment were crossed over to the on-treatment arm; those who experienced relapsed while on treatment were withdrawn from the study. The patients’ average age was 42.5 years, and 50% were women. All were taking clozapine in combination with another antipsychotic.
 

Adverse events

Five patients experienced adverse events during the first phase, four of which were associated with rechargeable battery replacement. One experienced akathisia, another experienced behavioral changes, and a third experienced electrical disturbances.

A fourth patient experienced postsurgical hemorrhage of the right internal capsule on day 4, followed by encephalitis at week 8. He had a clinical improvement but experienced relapsed during follow-up.

The fifth patient accidentally switched off the device and withdrew from the study.

During the first randomization phase, DBS was associated with significant improvements on total, positive, and negative PANSS scores in comparison with the postoperative baseline measure in the seven remaining patients (P < .001).

When the team compared the baseline measure with the last observation, the improvement in PANSS scores remained significant for total scores (P = .007) and positive scores (P = .002), but not for negative scores (P = .18).

Three patients entered the second crossover phase of the study. Two began in the off-treatment arm and experienced relapsed within 1 and 2 weeks, respectively. Total PANSS scores increased from 79 to 98 for the first patient and from 47 to 93 for the second patient.

Neuroimaging showed that, among patients who responded to DBS, brain metabolism increased in some brain areas and decreased in others. Dr. Corripio said this suggests a “rebalancing” of neural circuits.

As of July 2020, one of three patients with an electrode placed in the NAcc had experienced remission of positive symptoms and now has predominant negative symptoms. Another experienced significant improvements in negative symptoms. Two patients currently require psychosocial rehabilitation.

Patients for whom an electrode was placed in the ACC required higher voltages and more time to achieve an effect in comparison with those for whom an electrode was placed in the NAcc. Two patients required bilateral stimulation.

However, for all three patients who remained in the study, their clozapine dose was reduced.

Dr. Corripio reported that the team has observed negative thoughts and obsessive symptoms in patients with electrodes in the ACC, and all have needed either psychosocial rehabilitation or cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The investigators are now planning another DBS study involving patients with TRS, although this one will include a clinical recovery program focusing on family interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

“Last-resort” treatment

In the postpresentation debate, Damiaan Denys, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the Academic Medical Canter, University of Amsterdam, said that DBS remains a treatment of “last resort” in TRS.

This is because it is both costly and invasive, and although the associated risk of bleeding and infection is low, he noted that the consequences are significant.

Dr. Denys added that patients need to have the potential for improvement; electrodes can be easily implanted, and the approach may tempt clinicians who sometimes “struggle with a huge amount of treatment-refractory cases.”

He also pointed to results achieved in studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, in which around 50% of patients responded to DBS.

“I think that’s the reason why we should be reluctant and not treat anyone at any stage, but first look for the more severe cases,” Dr. Denys said.
 

Unmet need

Judith M. Gault, PhD, associate research professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also took part in the debate.

She said in an interview that patients with TRS have a lot of unmet needs and that DBS is worth trying in this patient population, with the goal being to “conduct a really good clinical trial” similar to the current study.

Antipsychotic drugs work well in responsive patients, but “in some cases the person is treatment refractory ... and in other cases the patient relapses,” Dr. Gault said.

She believes that DBS has the “potential to be more potent than antipsychotics in modulating the circuit of interest” and so fulfills the unmet needs of these patients while alleviating their symptoms.

Dr. Gault added that some patients experience “breakthrough symptoms” even while they are medication adherent. “That is a call for an intervention that is more potent” and suggests another potential role for DBS.

Overall, there are “a lot of really compelling reasons to pursue” DBS. However, there are also questions about how motivated patients with TRS are to participate in a clinical trial, Dr. Gault noted.

Patients with schizophrenia “tend not to be very motivated, especially if they have negative symptoms.” However, “if you were able to consider more of the population and not just the most severely affected, eventually you would find more people who are interested,” she said.

Still, it will take a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of the intervention for more people to be interested in trying it, said Dr. Gault.

“I think it’s hard early on, when you don’t actually know what the outcomes would be, if it’s even effective at all. But as you get more and more data in the population and at the different targets, people would be more open to it,” she said.

Another issue in generating interest among patients with schizophrenia is that many have not considered DBS as an option.

“It takes a while to think about it,” she noted. “You don’t want to rush into something that you just heard about, and so part of it is just education.”

The study was funded by Instituto Carlos III. Dr. Corripio reported having received research grants and conducting consultancy for Otsuka, Ferrer, Janssen, and Lilly. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) may be an effective option for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), new research suggests. However, until further studies are conducted, the treatment should only be considered for the most severe cases.

ipopba/Getty Images

The first clinical trial to assess DBS in this challenging patient population included eight patients initially randomly assigned to receive electrode placement in one of two locations in the brain. Once a clinical response was achieved and participants were stabilized, they were randomly assigned to a second crossover phase.

Preliminary findings from the first phase of the DBS-SCHIZO pilot study, which were reported in 2017, showed promising efficacy.

The newly released final results revealed an association between DBS and significant improvements in Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS) scores, as well as reductions in doses of antipsychotic medication. Moreover, the effect reversed when the electrode was switched off.

“DBS may be a potential option for severe treatment-resistant schizophrenia patients,” lead investigator Iluminada Corripio, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, said during her presentation at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. The new data were updated results of a study published in EBioMedicine earlier this year.

Dr. Corripio underlined that it is important to balance the risks and benefits of the intervention. DBS is “not useful for all phenotypes,” and benefits have been seen in patients with hallucinations but not in those with a disorganized phenotype, she added.
 

High economic burden

Managing TRS is challenging and is associated with a high clinical and economic burden, Corripio noted. Relapse rates can reach 80%, increasing resource use by between 200% and 900%.

There is a strong rationale for studying the use of DBS in schizophrenia, because schizophrenia shares a neurologic basis with other neurologic and psychiatric disorders centered around the cortical-striatal-thalamic-cortical circuit, said Dr. Corripio.

The study included eight patients with a DSM-IV-TR diagnosis of schizophrenia whose conditions were resistant to at least two different atypical antipsychotics and who had not responded to clozapine monotherapy, combination therapy, or electroconvulsive therapy.

All were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to DBS electrode implantation in one of two locations. Investigators chose the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), because recent studies have shown that DBS can increase dopamine levels there, and the subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Deactivation failure in the ACC region has been observed in patients with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses.

Stimulation began 48-72 hours postoperatively with unilateral left stimulation at 2.5 volts. It was increased in 0.5 volt increments to a maximum of 7.5 volts. Patients who did not respond were switched to bilateral stimulation.

Follow-up was conducted every 2 weeks for up to 20 months. The study’s primary outcome was a symptomatic response, defined as an improvement of at least 25% on the PANSS.

Once that was achieved, patients could enter a second randomization phase in which they were assigned, in a 24-week, double-blind crossover design, to on- or off-treatment DBS arms such that patients received stimulation for 12 weeks before the device was turned off for 12 weeks, or vice versa.

Those who experienced relapse while off treatment were crossed over to the on-treatment arm; those who experienced relapsed while on treatment were withdrawn from the study. The patients’ average age was 42.5 years, and 50% were women. All were taking clozapine in combination with another antipsychotic.
 

Adverse events

Five patients experienced adverse events during the first phase, four of which were associated with rechargeable battery replacement. One experienced akathisia, another experienced behavioral changes, and a third experienced electrical disturbances.

A fourth patient experienced postsurgical hemorrhage of the right internal capsule on day 4, followed by encephalitis at week 8. He had a clinical improvement but experienced relapsed during follow-up.

The fifth patient accidentally switched off the device and withdrew from the study.

During the first randomization phase, DBS was associated with significant improvements on total, positive, and negative PANSS scores in comparison with the postoperative baseline measure in the seven remaining patients (P < .001).

When the team compared the baseline measure with the last observation, the improvement in PANSS scores remained significant for total scores (P = .007) and positive scores (P = .002), but not for negative scores (P = .18).

Three patients entered the second crossover phase of the study. Two began in the off-treatment arm and experienced relapsed within 1 and 2 weeks, respectively. Total PANSS scores increased from 79 to 98 for the first patient and from 47 to 93 for the second patient.

Neuroimaging showed that, among patients who responded to DBS, brain metabolism increased in some brain areas and decreased in others. Dr. Corripio said this suggests a “rebalancing” of neural circuits.

As of July 2020, one of three patients with an electrode placed in the NAcc had experienced remission of positive symptoms and now has predominant negative symptoms. Another experienced significant improvements in negative symptoms. Two patients currently require psychosocial rehabilitation.

Patients for whom an electrode was placed in the ACC required higher voltages and more time to achieve an effect in comparison with those for whom an electrode was placed in the NAcc. Two patients required bilateral stimulation.

However, for all three patients who remained in the study, their clozapine dose was reduced.

Dr. Corripio reported that the team has observed negative thoughts and obsessive symptoms in patients with electrodes in the ACC, and all have needed either psychosocial rehabilitation or cognitive-behavioral therapy.

The investigators are now planning another DBS study involving patients with TRS, although this one will include a clinical recovery program focusing on family interventions and cognitive-behavioral therapy.
 

“Last-resort” treatment

In the postpresentation debate, Damiaan Denys, PhD, professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the Academic Medical Canter, University of Amsterdam, said that DBS remains a treatment of “last resort” in TRS.

This is because it is both costly and invasive, and although the associated risk of bleeding and infection is low, he noted that the consequences are significant.

Dr. Denys added that patients need to have the potential for improvement; electrodes can be easily implanted, and the approach may tempt clinicians who sometimes “struggle with a huge amount of treatment-refractory cases.”

He also pointed to results achieved in studies of obsessive-compulsive disorder and depression, in which around 50% of patients responded to DBS.

“I think that’s the reason why we should be reluctant and not treat anyone at any stage, but first look for the more severe cases,” Dr. Denys said.
 

Unmet need

Judith M. Gault, PhD, associate research professor of neurosurgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, also took part in the debate.

She said in an interview that patients with TRS have a lot of unmet needs and that DBS is worth trying in this patient population, with the goal being to “conduct a really good clinical trial” similar to the current study.

Antipsychotic drugs work well in responsive patients, but “in some cases the person is treatment refractory ... and in other cases the patient relapses,” Dr. Gault said.

She believes that DBS has the “potential to be more potent than antipsychotics in modulating the circuit of interest” and so fulfills the unmet needs of these patients while alleviating their symptoms.

Dr. Gault added that some patients experience “breakthrough symptoms” even while they are medication adherent. “That is a call for an intervention that is more potent” and suggests another potential role for DBS.

Overall, there are “a lot of really compelling reasons to pursue” DBS. However, there are also questions about how motivated patients with TRS are to participate in a clinical trial, Dr. Gault noted.

Patients with schizophrenia “tend not to be very motivated, especially if they have negative symptoms.” However, “if you were able to consider more of the population and not just the most severely affected, eventually you would find more people who are interested,” she said.

