Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A psychotherapeutic intervention that unites mindfulness training, “third wave” cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and positive psychology significantly reduces chronic pain and opioid misuse, new research suggests.

In a randomized clinical trial, 250 adults with both opioid misuse and chronic pain received either the intervention, called mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement (MORE), or supportive psychotherapy.

Results showed the first group was twice as likely to reduce opioid misuse after 9 months than the latter group.

University of Utah

The intervention was developed by Eric Garland, PhD, director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development (C-MIIND), University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “As the largest and longest-term clinical trial of MORE ever conducted, this study definitively establishes the efficacy of MORE as a treatment for chronic pain and opioid misuse,” he told this news organization.

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Self-regulation

Study participants included 250 adults (64% women; mean age, 51.8 years) with co-occurring opioid misuse and chronic pain who were randomly allocated to receive MORE or supportive psychotherapy, which served as a control group.

Both interventions were delivered by trained clinical social workers in six primary care clinics in Utah to groups of 6-12 participants across 8 weekly 2-hour sessions.

The MORE intervention, detailed on Dr. Garland’s website, provides sequenced training in mindfulness, reappraisal, and savoring skills.

Mindfulness consisted of meditation on breathing and body sensations to strengthen self-regulation of compulsive opioid use and to mitigate pain and opioid craving by reinterpreting these experiences as innocuous sensory information.

Reappraisal consisted of reframing maladaptive thoughts to decrease negative emotions and engender meaning in life.

Savoring consisted of training in focusing awareness on pleasurable events and sensations to amplify positive emotions and reward.
 

Fewer depressive symptoms

Through 9 months of follow-up, the MORE group had about a twofold greater likelihood than the supportive psychotherapy group for reduction in opioid misuse (odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.61; P = .01)

“MORE reduced opioid misuse by 45% 9 months after the end of treatment, more than doubling the effect of standard supportive psychotherapy and exceeding the effect size of other therapies for opioid misuse among people with chronic pain,” Dr. Garland said.

Members of the MORE group experienced greater reduction in pain severity and pain-related functional interference compared with members of the control group.

“MORE’s effect size on chronic pain symptoms was greater than that observed for CBT, the current gold standard psychological treatment for chronic pain,” Dr. Garland noted.

Compared with supportive psychotherapy, MORE decreased emotional distress, depressive symptoms, and real-time reports of opioid craving in daily life.

“Although nearly 70% of participants met criteria for depression at the beginning of the trial, on average, patients in MORE no longer exhibited symptoms consistent with major depressive disorder by the end of the study,” Dr. Garland said.

The current study builds on prior studies of MORE showing similar results, as reported previously by this news organization.

MORE can be successfully delivered in routine primary care, Dr. Garland noted. “In this trial, we delivered MORE in conference rooms, break rooms, and lunch rooms at community primary care clinics,” he added.
 

‘Powerful program’

To date, Dr. Garland has trained more than 450 physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists in health care systems across the country to implement MORE as an insurance-reimbursable group visit for patients in need.

One of them is Nancy Sudak, MD, chief well-being officer and director of integrative health, Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn.

Essentia Health

“MORE is a very powerful program that teaches patients how to turn down the volume of their pain. I’ve been quite impressed by the power of MORE,” Dr. Sudak told this news organization

She noted that “buy-in” from patients is key – and the more a clinician knows a patient, the easier the buy-in.

“I recruited most of the patients in my groups from my own practice, so I already knew the patients quite well and there wasn’t really a need to sell it,” Dr. Sudak said.

“We have tried to operationalize it through our system and find that, as long as our recruitment techniques are robust enough, it’s not that hard to find patients to fill the groups, especially because chronic pain is just so common,” she added.

Dr. Sudak has found that patients who participate in MORE “bond and learn with each other and support each other. Patients love it, providers love it, and it’s a way to address isolation and loneliness” that can come with certain conditions.

“There are really only upsides to the group visit model and I think we’ll be seeing quite a bit more of it in the future,” she added.
 