Still, it will take a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of the intervention for more people to be interested in trying it, said Dr. Gault.

“I think it’s hard early on, when you don’t actually know what the outcomes would be, if it’s even effective at all. But as you get more and more data in the population and at the different targets, people would be more open to it,” she said.

Another issue in generating interest among patients with schizophrenia is that many have not considered DBS as an option.

“It takes a while to think about it,” she noted. “You don’t want to rush into something that you just heard about, and so part of it is just education.”

The study was funded by Instituto Carlos III. Dr. Corripio reported having received research grants and conducting consultancy for Otsuka, Ferrer, Janssen, and Lilly. No other relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Successful athletes exhibit positive mental health. This mental health is directly related to athletic success and high levels of performance.¹ Mental skills are as important as natural physical ability and mechanical skills in the sport of tennis.

Research has shown that tennis is 85% mental and that players spend 80% of their time on the court handling emotions. Some players look good in practice when they are not under pressure but cannot win matches (they have the physical skill level to win) because they cannot handle their own emotions during the duress of a match. They are affected by anger, fear, stress, poor concentration, and other internal elements that interfere with their ability to perform at an optimal level. Competitors may also be affected by external factors such as the sun, wind, an opponent, and so on, and may use these situations as an excuse not to win.

Players normally practice physical skills but rarely practice cognitive techniques. Regardless of level of play – pro, collegiate, junior, or club – practicing mental skills will greatly improve the players’ arsenal of weapons, giving them an edge in matches and making them the best players they can be. Mental health professionals also can use these strategies to help motivate athletes who compete in other sports – and in other competitive endeavors.

Visualization is the formation of a mental image of something of your choice. Visualization imagery techniques can be used by players to calm themselves before playing a match so their emotions are not wasted on trying to quiet the minds and quell stress. Implementing the following visualization techniques will reduce a player’s anxiety during the match, allowing the player to direct energy toward optimal mental and physical performance on the court.

In advance of a match, encourage the player to learn and analyze the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses by watching the opponent play and/or from asking others. The night before the scheduled match, get the player to imagine how they will play points against their competitor. Play into the opponents’ vulnerabilities or first play to their strengths to expose shortcomings and – then attack their weakness. For example, if an opponent has a weak backhand, first play to the opponent’s forehand and, when the opponent is vulnerable, go into his backhand to get a short or weak ball – and attack. The following are specific strategies that mental health professionals who work with athletes can use to help them perform optimally.
 

Using visualization, shadowing

Visualize the correct way to hit a tennis stroke and repeat it over and over in your mind. On a tennis court or where ever you have adequate space, shadow a stroke by using a racket and repetitively performing the actual stroke without hitting a ball. At home, practice relaxation and deep breathing techniques at night before going to sleep. Put yourself in a relaxed state and visualize repetitively striking the ball correctly. The next time you actually hit the stroke, you will produce a better shot.

Focusing on, staying in the here and now

The “here” means to focus on what is happening on your own court, not what is happening on the court next to you. Players may be affected by external factors, such as the sun, wind, and their opponent and may use these conditions or situations as an excuse if they do not win. Ignore background chatter and distractions, and be a horse with blinders. Be responsible for yourself and your own actions; manage what you can and realize that you cannot control the weather or actions of your opponent.

The “now” refers to staying present and focusing only on the current point. Do not think of past mistakes. If you are winning a match, do not think about celebrating while the match is still in play. If you are losing, do not start to write a script of excuses why you lost the match. Instead, just concentrate on the present, point by point. Focusing will allow you to understand what is true and important in the here and now. Focusing will help alleviate stress and better equip you to make quick decisions and be clear about your intended actions.
 

Set realistic and achievable goals

It is always good to have goals and dreams; however, you as a player must understand the realities of your current level of play. Know your level; don’t be grandiose and think you are able to beat Rafael Nadal. Having an unrealistic attitude will result in frustration and poor performance during a match. Instead, set achievable, and realistic short- and long-term goals for yourself, which will aid in your overall tennis development. After the match is over, reflect upon and evaluate the points – and your overall performance.

Don’t devalue yourself if you lose a match. Do not feel too low from a loss or too high from a win. When you have a match loss, use it as an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and to improve by working on your weaknesses in future practice until you feel confident enough to use your new skills in a tournament.
 

Stay positive

Do not tie up your self-esteem as a person with your match outcome; in otherwords, separate feelings of self-worth from your match results. Cultivate an optimistic attitude and talk positively to yourself, strive to improve, and maintain positive self-esteem in practice and in matches. During practice, allocate 110% effort, and focus on the process, not the outcome. Arrange your practice matches so that one-third of them are against players of your same level, one-third against players worse than you, and one-third against players better than yourself.

Deal with adversity

It is important to be able to deal with external pressures going on in your life such as conflicts related to family, peers, school, work, and relationships. Deal with and manage this discord before your match so you can maintain control of your emotions and can give 100% effort on the court.

Learn mental techniques

Many athletes may have difficulty teaching themselves cognitive skills and would benefit from a few sessions with a sports psychologist/psychiatrist to understand and learn the techniques. Once the tactics are understood and learned, players can apply them to training and ultimately to their tournament arsenal, allowing them to play to their ultimate potential.

References

1. Morgan WP. Selected psychological factors limiting performance: A mental health model. In Clarke DH and Eckert HM (eds.), Limits of Human Performance. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985.

Dr. Cohen had a private practice in psychiatry for more than 35 years. He is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. Dr. Cohen has been a nationally ranked tennis player from age 12 to the present and served as captain of the tennis team at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Cohen, who was ranked No. 1 in tennis in the middle states section and in the country in various categories and times, was inducted into the Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in 2012. Dr. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

Ms. Cohen, Dr. Cohen’s daughter, was No. 1 ranked in the United States in junior tennis and No. 4 in the world. In addition, Ms. Cohen was ranked among the top 100 players in the world by the professional World Tennis Association. She also was the No. 2 college player in United States, and an All-American at the University of Miami. She holds a master’s in sports psychology, and presently works as a sports psychologist and tennis professional in Philadelphia. Ms. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

Successful athletes exhibit positive mental health. This mental health is directly related to athletic success and high levels of performance.¹ Mental skills are as important as natural physical ability and mechanical skills in the sport of tennis.

Research has shown that tennis is 85% mental and that players spend 80% of their time on the court handling emotions. Some players look good in practice when they are not under pressure but cannot win matches (they have the physical skill level to win) because they cannot handle their own emotions during the duress of a match. They are affected by anger, fear, stress, poor concentration, and other internal elements that interfere with their ability to perform at an optimal level. Competitors may also be affected by external factors such as the sun, wind, an opponent, and so on, and may use these situations as an excuse not to win.

Players normally practice physical skills but rarely practice cognitive techniques. Regardless of level of play – pro, collegiate, junior, or club – practicing mental skills will greatly improve the players’ arsenal of weapons, giving them an edge in matches and making them the best players they can be. Mental health professionals also can use these strategies to help motivate athletes who compete in other sports – and in other competitive endeavors.

Visualization is the formation of a mental image of something of your choice. Visualization imagery techniques can be used by players to calm themselves before playing a match so their emotions are not wasted on trying to quiet the minds and quell stress. Implementing the following visualization techniques will reduce a player’s anxiety during the match, allowing the player to direct energy toward optimal mental and physical performance on the court.

In advance of a match, encourage the player to learn and analyze the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses by watching the opponent play and/or from asking others. The night before the scheduled match, get the player to imagine how they will play points against their competitor. Play into the opponents’ vulnerabilities or first play to their strengths to expose shortcomings and – then attack their weakness. For example, if an opponent has a weak backhand, first play to the opponent’s forehand and, when the opponent is vulnerable, go into his backhand to get a short or weak ball – and attack. The following are specific strategies that mental health professionals who work with athletes can use to help them perform optimally.
 

Using visualization, shadowing

Visualize the correct way to hit a tennis stroke and repeat it over and over in your mind. On a tennis court or where ever you have adequate space, shadow a stroke by using a racket and repetitively performing the actual stroke without hitting a ball. At home, practice relaxation and deep breathing techniques at night before going to sleep. Put yourself in a relaxed state and visualize repetitively striking the ball correctly. The next time you actually hit the stroke, you will produce a better shot.

Focusing on, staying in the here and now

The “here” means to focus on what is happening on your own court, not what is happening on the court next to you. Players may be affected by external factors, such as the sun, wind, and their opponent and may use these conditions or situations as an excuse if they do not win. Ignore background chatter and distractions, and be a horse with blinders. Be responsible for yourself and your own actions; manage what you can and realize that you cannot control the weather or actions of your opponent.

The “now” refers to staying present and focusing only on the current point. Do not think of past mistakes. If you are winning a match, do not think about celebrating while the match is still in play. If you are losing, do not start to write a script of excuses why you lost the match. Instead, just concentrate on the present, point by point. Focusing will allow you to understand what is true and important in the here and now. Focusing will help alleviate stress and better equip you to make quick decisions and be clear about your intended actions.
 

Set realistic and achievable goals

It is always good to have goals and dreams; however, you as a player must understand the realities of your current level of play. Know your level; don’t be grandiose and think you are able to beat Rafael Nadal. Having an unrealistic attitude will result in frustration and poor performance during a match. Instead, set achievable, and realistic short- and long-term goals for yourself, which will aid in your overall tennis development. After the match is over, reflect upon and evaluate the points – and your overall performance.

Don’t devalue yourself if you lose a match. Do not feel too low from a loss or too high from a win. When you have a match loss, use it as an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and to improve by working on your weaknesses in future practice until you feel confident enough to use your new skills in a tournament.
 

Stay positive

Do not tie up your self-esteem as a person with your match outcome; in otherwords, separate feelings of self-worth from your match results. Cultivate an optimistic attitude and talk positively to yourself, strive to improve, and maintain positive self-esteem in practice and in matches. During practice, allocate 110% effort, and focus on the process, not the outcome. Arrange your practice matches so that one-third of them are against players of your same level, one-third against players worse than you, and one-third against players better than yourself.

Deal with adversity

It is important to be able to deal with external pressures going on in your life such as conflicts related to family, peers, school, work, and relationships. Deal with and manage this discord before your match so you can maintain control of your emotions and can give 100% effort on the court.

Learn mental techniques

Many athletes may have difficulty teaching themselves cognitive skills and would benefit from a few sessions with a sports psychologist/psychiatrist to understand and learn the techniques. Once the tactics are understood and learned, players can apply them to training and ultimately to their tournament arsenal, allowing them to play to their ultimate potential.

References

1. Morgan WP. Selected psychological factors limiting performance: A mental health model. In Clarke DH and Eckert HM (eds.), Limits of Human Performance. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985.

Dr. Cohen had a private practice in psychiatry for more than 35 years. He is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. Dr. Cohen has been a nationally ranked tennis player from age 12 to the present and served as captain of the tennis team at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Cohen, who was ranked No. 1 in tennis in the middle states section and in the country in various categories and times, was inducted into the Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in 2012. Dr. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

Ms. Cohen, Dr. Cohen’s daughter, was No. 1 ranked in the United States in junior tennis and No. 4 in the world. In addition, Ms. Cohen was ranked among the top 100 players in the world by the professional World Tennis Association. She also was the No. 2 college player in United States, and an All-American at the University of Miami. She holds a master’s in sports psychology, and presently works as a sports psychologist and tennis professional in Philadelphia. Ms. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

Successful athletes exhibit positive mental health. This mental health is directly related to athletic success and high levels of performance.¹ Mental skills are as important as natural physical ability and mechanical skills in the sport of tennis.

Research has shown that tennis is 85% mental and that players spend 80% of their time on the court handling emotions. Some players look good in practice when they are not under pressure but cannot win matches (they have the physical skill level to win) because they cannot handle their own emotions during the duress of a match. They are affected by anger, fear, stress, poor concentration, and other internal elements that interfere with their ability to perform at an optimal level. Competitors may also be affected by external factors such as the sun, wind, an opponent, and so on, and may use these situations as an excuse not to win.

Players normally practice physical skills but rarely practice cognitive techniques. Regardless of level of play – pro, collegiate, junior, or club – practicing mental skills will greatly improve the players’ arsenal of weapons, giving them an edge in matches and making them the best players they can be. Mental health professionals also can use these strategies to help motivate athletes who compete in other sports – and in other competitive endeavors.

Visualization is the formation of a mental image of something of your choice. Visualization imagery techniques can be used by players to calm themselves before playing a match so their emotions are not wasted on trying to quiet the minds and quell stress. Implementing the following visualization techniques will reduce a player’s anxiety during the match, allowing the player to direct energy toward optimal mental and physical performance on the court.

In advance of a match, encourage the player to learn and analyze the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses by watching the opponent play and/or from asking others. The night before the scheduled match, get the player to imagine how they will play points against their competitor. Play into the opponents’ vulnerabilities or first play to their strengths to expose shortcomings and – then attack their weakness. For example, if an opponent has a weak backhand, first play to the opponent’s forehand and, when the opponent is vulnerable, go into his backhand to get a short or weak ball – and attack. The following are specific strategies that mental health professionals who work with athletes can use to help them perform optimally.
 

Using visualization, shadowing

Visualize the correct way to hit a tennis stroke and repeat it over and over in your mind. On a tennis court or where ever you have adequate space, shadow a stroke by using a racket and repetitively performing the actual stroke without hitting a ball. At home, practice relaxation and deep breathing techniques at night before going to sleep. Put yourself in a relaxed state and visualize repetitively striking the ball correctly. The next time you actually hit the stroke, you will produce a better shot.

Focusing on, staying in the here and now

The “here” means to focus on what is happening on your own court, not what is happening on the court next to you. Players may be affected by external factors, such as the sun, wind, and their opponent and may use these conditions or situations as an excuse if they do not win. Ignore background chatter and distractions, and be a horse with blinders. Be responsible for yourself and your own actions; manage what you can and realize that you cannot control the weather or actions of your opponent.

The “now” refers to staying present and focusing only on the current point. Do not think of past mistakes. If you are winning a match, do not think about celebrating while the match is still in play. If you are losing, do not start to write a script of excuses why you lost the match. Instead, just concentrate on the present, point by point. Focusing will allow you to understand what is true and important in the here and now. Focusing will help alleviate stress and better equip you to make quick decisions and be clear about your intended actions.
 

Set realistic and achievable goals

It is always good to have goals and dreams; however, you as a player must understand the realities of your current level of play. Know your level; don’t be grandiose and think you are able to beat Rafael Nadal. Having an unrealistic attitude will result in frustration and poor performance during a match. Instead, set achievable, and realistic short- and long-term goals for yourself, which will aid in your overall tennis development. After the match is over, reflect upon and evaluate the points – and your overall performance.

Don’t devalue yourself if you lose a match. Do not feel too low from a loss or too high from a win. When you have a match loss, use it as an opportunity to learn from your mistakes and to improve by working on your weaknesses in future practice until you feel confident enough to use your new skills in a tournament.
 

Stay positive

Do not tie up your self-esteem as a person with your match outcome; in otherwords, separate feelings of self-worth from your match results. Cultivate an optimistic attitude and talk positively to yourself, strive to improve, and maintain positive self-esteem in practice and in matches. During practice, allocate 110% effort, and focus on the process, not the outcome. Arrange your practice matches so that one-third of them are against players of your same level, one-third against players worse than you, and one-third against players better than yourself.

Deal with adversity

It is important to be able to deal with external pressures going on in your life such as conflicts related to family, peers, school, work, and relationships. Deal with and manage this discord before your match so you can maintain control of your emotions and can give 100% effort on the court.

Learn mental techniques

Many athletes may have difficulty teaching themselves cognitive skills and would benefit from a few sessions with a sports psychologist/psychiatrist to understand and learn the techniques. Once the tactics are understood and learned, players can apply them to training and ultimately to their tournament arsenal, allowing them to play to their ultimate potential.

References

1. Morgan WP. Selected psychological factors limiting performance: A mental health model. In Clarke DH and Eckert HM (eds.), Limits of Human Performance. Champaign, Ill.: Human Kinetics Publishers, 1985.

Dr. Cohen had a private practice in psychiatry for more than 35 years. He is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. Dr. Cohen has been a nationally ranked tennis player from age 12 to the present and served as captain of the tennis team at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Cohen, who was ranked No. 1 in tennis in the middle states section and in the country in various categories and times, was inducted into the Philadelphia Jewish Sports Hall of Fame in 2012. Dr. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

Ms. Cohen, Dr. Cohen’s daughter, was No. 1 ranked in the United States in junior tennis and No. 4 in the world. In addition, Ms. Cohen was ranked among the top 100 players in the world by the professional World Tennis Association. She also was the No. 2 college player in United States, and an All-American at the University of Miami. She holds a master’s in sports psychology, and presently works as a sports psychologist and tennis professional in Philadelphia. Ms. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

Increased psychosocial resilience, which captures a sense of purpose, optimism, and life-coping strategies, correlates with improved cardiovascular (CV) health in Black Americans, according to a study that might hold a key for identifying new strategies for CV disease prevention.

Courtesy Yale University

“Our findings highlight the importance of individual psychosocial factors that promote cardiovascular health among Black adults, traditionally considered to be a high-risk population,” according to a team of authors collaborating on a study produced by the Morehouse-Emory Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity in Atlanta.

Studies associating psychosocial resilience with improved health outcomes have been published before. In a 12-study review of this concept, it was emphasized that resilience is a dynamic process, not a personality trait, and has shown promise as a target of efforts to relieve the burden of disease (Johnston MC et al. Psychosomatics 2015;56:168-80).

In this study, which received partial support from the American Heart Association, psychosocial resilience was evaluated at both the individual level and at the community level among 389 Black adults living in Atlanta. The senior author was Tené T. Lewis, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7;13:3006638).

Psychosocial resilience was calculated across the domains of environmental mastery, purpose of life, optimism, coping, and lack of depression with standardized tests, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire for optimism and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for the domains of environmental mastery and purpose of life. A composite score for psychosocial resilience was reached by calculating the median score across the measured domains.

Patients with high psychosocial resilience, defined as a composite score above the median, or low resilience, defined as a lower score, were then compared for CV health based on the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) score.

LS7 scores incorporate measures for exercise, diet, smoking history, blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and body mass index. Composite LS7 scores range from 0 to 14. Prior work cited by the authors have associated each 1-unit increase in LS7 score with a 13% lower risk of CVD.

As a continuous variable for CV risk at the individual level, each higher standard-deviation increment in the composite psychosocial resilience score was associated with a highly significant 0.42-point increase in LS7 score (P < .001) for study participants. In other words, increasing resilience predicted lower CV risk scores.

Resilience was also calculated at the community level by looking at census tract-level rates of CV mortality and morbidity relative to socioeconomic status. Again, high CV resilience, defined as scores above the median, were compared with lower scores across neighborhoods with similar median household income. As a continuous variable in this analysis, each higher standard-deviation increment in the resilience score was associated with a 0.27-point increase in LS7 score (P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the association between psychosocial resilience and CV health remained significant for both the individual and community calculations, according to the authors. When examined jointly, high individual psychosocial resilience remained independently associated with improved CV health, but living in a high-resilience neighborhood was not an independent predictor.

When evaluated individually, each of the domains in the psychosocial resistance score were positively correlated with higher LS7 scores, meaning lower CV risk. The strongest associations on a statistical level were low depressive symptoms (P = .001), environmental mastery (P = .006), and purpose in life (P = .009).

The impact of high psychosocial resistance scores was greatest in Black adults living in low-resilience neighborhoods. Among these subjects, high resilience was associated with a nearly 1-point increase in LS7 score relative to low resilience (8.38 vs. 7.42). This was unexpected, but it “is consistent with some broader conceptual literature that posits that individual psychosocial resilience matters more under conditions of adversity,” the authors reported.
 

Understanding disparities is key

Black race has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of CV events, but this study is valuable for providing a fresh perspective on the potential reasons, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial, Amber E. Johnson, MD, and Jared Magnani, MD, who are both affiliated with the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007357.

“Clinicians increasingly recognize that race-based disparities do not stem inherently from race; instead, the disparities stem from the underlying social determinations of health,” they wrote, citing such variables as unequal access to pay and acceptable living conditions “and the structural racism that perpetuates them.”

They agreed with the authors that promotion of psychosocial resilience among Black people living in communities with poor CV health has the potential to improve CV outcomes, but they warned that this is complex. Although they contend that resilience techniques can be taught, they cautioned there might be limitations if the underlying factors associated with poor psychosocial resilience remain unchanged.

“Thus, the superficial application of positive psychology strategies is likely insufficient to bring parity to CV health outcomes,” they wrote, concluding that strategies to promote health equity would negate the need for interventions to bolster resilience.

Studies that focus on Black adults and cardiovascular health, including this investigation into the role of psychosocial factors “are much needed and very welcome,” said Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He sees a broad array of potential directions of research.

“The study opens many questions about whether the resilience can be strengthened by interventions; whether addressing structural racism could reduce the need for such resilience, and whether this association is specific to Black adults in an urban center or is generally present in other settings and in other populations,” Dr. Krumholz said.

An effort is now needed to determine “whether this is a marker or a mediator of cardiovascular health,” he added.

In either case, resilience is a potentially important factor for understanding racial disparities in CV-disease prevalence and outcomes, according to the authors of the accompanying editorial and Dr. Krumholz.

SOURCE: Kim JH et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct 7;13:e006638.