Evidence-based data

Anna Parisi, PhD, is also delivering MORE to patients. She told this news organization, she was “really drawn” to the MORE program because oftentimes patients who require the most sophisticated therapies receive the ones with the least evidence.

This is often “what folks in the community are getting when they’re struggling with substance use,” added Dr. Parisi, a postdoctoral research associate working with Dr. Garland at the University of Utah. Dr. Parisi was not a coauthor on the current study.

“With MORE, all of the strategies and techniques are tied to mechanistic studies of their efficacy, so you know that what you’re delivering has a rationale behind it,” she said.

Like Dr. Sudak, Dr. Parisi said her patients, for the most part, have been receptive to the program. Although at first some were skeptical about mindfulness – with one patient using the term “tree-hugging” – they found immediate benefit even after the first session.

“That really helps them stay motivated to finish the program,” Dr. Parisi said.

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Garland serves as director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development, which provides MORE, mindfulness-based therapy, and CBT in the context of research trials for no cost to research participants. He receives honoraria and payment for delivering seminars, lectures, and teaching engagements related to training clinicians in MORE and mindfulness and receives royalties from BehaVR and from the sales of books related to MORE outside the submitted work. Dr. Sudak and Dr. Parisi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A psychotherapeutic intervention that unites mindfulness training, “third wave” cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and positive psychology significantly reduces chronic pain and opioid misuse, new research suggests.

In a randomized clinical trial, 250 adults with both opioid misuse and chronic pain received either the intervention, called mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement (MORE), or supportive psychotherapy.

Results showed the first group was twice as likely to reduce opioid misuse after 9 months than the latter group.

University of Utah

The intervention was developed by Eric Garland, PhD, director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development (C-MIIND), University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “As the largest and longest-term clinical trial of MORE ever conducted, this study definitively establishes the efficacy of MORE as a treatment for chronic pain and opioid misuse,” he told this news organization.

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Self-regulation

Study participants included 250 adults (64% women; mean age, 51.8 years) with co-occurring opioid misuse and chronic pain who were randomly allocated to receive MORE or supportive psychotherapy, which served as a control group.

Both interventions were delivered by trained clinical social workers in six primary care clinics in Utah to groups of 6-12 participants across 8 weekly 2-hour sessions.

The MORE intervention, detailed on Dr. Garland’s website, provides sequenced training in mindfulness, reappraisal, and savoring skills.

Mindfulness consisted of meditation on breathing and body sensations to strengthen self-regulation of compulsive opioid use and to mitigate pain and opioid craving by reinterpreting these experiences as innocuous sensory information.

Reappraisal consisted of reframing maladaptive thoughts to decrease negative emotions and engender meaning in life.

Savoring consisted of training in focusing awareness on pleasurable events and sensations to amplify positive emotions and reward.
 

Fewer depressive symptoms

Through 9 months of follow-up, the MORE group had about a twofold greater likelihood than the supportive psychotherapy group for reduction in opioid misuse (odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.61; P = .01)

“MORE reduced opioid misuse by 45% 9 months after the end of treatment, more than doubling the effect of standard supportive psychotherapy and exceeding the effect size of other therapies for opioid misuse among people with chronic pain,” Dr. Garland said.

Members of the MORE group experienced greater reduction in pain severity and pain-related functional interference compared with members of the control group.

“MORE’s effect size on chronic pain symptoms was greater than that observed for CBT, the current gold standard psychological treatment for chronic pain,” Dr. Garland noted.

Compared with supportive psychotherapy, MORE decreased emotional distress, depressive symptoms, and real-time reports of opioid craving in daily life.

“Although nearly 70% of participants met criteria for depression at the beginning of the trial, on average, patients in MORE no longer exhibited symptoms consistent with major depressive disorder by the end of the study,” Dr. Garland said.

The current study builds on prior studies of MORE showing similar results, as reported previously by this news organization.

MORE can be successfully delivered in routine primary care, Dr. Garland noted. “In this trial, we delivered MORE in conference rooms, break rooms, and lunch rooms at community primary care clinics,” he added.
 