Increased psychosocial resilience, which captures a sense of purpose, optimism, and life-coping strategies, correlates with improved cardiovascular (CV) health in Black Americans, according to a study that might hold a key for identifying new strategies for CV disease prevention.

Courtesy Yale University

“Our findings highlight the importance of individual psychosocial factors that promote cardiovascular health among Black adults, traditionally considered to be a high-risk population,” according to a team of authors collaborating on a study produced by the Morehouse-Emory Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity in Atlanta.

Studies associating psychosocial resilience with improved health outcomes have been published before. In a 12-study review of this concept, it was emphasized that resilience is a dynamic process, not a personality trait, and has shown promise as a target of efforts to relieve the burden of disease (Johnston MC et al. Psychosomatics 2015;56:168-80).

In this study, which received partial support from the American Heart Association, psychosocial resilience was evaluated at both the individual level and at the community level among 389 Black adults living in Atlanta. The senior author was Tené T. Lewis, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7;13:3006638).

Psychosocial resilience was calculated across the domains of environmental mastery, purpose of life, optimism, coping, and lack of depression with standardized tests, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire for optimism and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for the domains of environmental mastery and purpose of life. A composite score for psychosocial resilience was reached by calculating the median score across the measured domains.

Patients with high psychosocial resilience, defined as a composite score above the median, or low resilience, defined as a lower score, were then compared for CV health based on the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) score.

LS7 scores incorporate measures for exercise, diet, smoking history, blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and body mass index. Composite LS7 scores range from 0 to 14. Prior work cited by the authors have associated each 1-unit increase in LS7 score with a 13% lower risk of CVD.

As a continuous variable for CV risk at the individual level, each higher standard-deviation increment in the composite psychosocial resilience score was associated with a highly significant 0.42-point increase in LS7 score (P < .001) for study participants. In other words, increasing resilience predicted lower CV risk scores.

Resilience was also calculated at the community level by looking at census tract-level rates of CV mortality and morbidity relative to socioeconomic status. Again, high CV resilience, defined as scores above the median, were compared with lower scores across neighborhoods with similar median household income. As a continuous variable in this analysis, each higher standard-deviation increment in the resilience score was associated with a 0.27-point increase in LS7 score (P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the association between psychosocial resilience and CV health remained significant for both the individual and community calculations, according to the authors. When examined jointly, high individual psychosocial resilience remained independently associated with improved CV health, but living in a high-resilience neighborhood was not an independent predictor.

When evaluated individually, each of the domains in the psychosocial resistance score were positively correlated with higher LS7 scores, meaning lower CV risk. The strongest associations on a statistical level were low depressive symptoms (P = .001), environmental mastery (P = .006), and purpose in life (P = .009).

The impact of high psychosocial resistance scores was greatest in Black adults living in low-resilience neighborhoods. Among these subjects, high resilience was associated with a nearly 1-point increase in LS7 score relative to low resilience (8.38 vs. 7.42). This was unexpected, but it “is consistent with some broader conceptual literature that posits that individual psychosocial resilience matters more under conditions of adversity,” the authors reported.
 

Understanding disparities is key

Black race has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of CV events, but this study is valuable for providing a fresh perspective on the potential reasons, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial, Amber E. Johnson, MD, and Jared Magnani, MD, who are both affiliated with the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007357.

“Clinicians increasingly recognize that race-based disparities do not stem inherently from race; instead, the disparities stem from the underlying social determinations of health,” they wrote, citing such variables as unequal access to pay and acceptable living conditions “and the structural racism that perpetuates them.”

They agreed with the authors that promotion of psychosocial resilience among Black people living in communities with poor CV health has the potential to improve CV outcomes, but they warned that this is complex. Although they contend that resilience techniques can be taught, they cautioned there might be limitations if the underlying factors associated with poor psychosocial resilience remain unchanged.

“Thus, the superficial application of positive psychology strategies is likely insufficient to bring parity to CV health outcomes,” they wrote, concluding that strategies to promote health equity would negate the need for interventions to bolster resilience.

Studies that focus on Black adults and cardiovascular health, including this investigation into the role of psychosocial factors “are much needed and very welcome,” said Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He sees a broad array of potential directions of research.

“The study opens many questions about whether the resilience can be strengthened by interventions; whether addressing structural racism could reduce the need for such resilience, and whether this association is specific to Black adults in an urban center or is generally present in other settings and in other populations,” Dr. Krumholz said.

An effort is now needed to determine “whether this is a marker or a mediator of cardiovascular health,” he added.

In either case, resilience is a potentially important factor for understanding racial disparities in CV-disease prevalence and outcomes, according to the authors of the accompanying editorial and Dr. Krumholz.

SOURCE: Kim JH et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct 7;13:e006638.

Increased psychosocial resilience, which captures a sense of purpose, optimism, and life-coping strategies, correlates with improved cardiovascular (CV) health in Black Americans, according to a study that might hold a key for identifying new strategies for CV disease prevention.

Courtesy Yale University

“Our findings highlight the importance of individual psychosocial factors that promote cardiovascular health among Black adults, traditionally considered to be a high-risk population,” according to a team of authors collaborating on a study produced by the Morehouse-Emory Cardiovascular Center for Health Equity in Atlanta.

Studies associating psychosocial resilience with improved health outcomes have been published before. In a 12-study review of this concept, it was emphasized that resilience is a dynamic process, not a personality trait, and has shown promise as a target of efforts to relieve the burden of disease (Johnston MC et al. Psychosomatics 2015;56:168-80).

In this study, which received partial support from the American Heart Association, psychosocial resilience was evaluated at both the individual level and at the community level among 389 Black adults living in Atlanta. The senior author was Tené T. Lewis, PhD, of the department of epidemiology at Emory’s Rollins School of Public Health (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7;13:3006638).

Psychosocial resilience was calculated across the domains of environmental mastery, purpose of life, optimism, coping, and lack of depression with standardized tests, such as the Life Orientation Test-Revised questionnaire for optimism and the Ryff Scales of Psychological Well-Being for the domains of environmental mastery and purpose of life. A composite score for psychosocial resilience was reached by calculating the median score across the measured domains.

Patients with high psychosocial resilience, defined as a composite score above the median, or low resilience, defined as a lower score, were then compared for CV health based on the AHA’s Life’s Simple 7 (LS7) score.

LS7 scores incorporate measures for exercise, diet, smoking history, blood pressure, glucose, cholesterol, and body mass index. Composite LS7 scores range from 0 to 14. Prior work cited by the authors have associated each 1-unit increase in LS7 score with a 13% lower risk of CVD.

As a continuous variable for CV risk at the individual level, each higher standard-deviation increment in the composite psychosocial resilience score was associated with a highly significant 0.42-point increase in LS7 score (P < .001) for study participants. In other words, increasing resilience predicted lower CV risk scores.

Resilience was also calculated at the community level by looking at census tract-level rates of CV mortality and morbidity relative to socioeconomic status. Again, high CV resilience, defined as scores above the median, were compared with lower scores across neighborhoods with similar median household income. As a continuous variable in this analysis, each higher standard-deviation increment in the resilience score was associated with a 0.27-point increase in LS7 score (P = .01).

After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, the association between psychosocial resilience and CV health remained significant for both the individual and community calculations, according to the authors. When examined jointly, high individual psychosocial resilience remained independently associated with improved CV health, but living in a high-resilience neighborhood was not an independent predictor.

When evaluated individually, each of the domains in the psychosocial resistance score were positively correlated with higher LS7 scores, meaning lower CV risk. The strongest associations on a statistical level were low depressive symptoms (P = .001), environmental mastery (P = .006), and purpose in life (P = .009).

The impact of high psychosocial resistance scores was greatest in Black adults living in low-resilience neighborhoods. Among these subjects, high resilience was associated with a nearly 1-point increase in LS7 score relative to low resilience (8.38 vs. 7.42). This was unexpected, but it “is consistent with some broader conceptual literature that posits that individual psychosocial resilience matters more under conditions of adversity,” the authors reported.
 

Understanding disparities is key

Black race has repeatedly been associated with an increased risk of CV events, but this study is valuable for providing a fresh perspective on the potential reasons, according to the authors of an accompanying editorial, Amber E. Johnson, MD, and Jared Magnani, MD, who are both affiliated with the division of cardiology at the University of Pittsburgh (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2020 Oct 7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.120.007357.

“Clinicians increasingly recognize that race-based disparities do not stem inherently from race; instead, the disparities stem from the underlying social determinations of health,” they wrote, citing such variables as unequal access to pay and acceptable living conditions “and the structural racism that perpetuates them.”

They agreed with the authors that promotion of psychosocial resilience among Black people living in communities with poor CV health has the potential to improve CV outcomes, but they warned that this is complex. Although they contend that resilience techniques can be taught, they cautioned there might be limitations if the underlying factors associated with poor psychosocial resilience remain unchanged.

“Thus, the superficial application of positive psychology strategies is likely insufficient to bring parity to CV health outcomes,” they wrote, concluding that strategies to promote health equity would negate the need for interventions to bolster resilience.

Studies that focus on Black adults and cardiovascular health, including this investigation into the role of psychosocial factors “are much needed and very welcome,” said Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, a cardiologist and professor in the Institute for Social and Policy Studies at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

He sees a broad array of potential directions of research.

“The study opens many questions about whether the resilience can be strengthened by interventions; whether addressing structural racism could reduce the need for such resilience, and whether this association is specific to Black adults in an urban center or is generally present in other settings and in other populations,” Dr. Krumholz said.

An effort is now needed to determine “whether this is a marker or a mediator of cardiovascular health,” he added.

In either case, resilience is a potentially important factor for understanding racial disparities in CV-disease prevalence and outcomes, according to the authors of the accompanying editorial and Dr. Krumholz.

SOURCE: Kim JH et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020 Oct 7;13:e006638.

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Stroke may be the first presenting symptom of COVID-19 in younger patients, new research suggests. Investigators carried out a meta-analysis of data, including 160 patients with COVID-19 and stroke, and found that nearly half of patients under the age of 50 were asymptomatic at the time of stroke onset.

Although younger patients had the highest risk of stroke, the highest risk of death was in patients who were older, had other chronic conditions, and had more severe COVID-19–associated respiratory symptoms.

“One of the most eye-opening findings of this study is that, for patients under 50 years old, many were totally asymptomatic when they had a stroke related to COVID-19, [which] means that, for these patients, the stroke was their first symptom of the disease,” lead author Luciano Sposato, MD, MBA, associate professor and chair in stroke research at Western University, London, Ont.

The study was published online Sept. 15 in Neurology.
 

Anecdotal reports

“In early April of 2020, we realized that COVID-19 was a highly thrombogenic disease,” said Dr. Sposato. “Almost in parallel, I started to see anecdotal reports in social media of strokes occurring in patients with COVID-19, and there were also very few case reports.”

The investigators “thought it would be a good idea to put all the data together in one paper,” he said, and began by conducting a systematic review of 10 published studies of COVID-19 and stroke (n = 125 patients), which were then pooled with 35 unpublished cases from Canada, the United States, and Iran for a total of 160 cases.

The analysis examined in-hospital mortality rates of patients with stroke and COVID-19.

In addition, the researchers conducted a second review of 150 papers, encompassing a final cohort of 3,306 COVID-19 patients with stroke of any type and 5,322 with ischemic stroke.

“Some studies reported data for only ischemic stroke, and some reported data for all strokes considered together, which resulted in a different number of patients on each meta-analysis, with a lower number of ‘any stroke’ cases,” Dr. Sposato explained. “This review looked at the number of patients who developed a stroke during admission and included thousands of patients.”

Dr. Sposato noted that the first review was conducted on single case reports and small case series “to understand the clinical characteristics of strokes in patients with COVID-19 on an individual patient level,” since “large studies, including hundreds of thousands of patients, usually do not provide the level of detail for a descriptive analysis of the clinical characteristics of a disease.”

Cluster analyses were used to “identify specific clinical phenotypes and their relationship with death.” Patients were stratified into three age groups: <50, 50-70, and >70 years (“young,” “middle aged,” and “older,” respectively). The median age was 65 years and 43% were female.
 

Mortality ‘remarkably high’

The review showed that 1.8% (95% confidence interval, 0.9%-3.7%) of patients experienced a new stroke, while 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8%-2.8%) of these experienced an ischemic stroke. “These numbers are higher than historical data for other infectious diseases – for example, 0.75% in SARS-CoV-1, 0.78% in sepsis, and 0.2% in influenza,” Dr. Sposato commented.

Moreover, “this number may be an underestimate, given that many patients die without a confirmed diagnosis and that some patients did not come to the emergency department when experiencing mild symptoms during the first months of the pandemic,” he added.

Focusing on the review of 160 patients, the researchers described in-hospital mortality for strokes of all types and for ischemic strokes alone as “remarkably high” (34.4% [95% CI, 27.2%-42.4%] and 35.7% [95% CI, 27.5%-44.8%], respectively), with most deaths occurring among ischemic stroke patients.

“This high mortality rate is higher than the [roughly] 15% to 30% reported for stroke patients without COVID-19 admitted to intensive care units,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

High-risk phenotype

Many “young” COVID-19 patients (under age 50) who had a stroke (42.9%) had no previous risk factors or comorbidities. Moreover, in almost half of these patients (48.3%), stroke was more likely to occur before the onset of any COVID-19 respiratory symptoms.

Additionally, younger patients showed the highest frequency of elevated cardiac troponin compared with middle-aged and older patients (71.4% vs. 48.4% and 27.8%, respectively). On the other hand, mortality was 67% lower in younger versus older patients (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.12-0.94; P = .039).

Dr. Sposato noted that the proportion of ischemic stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion was “higher than previously reported” for patients with stroke without COVID-19 (47% compared with 29%, respectively).

“We should consider COVID-19 as a new cause or risk factor for stroke. At least, patients with stroke should probably be tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection if they are young and present with a large-vessel occlusion, even in the absence of typical COVID-19 respiratory symptoms,” he suggested.

The researchers identified a “high-risk phenotype” for death for all types of stroke considered together: older age, a higher burden of comorbidities, and severe COVID-19 respiratory symptoms. Patients with all three characteristics had the highest in-hospital mortality rate (58.6%) and a threefold risk of death, compared with the rest of the cohort (OR, 3.52; 95% CI, 1.53-8.09; P = .003).

“Several potential mechanisms can explain the increased risk of stroke among COVID-19 patients, but perhaps the most important one is increased thrombogenesis secondary to an exaggerated inflammatory response,” Dr. Sposato said.
 

Not just elders

Commenting on the study, Jodi Edwards, PhD, director of the Brain and Heart Nexus Research Program at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, said the findings are “consistent with and underscore public health messaging emphasizing that COVID-19 does not only affect the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, but can have serious and even fatal consequences at any age.”

Dr. Edwards, who was not involved with the study, emphasized that “adherence to public health recommendations is critical to begin to reduce the rising incidence in younger adults.”

Dr. Sposato acknowledged that the study was small and that there “can be problems associated with a systematic review of case reports, such as publication bias, lack of completeness of data, etc, so more research is needed.”

Dr. Sposato is supported by the Kathleen & Dr. Henry Barnett Research Chair in Stroke Research at Western University, the Edward and Alma Saraydar Neurosciences Fund of the London Health Sciences Foundation, and the Opportunities Fund of the Academic Health Sciences Centre Alternative Funding Plan of the Academic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario. Dr. Sposato reported speaker honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Gore, and Bayer and research/quality improvement grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bayer. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Edwards has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledged Oct. 5 in updated guidance that COVID-19 can sometimes be spread through the air, especially in enclosed spaces with poor ventilation, when people are more than 6 feet apart.

The information reiterates, however, that “COVID-19 is thought to spread mainly through close contact from person to person, including between people who are physically near each other (within about 6 feet). People who are infected but do not show symptoms can also spread the virus to others.”

In a statement to the media, the CDC said, “Today’s update acknowledges the existence of some published reports showing limited, uncommon circumstances where people with COVID-19 infected others who were more than 6 feet away or shortly after the COVID-19–positive person left an area. In these instances, transmission occurred in poorly ventilated and enclosed spaces that often involved activities that caused heavier breathing, like singing or exercise. Such environments and activities may contribute to the buildup of virus-carrying particles.”

“This is HUGE and been long delayed. But glad it’s now CDC official,” tweeted Eric Feigl-Ding, MD, an epidemiologist and health economist at Harvard University, Boston on Oct. 5.

The CDC announcement follows an abrupt flip-flop on information last month surrounding the aerosol spread of the virus.
 

Information deleted from website last month

On September 18, the CDC had added to its existing guidance that the virus is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection.”

The CDC then deleted that guidance on Sept. 21, saying it was a draft update released in error.

A key element of the now-deleted guidance said, “this is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

The information updated today reverses the now-deleted guidance and says aerosol transmission is not the main way the virus spreads.

It states that people who are within 6 feet of a person with COVID-19 or have direct contact with that person have the greatest risk of infection.

The CDC reiterated in the statement to the media today, “People can protect themselves from the virus that causes COVID-19 by staying at least 6 feet away from others, wearing a mask that covers their nose and mouth, washing their hands frequently, cleaning touched surfaces often, and staying home when sick.”

Among the journals that have published evidence on aerosol spread is Clinical Infectious Diseases, which, on July 6, published the paper, “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors wrote, “there is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).”

Aerosols and airborne transmission “are the only way to explain super-spreader events we are seeing,” said Kimberly Prather, PhD, an atmospheric chemist at the University of California at San Diego, in an interview Oct. 5 with the Washington Post.

Dr. Prather added that, once aerosolization is acknowledged, this becomes a “fixable” problem through proper ventilation.

“Wear masks at all times indoors when others are present,” Dr. Prather said. But when inside, she said, there’s no such thing as a completely safe social distance.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Substance use disorders (SUD), particularly opioid addiction and smoking, are tied to an increased risk for COVID-19 and serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death, new research suggests.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health assessed electronic health records of more than 73 million patients in the United States. Although only 10.3% of the participants had an SUD, “they represented 15.6% of the COVID-19 cases,” the investigators reported.

In addition, those with a recent diagnosis of SUD were eight times more likely to develop COVID-19 versus those without such a diagnosis. For specific SUDs, the greatest risk was for those with an opioid addiction followed by those who were addicted to cigarettes.

Is nicotine protective?

Dr. Volkow, her fellow senior author Rong Xu, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and their team conducted the study because data released before the pandemic showed a significant increase in opioid overdose in 2019. “We were in an opioid crisis where we again saw an increase in mortality associated with overdose – and then COVID comes along. So the question was how are people who are already struggling faring? And if they were getting infected [with the coronavirus], what happened to them?”

Patients with SUDs have multiple medical comorbidities that are known risk factors for COVID-19, Dr. Volkow noted.

However, the only specific SUD that has been previously studied in this context is tobacco use disorder, she said. A report from Chinese investigators released early in the pandemic showed that smokers were more likely to be infected by coronavirus and more likely to die from COVID-19.

Interestingly, a cross-sectional study published in April suggested that smoking may be protective against COVID, and Dr. Volkow noted that a clinical study currently being conducted in France is assessing whether wearing a nicotine patch has the potential to prevent the virus.

“That’s very different from looking at a chronic smoker,” she pointed out. “It’s a potential that nicotine as a chemical [could be] a preventive measure as opposed to saying smoking will prevent you from getting COVID.”

Patients with SUDs, said Dr. Volkow, “are likely to be at greater risk because of the effects of drugs in the metabolic system and the interfering with oxygenation in the pulmonary vessels.”

The retrospective case-control study included EHR data from 73.1 million patients. In the study population, 54% were women, 55% were White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and the others were classified as other or unknown.

EHRs were collected through June 15 at 360 hospitals in all 50 states and were deidentified to ensure privacy. SUDs included alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioid, and cocaine.
 

Racial disparities

Results showed that about 7.5 million participants had a previous SUD diagnosis; of these, 722,370 had been diagnosed within the past year.

Tobacco use disorder was the most common diagnosis (n = 6,414,580), followed by alcohol (1,264,990), cannabis (490,420), opioid (471,520), and cocaine (222,680).

In addition, 12,030 (60% women) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,880 had both COVID-19 and an SUD.

Adjusted analyses revealed that those who had a recent diagnosis of SUD were at a significantly greater increased risk for COVID-19 than individuals without an SUD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.4-9.0; P < 10^–30).

This increased risk was greatest in participants with opioid use disorder (aOR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.1-11.5; P < 10^–30), followed by those with tobacco use disorder (aOR, 8.2; 95% CI, 7.9 - 8.5; P < 10–30).

Alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis had aORs of 7.7, 6.5, and 5.3, respectively. The aOR for lifetime SUD and COVID-19 was 1.5.

Among all patients with COVID-19, hospitalization rates were significantly greater in those with an SUD (43.8%) versus those without (30.1%), as were death rates at 9.6% versus 6.6%, respectively.

Race was a significant risk factor. Black patients with a recent SUD diagnosis were twice as likely as White patients to develop COVID-19 (aOR, 2.2; P < 10^–30), and those specifically with opioid use disorder were four times more likely to develop the disease (aOR, 4.2  P < 10^–25).

Black patients with both COVID-19 and lifetime SUD also had greater hospitalization and death rates versus their White peers (50.7% vs. 35.2% and 13% vs. 8.6%, respectively).

“This surprised me,” Dr. Volkow noted. “You can see the emergence of the racial disparities even under these conditions of really negative outcomes.”
 

Vulnerable populations

Cancer; obesity; HIV; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and chronic kidney, liver, and lung diseases, which are all risk factors for COVID-19, were more prevalent in the group of patients with a recent SUD diagnosis versus those without.