‘Powerful program’

To date, Dr. Garland has trained more than 450 physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists in health care systems across the country to implement MORE as an insurance-reimbursable group visit for patients in need.

One of them is Nancy Sudak, MD, chief well-being officer and director of integrative health, Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn.

Essentia Health

“MORE is a very powerful program that teaches patients how to turn down the volume of their pain. I’ve been quite impressed by the power of MORE,” Dr. Sudak told this news organization

She noted that “buy-in” from patients is key – and the more a clinician knows a patient, the easier the buy-in.

“I recruited most of the patients in my groups from my own practice, so I already knew the patients quite well and there wasn’t really a need to sell it,” Dr. Sudak said.

“We have tried to operationalize it through our system and find that, as long as our recruitment techniques are robust enough, it’s not that hard to find patients to fill the groups, especially because chronic pain is just so common,” she added.

Dr. Sudak has found that patients who participate in MORE “bond and learn with each other and support each other. Patients love it, providers love it, and it’s a way to address isolation and loneliness” that can come with certain conditions.

“There are really only upsides to the group visit model and I think we’ll be seeing quite a bit more of it in the future,” she added.
 

Evidence-based data

Anna Parisi, PhD, is also delivering MORE to patients. She told this news organization, she was “really drawn” to the MORE program because oftentimes patients who require the most sophisticated therapies receive the ones with the least evidence.

This is often “what folks in the community are getting when they’re struggling with substance use,” added Dr. Parisi, a postdoctoral research associate working with Dr. Garland at the University of Utah. Dr. Parisi was not a coauthor on the current study.

“With MORE, all of the strategies and techniques are tied to mechanistic studies of their efficacy, so you know that what you’re delivering has a rationale behind it,” she said.

Like Dr. Sudak, Dr. Parisi said her patients, for the most part, have been receptive to the program. Although at first some were skeptical about mindfulness – with one patient using the term “tree-hugging” – they found immediate benefit even after the first session.

“That really helps them stay motivated to finish the program,” Dr. Parisi said.

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Garland serves as director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development, which provides MORE, mindfulness-based therapy, and CBT in the context of research trials for no cost to research participants. He receives honoraria and payment for delivering seminars, lectures, and teaching engagements related to training clinicians in MORE and mindfulness and receives royalties from BehaVR and from the sales of books related to MORE outside the submitted work. Dr. Sudak and Dr. Parisi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A psychotherapeutic intervention that unites mindfulness training, “third wave” cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and positive psychology significantly reduces chronic pain and opioid misuse, new research suggests.

In a randomized clinical trial, 250 adults with both opioid misuse and chronic pain received either the intervention, called mindfulness-oriented recovery enhancement (MORE), or supportive psychotherapy.

Results showed the first group was twice as likely to reduce opioid misuse after 9 months than the latter group.

University of Utah

The intervention was developed by Eric Garland, PhD, director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development (C-MIIND), University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “As the largest and longest-term clinical trial of MORE ever conducted, this study definitively establishes the efficacy of MORE as a treatment for chronic pain and opioid misuse,” he told this news organization.

The findings were published online Feb. 28 in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Self-regulation

Study participants included 250 adults (64% women; mean age, 51.8 years) with co-occurring opioid misuse and chronic pain who were randomly allocated to receive MORE or supportive psychotherapy, which served as a control group.

Both interventions were delivered by trained clinical social workers in six primary care clinics in Utah to groups of 6-12 participants across 8 weekly 2-hour sessions.

The MORE intervention, detailed on Dr. Garland’s website, provides sequenced training in mindfulness, reappraisal, and savoring skills.

Mindfulness consisted of meditation on breathing and body sensations to strengthen self-regulation of compulsive opioid use and to mitigate pain and opioid craving by reinterpreting these experiences as innocuous sensory information.

Reappraisal consisted of reframing maladaptive thoughts to decrease negative emotions and engender meaning in life.

Savoring consisted of training in focusing awareness on pleasurable events and sensations to amplify positive emotions and reward.
 