In addition, asthma, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in the Black patents with a recent SUD than in the White patients.

Overall, the findings “identify individuals with SUD as a vulnerable population, especially African Americans with SUDs, who are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes,” the investigators wrote.

The results also highlight “the need to screen and treat individuals with SUD as part of the strategy to control the pandemic while ensuring no disparities in access to healthcare support,” they added.

Dr. Volkow noted that “marginalization” often occurs for individuals with addiction, making it more difficult for them to access health care services.

“It is incumbent upon clinicians to meet the unique challenges of caring for this vulnerable population, just as they would any other high-risk group,” she said.

“Patients should not just be treated for COVID, but should also be provided with treatment for their substance use disorder,” Dr. Volkow added.
 

‘Pretty convincing’

Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, called the findings interesting.

“I found it pretty convincing that people who have substance use disorders are probably at higher risk for getting COVID-19 infection and more complications once they are infected,” he said.

Dr. Saxon, who was not involved with the research, is also director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education and is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry.

He noted that an important point from the study was not just about a patient having an SUD being at increased risk for COVID-19 “and a more severe disease trajectory.” Other factors associated with having an SUD, such as increased comorbidities, also likely play a part.

Dr. Saxon agreed that the ongoing opioid epidemic combined with the pandemic led to a “perfect storm” of problems.

“We were making slow but some progress getting more people the medications they need [to treat opioid use disorder], but the pandemic coming along disrupted those efforts. A lot of health care entities had to shut down for a while, seeing patients only remotely,” which led to barriers as many clinicians needed to learn how to proceed using telehealth options, said Dr. Saxon.
 

Universal screening?

Asked whether physicians should screen all patients for SUDs, Dr. Saxon said it’s a complicated question.

“Screening for tobacco and alcohol has a really good evidence base and practices should be doing that. The stigma is there but it’s a lot less than with illegal substances,” he said.

Screening for illegal substances or misuse of prescription substances may not be a good idea in health care settings “when it’s something they can’t do anything about. If you’re going to screen, you would have to have either referral processes in place or treatment available in your facility,” Dr. Saxon said.

Opioid use disorder is “especially amenable to treatment in a primary care or health care setting with prescribers,” he noted.

However, stimulant or cannabis use disorders “require fairly intensive behavioral interventions that are not easy to deliver in many health care settings. And we don›t have the workforce trained up to provide those treatments as widely as they should be,” said Dr. Saxon.

“Unless there’s some way to treat the issue, what’s the point of screening for it? That just creates frustration for patients and clinicians, as well,” he said. “It’s something we’re moving toward but we’re not quite there yet.”

The report authors and Dr. Saxon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Substance use disorders (SUD), particularly opioid addiction and smoking, are tied to an increased risk for COVID-19 and serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death, new research suggests.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health assessed electronic health records of more than 73 million patients in the United States. Although only 10.3% of the participants had an SUD, “they represented 15.6% of the COVID-19 cases,” the investigators reported.

In addition, those with a recent diagnosis of SUD were eight times more likely to develop COVID-19 versus those without such a diagnosis. For specific SUDs, the greatest risk was for those with an opioid addiction followed by those who were addicted to cigarettes.

Is nicotine protective?

Dr. Volkow, her fellow senior author Rong Xu, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and their team conducted the study because data released before the pandemic showed a significant increase in opioid overdose in 2019. “We were in an opioid crisis where we again saw an increase in mortality associated with overdose – and then COVID comes along. So the question was how are people who are already struggling faring? And if they were getting infected [with the coronavirus], what happened to them?”

Patients with SUDs have multiple medical comorbidities that are known risk factors for COVID-19, Dr. Volkow noted.

However, the only specific SUD that has been previously studied in this context is tobacco use disorder, she said. A report from Chinese investigators released early in the pandemic showed that smokers were more likely to be infected by coronavirus and more likely to die from COVID-19.

Interestingly, a cross-sectional study published in April suggested that smoking may be protective against COVID, and Dr. Volkow noted that a clinical study currently being conducted in France is assessing whether wearing a nicotine patch has the potential to prevent the virus.

“That’s very different from looking at a chronic smoker,” she pointed out. “It’s a potential that nicotine as a chemical [could be] a preventive measure as opposed to saying smoking will prevent you from getting COVID.”

Patients with SUDs, said Dr. Volkow, “are likely to be at greater risk because of the effects of drugs in the metabolic system and the interfering with oxygenation in the pulmonary vessels.”

The retrospective case-control study included EHR data from 73.1 million patients. In the study population, 54% were women, 55% were White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and the others were classified as other or unknown.

EHRs were collected through June 15 at 360 hospitals in all 50 states and were deidentified to ensure privacy. SUDs included alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioid, and cocaine.
 

Racial disparities

Results showed that about 7.5 million participants had a previous SUD diagnosis; of these, 722,370 had been diagnosed within the past year.

Tobacco use disorder was the most common diagnosis (n = 6,414,580), followed by alcohol (1,264,990), cannabis (490,420), opioid (471,520), and cocaine (222,680).

In addition, 12,030 (60% women) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,880 had both COVID-19 and an SUD.

Adjusted analyses revealed that those who had a recent diagnosis of SUD were at a significantly greater increased risk for COVID-19 than individuals without an SUD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.4-9.0; P < 10^–30).

This increased risk was greatest in participants with opioid use disorder (aOR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.1-11.5; P < 10^–30), followed by those with tobacco use disorder (aOR, 8.2; 95% CI, 7.9 - 8.5; P < 10–30).

Alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis had aORs of 7.7, 6.5, and 5.3, respectively. The aOR for lifetime SUD and COVID-19 was 1.5.

Among all patients with COVID-19, hospitalization rates were significantly greater in those with an SUD (43.8%) versus those without (30.1%), as were death rates at 9.6% versus 6.6%, respectively.

Race was a significant risk factor. Black patients with a recent SUD diagnosis were twice as likely as White patients to develop COVID-19 (aOR, 2.2; P < 10^–30), and those specifically with opioid use disorder were four times more likely to develop the disease (aOR, 4.2  P < 10^–25).

Black patients with both COVID-19 and lifetime SUD also had greater hospitalization and death rates versus their White peers (50.7% vs. 35.2% and 13% vs. 8.6%, respectively).

“This surprised me,” Dr. Volkow noted. “You can see the emergence of the racial disparities even under these conditions of really negative outcomes.”
 

Vulnerable populations

Cancer; obesity; HIV; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and chronic kidney, liver, and lung diseases, which are all risk factors for COVID-19, were more prevalent in the group of patients with a recent SUD diagnosis versus those without.

In addition, asthma, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in the Black patents with a recent SUD than in the White patients.

Overall, the findings “identify individuals with SUD as a vulnerable population, especially African Americans with SUDs, who are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes,” the investigators wrote.

The results also highlight “the need to screen and treat individuals with SUD as part of the strategy to control the pandemic while ensuring no disparities in access to healthcare support,” they added.

Dr. Volkow noted that “marginalization” often occurs for individuals with addiction, making it more difficult for them to access health care services.

“It is incumbent upon clinicians to meet the unique challenges of caring for this vulnerable population, just as they would any other high-risk group,” she said.

“Patients should not just be treated for COVID, but should also be provided with treatment for their substance use disorder,” Dr. Volkow added.
 

‘Pretty convincing’

Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, called the findings interesting.

“I found it pretty convincing that people who have substance use disorders are probably at higher risk for getting COVID-19 infection and more complications once they are infected,” he said.

Dr. Saxon, who was not involved with the research, is also director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education and is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry.

He noted that an important point from the study was not just about a patient having an SUD being at increased risk for COVID-19 “and a more severe disease trajectory.” Other factors associated with having an SUD, such as increased comorbidities, also likely play a part.

Dr. Saxon agreed that the ongoing opioid epidemic combined with the pandemic led to a “perfect storm” of problems.

“We were making slow but some progress getting more people the medications they need [to treat opioid use disorder], but the pandemic coming along disrupted those efforts. A lot of health care entities had to shut down for a while, seeing patients only remotely,” which led to barriers as many clinicians needed to learn how to proceed using telehealth options, said Dr. Saxon.
 

Universal screening?

Asked whether physicians should screen all patients for SUDs, Dr. Saxon said it’s a complicated question.

“Screening for tobacco and alcohol has a really good evidence base and practices should be doing that. The stigma is there but it’s a lot less than with illegal substances,” he said.

Screening for illegal substances or misuse of prescription substances may not be a good idea in health care settings “when it’s something they can’t do anything about. If you’re going to screen, you would have to have either referral processes in place or treatment available in your facility,” Dr. Saxon said.

Opioid use disorder is “especially amenable to treatment in a primary care or health care setting with prescribers,” he noted.

However, stimulant or cannabis use disorders “require fairly intensive behavioral interventions that are not easy to deliver in many health care settings. And we don›t have the workforce trained up to provide those treatments as widely as they should be,” said Dr. Saxon.

“Unless there’s some way to treat the issue, what’s the point of screening for it? That just creates frustration for patients and clinicians, as well,” he said. “It’s something we’re moving toward but we’re not quite there yet.”

The report authors and Dr. Saxon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Substance use disorders (SUD), particularly opioid addiction and smoking, are tied to an increased risk for COVID-19 and serious adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death, new research suggests.

A study funded by the National Institutes of Health assessed electronic health records of more than 73 million patients in the United States. Although only 10.3% of the participants had an SUD, “they represented 15.6% of the COVID-19 cases,” the investigators reported.

In addition, those with a recent diagnosis of SUD were eight times more likely to develop COVID-19 versus those without such a diagnosis. For specific SUDs, the greatest risk was for those with an opioid addiction followed by those who were addicted to cigarettes.

Is nicotine protective?

Dr. Volkow, her fellow senior author Rong Xu, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and their team conducted the study because data released before the pandemic showed a significant increase in opioid overdose in 2019. “We were in an opioid crisis where we again saw an increase in mortality associated with overdose – and then COVID comes along. So the question was how are people who are already struggling faring? And if they were getting infected [with the coronavirus], what happened to them?”

Patients with SUDs have multiple medical comorbidities that are known risk factors for COVID-19, Dr. Volkow noted.

However, the only specific SUD that has been previously studied in this context is tobacco use disorder, she said. A report from Chinese investigators released early in the pandemic showed that smokers were more likely to be infected by coronavirus and more likely to die from COVID-19.

Interestingly, a cross-sectional study published in April suggested that smoking may be protective against COVID, and Dr. Volkow noted that a clinical study currently being conducted in France is assessing whether wearing a nicotine patch has the potential to prevent the virus.

“That’s very different from looking at a chronic smoker,” she pointed out. “It’s a potential that nicotine as a chemical [could be] a preventive measure as opposed to saying smoking will prevent you from getting COVID.”

Patients with SUDs, said Dr. Volkow, “are likely to be at greater risk because of the effects of drugs in the metabolic system and the interfering with oxygenation in the pulmonary vessels.”