Fewer depressive symptoms

Through 9 months of follow-up, the MORE group had about a twofold greater likelihood than the supportive psychotherapy group for reduction in opioid misuse (odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-3.61; P = .01)

“MORE reduced opioid misuse by 45% 9 months after the end of treatment, more than doubling the effect of standard supportive psychotherapy and exceeding the effect size of other therapies for opioid misuse among people with chronic pain,” Dr. Garland said.

Members of the MORE group experienced greater reduction in pain severity and pain-related functional interference compared with members of the control group.

“MORE’s effect size on chronic pain symptoms was greater than that observed for CBT, the current gold standard psychological treatment for chronic pain,” Dr. Garland noted.

Compared with supportive psychotherapy, MORE decreased emotional distress, depressive symptoms, and real-time reports of opioid craving in daily life.

“Although nearly 70% of participants met criteria for depression at the beginning of the trial, on average, patients in MORE no longer exhibited symptoms consistent with major depressive disorder by the end of the study,” Dr. Garland said.

The current study builds on prior studies of MORE showing similar results, as reported previously by this news organization.

MORE can be successfully delivered in routine primary care, Dr. Garland noted. “In this trial, we delivered MORE in conference rooms, break rooms, and lunch rooms at community primary care clinics,” he added.
 

‘Powerful program’

To date, Dr. Garland has trained more than 450 physicians, nurses, social workers, and psychologists in health care systems across the country to implement MORE as an insurance-reimbursable group visit for patients in need.

One of them is Nancy Sudak, MD, chief well-being officer and director of integrative health, Essentia Health, Duluth, Minn.

Essentia Health

“MORE is a very powerful program that teaches patients how to turn down the volume of their pain. I’ve been quite impressed by the power of MORE,” Dr. Sudak told this news organization

She noted that “buy-in” from patients is key – and the more a clinician knows a patient, the easier the buy-in.

“I recruited most of the patients in my groups from my own practice, so I already knew the patients quite well and there wasn’t really a need to sell it,” Dr. Sudak said.

“We have tried to operationalize it through our system and find that, as long as our recruitment techniques are robust enough, it’s not that hard to find patients to fill the groups, especially because chronic pain is just so common,” she added.

Dr. Sudak has found that patients who participate in MORE “bond and learn with each other and support each other. Patients love it, providers love it, and it’s a way to address isolation and loneliness” that can come with certain conditions.

“There are really only upsides to the group visit model and I think we’ll be seeing quite a bit more of it in the future,” she added.
 

Evidence-based data

Anna Parisi, PhD, is also delivering MORE to patients. She told this news organization, she was “really drawn” to the MORE program because oftentimes patients who require the most sophisticated therapies receive the ones with the least evidence.

This is often “what folks in the community are getting when they’re struggling with substance use,” added Dr. Parisi, a postdoctoral research associate working with Dr. Garland at the University of Utah. Dr. Parisi was not a coauthor on the current study.

“With MORE, all of the strategies and techniques are tied to mechanistic studies of their efficacy, so you know that what you’re delivering has a rationale behind it,” she said.

Like Dr. Sudak, Dr. Parisi said her patients, for the most part, have been receptive to the program. Although at first some were skeptical about mindfulness – with one patient using the term “tree-hugging” – they found immediate benefit even after the first session.

“That really helps them stay motivated to finish the program,” Dr. Parisi said.

This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Garland serves as director of the Center on Mindfulness and Integrative Health Intervention Development, which provides MORE, mindfulness-based therapy, and CBT in the context of research trials for no cost to research participants. He receives honoraria and payment for delivering seminars, lectures, and teaching engagements related to training clinicians in MORE and mindfulness and receives royalties from BehaVR and from the sales of books related to MORE outside the submitted work. Dr. Sudak and Dr. Parisi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHOENIX – In a 15-month phase 4 trial, an inexpensive intervention that can be explained in a single office visit reduced severe exacerbations and improved asthma control in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from the disease. This easy-to-implement strategy achieved benefits similar to those from previous studies that prompted new treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe asthma.

The findings were reported Feb. 26 in the Late-Breaking Oral Abstracts session at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) 2022 Meeting, coinciding with publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Black and Latino patients are under-represented in asthma research trials yet visit the emergency room and die from asthma-related complications at more than twice the rates of their White counterparts. Prior efforts to reduce this burden “have been expensive, difficult, and mostly unsuccessful,” Juan-Carlos Cardet, MD, MPH, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, told attendees.

Dr. Cardet and his colleagues, led by principal investigator Elliot Israel, MD, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., designed a study with input and financial support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The trial recruited 603 Black and 598 Latino adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. About a fifth were current or former smokers, and many lived in smoking environments. All had poorly controlled asthma or at least one severe asthma attack in the previous year. Each participant held prescriptions for daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting beta-agonists.

Current guidelines recommend daily ICS in all but the mildest asthma cases, yet adherence is poor. Patients generally take medicine when they perceive a need, and since asthma is episodic, “most people don’t like to take controller therapy for asthma,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization in advance of his meeting presentation. Rather, many asthma patients use quick-relief therapies, such as albuterol or nebulizers, on an as-needed basis.

Prior research showed that clinical outcomes can improve with a strategy called Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). In this approach, an ICS (budesonide) is combined with a long-acting beta-agonist (formoterol) into a single inhaler so that patients automatically receive inhaled steroids whenever they treat their symptoms with quick-relief medication. The ICS-formoterol strategy looked promising in studies published more than a decade ago, and those results have prompted an update in national treatment guidelines, but “it’s been difficult to get [the strategy] into the clinic,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization. “FDA cautions against as-needed use of ICS-formoterol. That’s a big reason. Insurance companies won’t pay for it.”

Unlike the SMART studies, which asked participants to replace their usual controller and rescue therapies with the all-in-one inhaler, Black and Latino patients in the new trial were told to continue with their usual asthma care. On top of usual care, half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive one-time instruction around use of a controller medication (beclomethasone; Qvar) supplied by study investigators. “Essentially we told them to keep doing what your doctor tells you to do, but whenever you use a puff of rescue therapy, puff yourself with this Qvar, and if you use the nebulizer, puff yourself five times with the Qvar,” Dr. Cardet said.

This approach, called Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS), was explained to patients through a video in English and Spanish. “All of this we instructed in a single study visit,” Dr. Cardet said.

The PARTICS intervention reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 15% (0.13 exacerbations per patient per year) – on par with the estimated 0.12 exacerbations per patient annualized reduction with SMART. In addition, the PARTICS group had:

• better asthma control (3.4-point increase on the Asthma Control Test, vs. a 2.5-point increase in the usual-care group);
• improved quality of life (0.12-point increase on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index, vs. a 0.08-point increase in the usual-care group);
• fewer self-reported days lost from work, school, and usual activities (13.4 days, vs. 16.8 days in the usual-care group).

Addressing long-standing challenges with controller therapy compliance, this was a real-world strategy “to get more inhaled steroids in [asthma patients] on a regular basis,” Brian Vickery, MD, director of the Food Allergy Center at Emory University + Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said during the meeting session Q&A. Dr. Vickery was not involved in the study. “And you see an effect size that rivaled previous studies, which suggests to me that the improvement is in the inhaled steroid component and not necessarily the long-acting beta-agonist.”

The study team hopes these results can be implemented on a health care system level. “If it stays just in a journal, it’s not going to do anything. We want to help people. We want to bring it to clinic,” Dr. Cardet said in an interview.

The study was supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award to Israel and by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the American Lung Association–American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology to Dr. Cardet. QVAR and QVAR RediHaler inhalers were provided free of charge, and funding for the AssistRx pharmacy was provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals. NIOX VERO devices for measuring exhaled nitric oxide were provided free of charge by Circassia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Cardet reported honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech for work in advisory boards and from GlaxoSmithKline for educational lectures on asthma, all unrelated to the AAAAI presentation. Dr. Vickery has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHOENIX – In a 15-month phase 4 trial, an inexpensive intervention that can be explained in a single office visit reduced severe exacerbations and improved asthma control in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from the disease. This easy-to-implement strategy achieved benefits similar to those from previous studies that prompted new treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe asthma.