The retrospective case-control study included EHR data from 73.1 million patients. In the study population, 54% were women, 55% were White, 10% Black, 2% Asian, 1% Hispanic/Latino, and the others were classified as other or unknown.

EHRs were collected through June 15 at 360 hospitals in all 50 states and were deidentified to ensure privacy. SUDs included alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opioid, and cocaine.
 

Racial disparities

Results showed that about 7.5 million participants had a previous SUD diagnosis; of these, 722,370 had been diagnosed within the past year.

Tobacco use disorder was the most common diagnosis (n = 6,414,580), followed by alcohol (1,264,990), cannabis (490,420), opioid (471,520), and cocaine (222,680).

In addition, 12,030 (60% women) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 1,880 had both COVID-19 and an SUD.

Adjusted analyses revealed that those who had a recent diagnosis of SUD were at a significantly greater increased risk for COVID-19 than individuals without an SUD (adjusted odds ratio, 8.7; 95% confidence interval, 8.4-9.0; P < 10^–30).

This increased risk was greatest in participants with opioid use disorder (aOR, 10.2; 95% CI, 9.1-11.5; P < 10^–30), followed by those with tobacco use disorder (aOR, 8.2; 95% CI, 7.9 - 8.5; P < 10–30).

Alcohol, cocaine, and cannabis had aORs of 7.7, 6.5, and 5.3, respectively. The aOR for lifetime SUD and COVID-19 was 1.5.

Among all patients with COVID-19, hospitalization rates were significantly greater in those with an SUD (43.8%) versus those without (30.1%), as were death rates at 9.6% versus 6.6%, respectively.

Race was a significant risk factor. Black patients with a recent SUD diagnosis were twice as likely as White patients to develop COVID-19 (aOR, 2.2; P < 10^–30), and those specifically with opioid use disorder were four times more likely to develop the disease (aOR, 4.2  P < 10^–25).

Black patients with both COVID-19 and lifetime SUD also had greater hospitalization and death rates versus their White peers (50.7% vs. 35.2% and 13% vs. 8.6%, respectively).

“This surprised me,” Dr. Volkow noted. “You can see the emergence of the racial disparities even under these conditions of really negative outcomes.”
 

Vulnerable populations

Cancer; obesity; HIV; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; and chronic kidney, liver, and lung diseases, which are all risk factors for COVID-19, were more prevalent in the group of patients with a recent SUD diagnosis versus those without.

In addition, asthma, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and chronic kidney disease were more prevalent in the Black patents with a recent SUD than in the White patients.

Overall, the findings “identify individuals with SUD as a vulnerable population, especially African Americans with SUDs, who are at significantly increased risk for COVID-19 and its adverse outcomes,” the investigators wrote.

The results also highlight “the need to screen and treat individuals with SUD as part of the strategy to control the pandemic while ensuring no disparities in access to healthcare support,” they added.

Dr. Volkow noted that “marginalization” often occurs for individuals with addiction, making it more difficult for them to access health care services.

“It is incumbent upon clinicians to meet the unique challenges of caring for this vulnerable population, just as they would any other high-risk group,” she said.

“Patients should not just be treated for COVID, but should also be provided with treatment for their substance use disorder,” Dr. Volkow added.
 

‘Pretty convincing’

Andrew J. Saxon, MD, professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Washington, Seattle, called the findings interesting.

“I found it pretty convincing that people who have substance use disorders are probably at higher risk for getting COVID-19 infection and more complications once they are infected,” he said.

Dr. Saxon, who was not involved with the research, is also director of the Center of Excellence in Substance Addiction Treatment and Education and is a member of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Addiction Psychiatry.

He noted that an important point from the study was not just about a patient having an SUD being at increased risk for COVID-19 “and a more severe disease trajectory.” Other factors associated with having an SUD, such as increased comorbidities, also likely play a part.

Dr. Saxon agreed that the ongoing opioid epidemic combined with the pandemic led to a “perfect storm” of problems.

“We were making slow but some progress getting more people the medications they need [to treat opioid use disorder], but the pandemic coming along disrupted those efforts. A lot of health care entities had to shut down for a while, seeing patients only remotely,” which led to barriers as many clinicians needed to learn how to proceed using telehealth options, said Dr. Saxon.
 

Universal screening?

Asked whether physicians should screen all patients for SUDs, Dr. Saxon said it’s a complicated question.

“Screening for tobacco and alcohol has a really good evidence base and practices should be doing that. The stigma is there but it’s a lot less than with illegal substances,” he said.

Screening for illegal substances or misuse of prescription substances may not be a good idea in health care settings “when it’s something they can’t do anything about. If you’re going to screen, you would have to have either referral processes in place or treatment available in your facility,” Dr. Saxon said.

Opioid use disorder is “especially amenable to treatment in a primary care or health care setting with prescribers,” he noted.

However, stimulant or cannabis use disorders “require fairly intensive behavioral interventions that are not easy to deliver in many health care settings. And we don›t have the workforce trained up to provide those treatments as widely as they should be,” said Dr. Saxon.

“Unless there’s some way to treat the issue, what’s the point of screening for it? That just creates frustration for patients and clinicians, as well,” he said. “It’s something we’re moving toward but we’re not quite there yet.”

The report authors and Dr. Saxon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Black and Hispanic children comprised significantly more cases of COVID-19, compared with White children, based on data from a large, cross-sectional study of 1,000 cases.

“Data regarding disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes have been, thus far, mostly limited to adults,” wrote Monika K. Goyal, MD, of Children’s National Hospital, Washington, and colleagues. “Additional data further suggest that low socioeconomic status may further exacerbate health outcomes for racial and ethnic minorities.”

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 1,000 children from a registry of non–acutely ill pediatric patients seen at a drive-through and walk-up COVID-19 test site.
 

Minority, socioeconomic status affect pediatric outcomes too

Overall, 207 (21%) of the children tested positive for COVID-19; of these 46% were Hispanic, 30% were non-Hispanic Black, and 7% were non-Hispanic White. The median age of the study population was 8 years, and approximately half were male.

The researchers also examined the association of median family income (MFI) using census block group estimates data from the American Community Survey (2014–2018) to represent socioeconomic status.

Infection rates were significantly higher among children in the lowest three quartiles of MFI (24%, 27%, and 38% for quartiles 3, 2, and 1, respectively), compared with the highest quartile of MFI (9%).

After adjusting for age, sex, and MFI, Hispanic children were six times more likely and non-Hispanic Black children were twice as likely to test positive for COVID-19 than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratios, 6.3 and 2.3, respectively).

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of clinician-reported ethnicity and thus potential for misclassification, the researchers noted. In addition, the socioeconomic and racial disparities may be underestimated because these groups have less access to primary care, and the study did not allow for confounding variables including housing conditions or occupancy.

“Although it was beyond the scope of this study to understand the causes for these differential rates of infection, the causes may be multifactorial, including, but not limited to, structural factors, poorer access to health care, limited resources, and bias and discrimination,” the researchers noted. In addition, the high infection rate among minority children may be impacted by parents who are less able to telework, find child care, or avoid public transportation, Dr. Goyal and associates wrote.

Future research should address “the modifiable reasons for these observed disparities as well as their differential impact in terms of SARS-CoV-2–related morbidity and mortality outcomes to mitigate the spread of infection and its health effects,” they concluded.
 

How to help

“This study is important because we need to understand which groups of children are at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in order to maximize efforts for screening, allocating resources, and prioritizing vaccine administration,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella said she was not surprised at the higher infection rates in general in minorities and low socioeconomic groups. “We already knew that adult COVID-19 rates were higher for people in certain racial/ethnic groups and those with socioeconomic disadvantages; however, I was shocked by the percentages. That is a huge burden for a population that already has disparities in health outcomes.”

“As the authors cite, this was not a research study of why these groups were more likely to be COVID-19 positive, but they speculated that crowded living conditions, multigenerational families living together, and many minorities being essential workers unable to work from home,” said Dr. Kinsella. Additional factors contributing to higher infection rates may include limited access to care, transportation issues, insurance coverage, schedule challenges, and fear of deportation. Some of these problems might be addressed by coming into communities in mobile vans, visiting community health centers and schools with free educational materials, using masks and hand sanitizer, and offering free access to testing.

“Future studies could confirm the cause of this discrepancy, as well as study community-based interventions and their outcomes,” Dr. Kinsella said. In the meantime, a take-home message for clinicians is the need to prioritize screening, resources, and vaccines to reflect the higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in children from disadvantaged racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose, but lead author Dr. Goyal is a member of the Pediatrics editorial board. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News editorial advisory board.

SOURCE: Goyal MK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 24. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-009951.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Parents who did not vaccinate their children against influenza last year were significantly less likely to do so this year than parents whose children were vaccinated last year, based on survey data from more than 2,000 parents with babies and young children.

Choreograph/Thinkstock

“Pediatric vaccination will be an important component to mitigating a dual influenza/COVID-19 epidemic,” Rebeccah L. Sokol, PhD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and Anna H. Grummon, PhD, of Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, reported in Pediatrics.

Although the pandemic has increased acceptance of some healthy behaviors including handwashing and social distancing, the impact on influenza vaccination rates remains unknown, they said.

To assess parents’ current intentions for flu vaccination of young children this season, the researchers conducted an online survey of 2,164 parents or guardians of children aged between 6 months and 5 years in the United States. The 15-minute online survey was conducted in May 2020 and participants received gift cards. The primary outcome was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on parental intentions for having their child vaccinated against seasonal flu this year.

“We measured change categorically, with response options ranging from 1 (I became much less likely to get my child the flu shot next year) to 5 (I became much more likely to get my child the flu shot next year),” the researchers said.
 

Pandemic changes some parents’ plans

Overall, 60% of parents said that the ongoing pandemic had altered their flu vaccination intentions for their children. About 34% percent of parents whose children did not receive flu vaccine last year said they would not seek the vaccine this year because of the pandemic, compared with 25% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine, a statistically significant difference (P < .001).

Approximately 21% of parents whose children received no flu vaccine last year said the pandemic made them more likely to seek vaccination for the 2020-2021 season, compared with 38% of parents whose children received last year’s flu vaccine.

“These results suggest that overall seasonal influenza vaccination rates may not increase simply because of an ongoing infectious disease pandemic. Instead, a significant predictor of future behavior remains past behavior,” Dr. Sokol and Dr. Grummon said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of a convenience sample and the timing of the survey in May 2020, meaning that survey results might not be generalizable this fall as the pandemic persists, they noted. “Additionally, we assessed intentions to vaccinate; future research will clarify the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on actual vaccination behaviors.”

The challenge of how to increase uptake of the influenza vaccine during the era of COVID-19 remains, and targeted efforts could include social norms messaging through social media, mass media, or health care providers to increase parents’ intentions to vaccinate, as well as vaccination reminders and presumptive announcements from health care providers that present vaccination as the default option, the researchers added.
 