The findings were reported Feb. 26 in the Late-Breaking Oral Abstracts session at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) 2022 Meeting, coinciding with publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Black and Latino patients are under-represented in asthma research trials yet visit the emergency room and die from asthma-related complications at more than twice the rates of their White counterparts. Prior efforts to reduce this burden “have been expensive, difficult, and mostly unsuccessful,” Juan-Carlos Cardet, MD, MPH, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, told attendees.

Dr. Cardet and his colleagues, led by principal investigator Elliot Israel, MD, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., designed a study with input and financial support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The trial recruited 603 Black and 598 Latino adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. About a fifth were current or former smokers, and many lived in smoking environments. All had poorly controlled asthma or at least one severe asthma attack in the previous year. Each participant held prescriptions for daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting beta-agonists.

Current guidelines recommend daily ICS in all but the mildest asthma cases, yet adherence is poor. Patients generally take medicine when they perceive a need, and since asthma is episodic, “most people don’t like to take controller therapy for asthma,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization in advance of his meeting presentation. Rather, many asthma patients use quick-relief therapies, such as albuterol or nebulizers, on an as-needed basis.

Prior research showed that clinical outcomes can improve with a strategy called Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). In this approach, an ICS (budesonide) is combined with a long-acting beta-agonist (formoterol) into a single inhaler so that patients automatically receive inhaled steroids whenever they treat their symptoms with quick-relief medication. The ICS-formoterol strategy looked promising in studies published more than a decade ago, and those results have prompted an update in national treatment guidelines, but “it’s been difficult to get [the strategy] into the clinic,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization. “FDA cautions against as-needed use of ICS-formoterol. That’s a big reason. Insurance companies won’t pay for it.”

Unlike the SMART studies, which asked participants to replace their usual controller and rescue therapies with the all-in-one inhaler, Black and Latino patients in the new trial were told to continue with their usual asthma care. On top of usual care, half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive one-time instruction around use of a controller medication (beclomethasone; Qvar) supplied by study investigators. “Essentially we told them to keep doing what your doctor tells you to do, but whenever you use a puff of rescue therapy, puff yourself with this Qvar, and if you use the nebulizer, puff yourself five times with the Qvar,” Dr. Cardet said.

This approach, called Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS), was explained to patients through a video in English and Spanish. “All of this we instructed in a single study visit,” Dr. Cardet said.

The PARTICS intervention reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 15% (0.13 exacerbations per patient per year) – on par with the estimated 0.12 exacerbations per patient annualized reduction with SMART. In addition, the PARTICS group had:

• better asthma control (3.4-point increase on the Asthma Control Test, vs. a 2.5-point increase in the usual-care group);
• improved quality of life (0.12-point increase on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index, vs. a 0.08-point increase in the usual-care group);
• fewer self-reported days lost from work, school, and usual activities (13.4 days, vs. 16.8 days in the usual-care group).

Addressing long-standing challenges with controller therapy compliance, this was a real-world strategy “to get more inhaled steroids in [asthma patients] on a regular basis,” Brian Vickery, MD, director of the Food Allergy Center at Emory University + Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said during the meeting session Q&A. Dr. Vickery was not involved in the study. “And you see an effect size that rivaled previous studies, which suggests to me that the improvement is in the inhaled steroid component and not necessarily the long-acting beta-agonist.”

The study team hopes these results can be implemented on a health care system level. “If it stays just in a journal, it’s not going to do anything. We want to help people. We want to bring it to clinic,” Dr. Cardet said in an interview.

The study was supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award to Israel and by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the American Lung Association–American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology to Dr. Cardet. QVAR and QVAR RediHaler inhalers were provided free of charge, and funding for the AssistRx pharmacy was provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals. NIOX VERO devices for measuring exhaled nitric oxide were provided free of charge by Circassia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Cardet reported honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech for work in advisory boards and from GlaxoSmithKline for educational lectures on asthma, all unrelated to the AAAAI presentation. Dr. Vickery has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHOENIX – In a 15-month phase 4 trial, an inexpensive intervention that can be explained in a single office visit reduced severe exacerbations and improved asthma control in patient populations that suffer disproportionately from the disease. This easy-to-implement strategy achieved benefits similar to those from previous studies that prompted new treatment recommendations for moderate-to-severe asthma.

The findings were reported Feb. 26 in the Late-Breaking Oral Abstracts session at the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (AAAAI) 2022 Meeting, coinciding with publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Black and Latino patients are under-represented in asthma research trials yet visit the emergency room and die from asthma-related complications at more than twice the rates of their White counterparts. Prior efforts to reduce this burden “have been expensive, difficult, and mostly unsuccessful,” Juan-Carlos Cardet, MD, MPH, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of South Florida, Tampa, told attendees.

Dr. Cardet and his colleagues, led by principal investigator Elliot Israel, MD, of Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston, Mass., designed a study with input and financial support from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The trial recruited 603 Black and 598 Latino adults with moderate-to-severe asthma. About a fifth were current or former smokers, and many lived in smoking environments. All had poorly controlled asthma or at least one severe asthma attack in the previous year. Each participant held prescriptions for daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with or without long-acting beta-agonists.

Current guidelines recommend daily ICS in all but the mildest asthma cases, yet adherence is poor. Patients generally take medicine when they perceive a need, and since asthma is episodic, “most people don’t like to take controller therapy for asthma,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization in advance of his meeting presentation. Rather, many asthma patients use quick-relief therapies, such as albuterol or nebulizers, on an as-needed basis.

Prior research showed that clinical outcomes can improve with a strategy called Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). In this approach, an ICS (budesonide) is combined with a long-acting beta-agonist (formoterol) into a single inhaler so that patients automatically receive inhaled steroids whenever they treat their symptoms with quick-relief medication. The ICS-formoterol strategy looked promising in studies published more than a decade ago, and those results have prompted an update in national treatment guidelines, but “it’s been difficult to get [the strategy] into the clinic,” Dr. Cardet told this news organization. “FDA cautions against as-needed use of ICS-formoterol. That’s a big reason. Insurance companies won’t pay for it.”

Unlike the SMART studies, which asked participants to replace their usual controller and rescue therapies with the all-in-one inhaler, Black and Latino patients in the new trial were told to continue with their usual asthma care. On top of usual care, half of the participants were randomly assigned to receive one-time instruction around use of a controller medication (beclomethasone; Qvar) supplied by study investigators. “Essentially we told them to keep doing what your doctor tells you to do, but whenever you use a puff of rescue therapy, puff yourself with this Qvar, and if you use the nebulizer, puff yourself five times with the Qvar,” Dr. Cardet said.

This approach, called Patient Activated Reliever-Triggered Inhaled Corticosteroid (PARTICS), was explained to patients through a video in English and Spanish. “All of this we instructed in a single study visit,” Dr. Cardet said.

The PARTICS intervention reduced severe asthma exacerbations by 15% (0.13 exacerbations per patient per year) – on par with the estimated 0.12 exacerbations per patient annualized reduction with SMART. In addition, the PARTICS group had:

• better asthma control (3.4-point increase on the Asthma Control Test, vs. a 2.5-point increase in the usual-care group);
• improved quality of life (0.12-point increase on the Asthma Symptom Utility Index, vs. a 0.08-point increase in the usual-care group);
• fewer self-reported days lost from work, school, and usual activities (13.4 days, vs. 16.8 days in the usual-care group).

Addressing long-standing challenges with controller therapy compliance, this was a real-world strategy “to get more inhaled steroids in [asthma patients] on a regular basis,” Brian Vickery, MD, director of the Food Allergy Center at Emory University + Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, said during the meeting session Q&A. Dr. Vickery was not involved in the study. “And you see an effect size that rivaled previous studies, which suggests to me that the improvement is in the inhaled steroid component and not necessarily the long-acting beta-agonist.”