Potential for ‘twindemic’ is real

The uptake of flu vaccination is especially important this year, Christopher J. Harrison, MD, director of the vaccine and treatment evaluation unit and professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, said in an interview.

“This year we are entering a flu season where the certainty of the timing as well as the potential severity of the season are not known. That said, social distancing and wearing masks – to the extent that enough people conform to COVID-19 precautions – could delay or even blunt the usual influenza season,” he noted.

Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have had their credibility damaged by the challenges of creating a successful response on the fly to a uniquely multifaceted virus to which previous rules do not apply, Dr. Harrison said. In addition, public confidence was eroded when information about testing and reopening policies were released by non-CDC nonscientists and labeled “CDC recommended,” with no opportunity for the scientific community to correct inaccuracies.

“The current study reveals that public trust in influenza vaccine and indirectly in health authorities has been affected by the pandemic,” said Dr. Harrison. “Vaccine hesitancy has increased somewhat even among previous vaccine accepters. One wonders if promises of a quick COVID-19 vaccine increased mistrust of the FDA because of safety concerns, even among the most ardent provaccine population, and whether these concerns are bleeding over into influenza vaccine concerns.

“This only adds to the anxiety that families feel about visiting any medical facility for routine vaccines while the pandemic rages, and we now are in a fall SARS-CoV-2 resurgence,” he added.

Although the current study data are concerning, “there could still be a net gain of pediatric influenza vaccine uptake this season because the 34% less likely to immunize among previously nonimmunizing families would be counterbalanced by 21% of the same group being more likely to immunize their children [theoretical net loss of 13%],” Dr. Harrison explained. “But the pandemic seems to have motivated previously influenza-immunizing families, i.e. while 24% were less likely, 39% are more likely to immunize [theoretical net gain of 15%]. That said, we would still be way short of the number needed to get to herd immunity.”

Dr. Harrison said he found the findings somewhat surprising, but perhaps he should not have. “I had hoped for more acceptance rather than most people staying in their prior vaccine ‘opinion lanes,’ ending up with likely little overall net change in plans to immunize despite increased health awareness caused by a pandemic.”

However, “the U.S. population has been polarized on vaccines and particularly influenza vaccines for more than 50 years, so why would a pandemic make us less polarized, particularly when the pandemic itself has been a polarizing event?” he questioned.

The greatest barriers to flu vaccination for children this year include a lack of motivation among families to visit immunization sites, given the ongoing need for social distancing and masks, Dr. Harrison said.

“Another barrier is the waning public confidence in our medical/scientific national leaders and organizations,” he emphasized. “This makes it crucial that primary care providers step up and be extra strong vaccine advocates, despite the fact that pandemic economics and necessary safety processes have stressed providers and devastated practices. Indeed, in times of medical stress, no one gets more trust from families than their own personal provider.”

Ultimately, avenues for future research include asking diverse groups of families what they feel they need to hear to be more engaged in immunizing children against influenza. But for now, the current study findings identify that “the public is not uniformly responding to the pandemic’s influence on their likelihood of immunizing their children against influenza,” Dr. Harrison said.

“We now know the size of the problem and hopefully governments, public health organizations, pediatric advocates and clinical care givers can find ways to magnify the message that a pandemic year is not a year to avoid seasonal influenza vaccine unless one has a true contraindication,” Dr. Harrison said.

In addition, “one wonders if the poll were taken today – post the president’s COVID-19 illness – would the answers be different?” he noted.

Dr. Sokol’s work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development but otherwise had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Harrison disclosed that his institution receives grant funding from Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline for pediatric noninfluenza vaccine studies on which he is a subinvestigator, and support from the CDC for pediatric respiratory and gastrointestinal virus surveillance studies on which he is an investigator.

SOURCE: Sokol RL, Grummon AH. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep 30. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-022871.

Black children and children living in urban areas are less likely to have opioid-related poisoning or withdrawal but more likely to experience abuse or dependence, compared with their White or rural/suburban counterparts, according to a study of 3.2 million Medicaid-enrolled children in North Carolina.

Analysis of the almost 138,000 prescription fills also showed that Black and urban children in North Carolina were less likely to fill a opioid prescription, suggesting a need “for future studies to explore racial and geographic opioid-related inequities in children,” Kelby W. Brown, MA, and associates at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said Oct. 5 in Health Affairs.

In 2016-2018, the prevalence of opioid-related adverse events, such as poisoning or withdrawal, was 24.0 per 100,000 children among Blacks aged 1-17 years, compared with 27.5 per 100,000 for whites. For other opioid-related harms such as abuse or dependence, the order was reversed: 60.2 for Blacks and 51.7 for Whites, the investigators reported. Children of all other races were lowest in both measures.

Geography also appears to play a part. The children in urban areas had the lowest rate of adverse events – 23.2 per 100,000 vs. 26.2 (suburban) and 26.7 (rural) – and the highest rate of other opioid-related harms – 58.1 vs. 49.0 (suburban) and 38.7 (rural), the Medicaid claims data showed.

Analysis of prescription fills revealed that black children aged 1-17 years had a significantly lower rate (2.7%) than Whites (3.1%) or those of other races (3.0%) and that urban children were significantly less likely to fill a prescription (2.7%) for opioids than the other two groups (suburban, 3.1%; rural, 3.4%), Mr. Brown and associates said.

The prescription data also showed that 48.4% of children aged 6-17 years who had an adverse event had filled a prescription for an opioid in the previous 6 months, compared with just 9.4% of those with other opioid-related harms. The median length of time since the last fill? Three days for children with an adverse event and 67 days for those with other harms, they said.

And those prescriptions, it turns out, were not coming just from the physicians of North Carolina. Physicians, with 35.5% of the prescription load, were the main source, but 33.3% of opioid fills in 2016-2018 came from dentists, and another 17.7% were written by advanced practice providers. Among physicians, the leading opioid-prescribing specialists were surgeons, with 17.3% of the total, the investigators reported.

“The distinct and separate groups of clinicians who prescribe opioids to children suggest the need for pediatric opioid prescribing guidelines, particularly for postprocedural pain,” Mr. Brown and associates wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown KW et al. Health Aff. 2020;39(10):1737-42.

Black children and children living in urban areas are less likely to have opioid-related poisoning or withdrawal but more likely to experience abuse or dependence, compared with their White or rural/suburban counterparts, according to a study of 3.2 million Medicaid-enrolled children in North Carolina.

Analysis of the almost 138,000 prescription fills also showed that Black and urban children in North Carolina were less likely to fill a opioid prescription, suggesting a need “for future studies to explore racial and geographic opioid-related inequities in children,” Kelby W. Brown, MA, and associates at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said Oct. 5 in Health Affairs.

In 2016-2018, the prevalence of opioid-related adverse events, such as poisoning or withdrawal, was 24.0 per 100,000 children among Blacks aged 1-17 years, compared with 27.5 per 100,000 for whites. For other opioid-related harms such as abuse or dependence, the order was reversed: 60.2 for Blacks and 51.7 for Whites, the investigators reported. Children of all other races were lowest in both measures.

Geography also appears to play a part. The children in urban areas had the lowest rate of adverse events – 23.2 per 100,000 vs. 26.2 (suburban) and 26.7 (rural) – and the highest rate of other opioid-related harms – 58.1 vs. 49.0 (suburban) and 38.7 (rural), the Medicaid claims data showed.

Analysis of prescription fills revealed that black children aged 1-17 years had a significantly lower rate (2.7%) than Whites (3.1%) or those of other races (3.0%) and that urban children were significantly less likely to fill a prescription (2.7%) for opioids than the other two groups (suburban, 3.1%; rural, 3.4%), Mr. Brown and associates said.

The prescription data also showed that 48.4% of children aged 6-17 years who had an adverse event had filled a prescription for an opioid in the previous 6 months, compared with just 9.4% of those with other opioid-related harms. The median length of time since the last fill? Three days for children with an adverse event and 67 days for those with other harms, they said.

And those prescriptions, it turns out, were not coming just from the physicians of North Carolina. Physicians, with 35.5% of the prescription load, were the main source, but 33.3% of opioid fills in 2016-2018 came from dentists, and another 17.7% were written by advanced practice providers. Among physicians, the leading opioid-prescribing specialists were surgeons, with 17.3% of the total, the investigators reported.

“The distinct and separate groups of clinicians who prescribe opioids to children suggest the need for pediatric opioid prescribing guidelines, particularly for postprocedural pain,” Mr. Brown and associates wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown KW et al. Health Aff. 2020;39(10):1737-42.

Black children and children living in urban areas are less likely to have opioid-related poisoning or withdrawal but more likely to experience abuse or dependence, compared with their White or rural/suburban counterparts, according to a study of 3.2 million Medicaid-enrolled children in North Carolina.

Analysis of the almost 138,000 prescription fills also showed that Black and urban children in North Carolina were less likely to fill a opioid prescription, suggesting a need “for future studies to explore racial and geographic opioid-related inequities in children,” Kelby W. Brown, MA, and associates at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said Oct. 5 in Health Affairs.

In 2016-2018, the prevalence of opioid-related adverse events, such as poisoning or withdrawal, was 24.0 per 100,000 children among Blacks aged 1-17 years, compared with 27.5 per 100,000 for whites. For other opioid-related harms such as abuse or dependence, the order was reversed: 60.2 for Blacks and 51.7 for Whites, the investigators reported. Children of all other races were lowest in both measures.

Geography also appears to play a part. The children in urban areas had the lowest rate of adverse events – 23.2 per 100,000 vs. 26.2 (suburban) and 26.7 (rural) – and the highest rate of other opioid-related harms – 58.1 vs. 49.0 (suburban) and 38.7 (rural), the Medicaid claims data showed.

Analysis of prescription fills revealed that black children aged 1-17 years had a significantly lower rate (2.7%) than Whites (3.1%) or those of other races (3.0%) and that urban children were significantly less likely to fill a prescription (2.7%) for opioids than the other two groups (suburban, 3.1%; rural, 3.4%), Mr. Brown and associates said.

The prescription data also showed that 48.4% of children aged 6-17 years who had an adverse event had filled a prescription for an opioid in the previous 6 months, compared with just 9.4% of those with other opioid-related harms. The median length of time since the last fill? Three days for children with an adverse event and 67 days for those with other harms, they said.

And those prescriptions, it turns out, were not coming just from the physicians of North Carolina. Physicians, with 35.5% of the prescription load, were the main source, but 33.3% of opioid fills in 2016-2018 came from dentists, and another 17.7% were written by advanced practice providers. Among physicians, the leading opioid-prescribing specialists were surgeons, with 17.3% of the total, the investigators reported.

“The distinct and separate groups of clinicians who prescribe opioids to children suggest the need for pediatric opioid prescribing guidelines, particularly for postprocedural pain,” Mr. Brown and associates wrote.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Brown KW et al. Health Aff. 2020;39(10):1737-42.