The study team hopes these results can be implemented on a health care system level. “If it stays just in a journal, it’s not going to do anything. We want to help people. We want to bring it to clinic,” Dr. Cardet said in an interview.

The study was supported by a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award to Israel and by grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the American Lung Association–American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology to Dr. Cardet. QVAR and QVAR RediHaler inhalers were provided free of charge, and funding for the AssistRx pharmacy was provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals. NIOX VERO devices for measuring exhaled nitric oxide were provided free of charge by Circassia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Cardet reported honoraria from AstraZeneca and Genentech for work in advisory boards and from GlaxoSmithKline for educational lectures on asthma, all unrelated to the AAAAI presentation. Dr. Vickery has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Infectious disease specialist and humanitarian, Paul Edward Farmer, MD, PhD, who cofounded Partners In Health, died suddenly on Feb. 21. To celebrate his life, this news organization interviewed Serena Koenig, MD, MPH, who met Dr. Farmer when she was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Koenig had worked closely with Dr. Farmer ever since they met.

Q. Can you please share one of your best memories of Dr. Farmer?

Dr. Serena Koenig: There are so many memories it is hard to choose. One that was very formative for me occurred during one of my first trips to Haiti, in 2001. Paul and some other incredible colleagues at Partners IN Health (PIH) had started the HIV Equity Initiative, which was one of the first programs in the world to provide free, comprehensive treatment for HIV. This was at the time when millions of people in Africa were dying of HIV and many experts said it was not feasible to treat HIV in a poor country, because it was too complicated and expensive. Paul took me on some home visits with patients who had what he called the Lazarus effect, coming back from death’s door from advanced AIDS to vigorous health on antiretroviral therapy. I had just started working in Haiti with Paul and PIH, and I felt the enormous magnitude of what he was doing.

Q. What aspects of him and his work do you find most admirable?

Dr. Koenig: I most admired Paul’s humanity, his belief that every person matters and has the right to high-quality health care, and his vision of global health equity.

He said: “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Paul lived this philosophy. He has spoken extensively about harms of socialization for scarcity on behalf of those who are poor, leading policy makers to decisions regarding the feasibility of treating some diseases, but not others.

He said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in 2018: “The most compelling thing to fight socialization for scarcity on behalf of others is health system strengthening. Health systems that integrate prevention and quality care.”

A few weeks ago, I asked him his thoughts about the high-level resources we have invested in some patients who have needed specialty care over the years, and he said: “No way that we should waste all of our emotional energy responding only to those constant, nagging critics that it’s not cost effective, not feasible, not sustainable, not even prudent. Because you know what they would have done if it was their child or family member.”
 

Q. When did you first meet Dr. Farmer, and what inspired you to work with him?

Dr. Koenig: When I was an internal medicine resident at the Brigham, Paul and I bonded over the care of one of my clinic patients who I followed very closely, and who was admitted to his inpatient service.

Like everyone else who has worked with Paul, I was touched by his kindness and warmth.

A couple of years later, he asked me to help him raise money to bring a young man named Wilnot from Haiti to the Brigham for an aortic valve replacement. After we raised the money, he asked me to go to Haiti to help Wilnot get his medical visa and to escort him to Boston.

That short trip to Haiti had an enormous impact on my life. I was shattered to see the poverty that the people of Haiti were enduring – and in a country a short plane flight from Miami.

Shortly after this, Paul asked me to help him find treatment for another patient, a young boy named John, who presented with neck masses that were later diagnosed as nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

It took us some time to make the diagnosis and then to arrange free care at Mass General.

When I returned to Haiti with two PIH colleagues to help John get a visa and escort him back to Boston, we found that John’s condition was much worse. We ended up medically evacuating him to Boston, because he was too sick for a commercial flight.

Tracy Kidder wrote about this heartbreaking experience in the book “Mountains Beyond Mountains.”

Throughout all of these experiences, I was deeply impressed with Paul’s commitment to do whatever it took to provide the best care for patients, as if they were members of his own family. He said “Tout Moun Se Moun” (Haitian Creole for “every person is a person”), and I could tell that he meant it.
 

Q. How did you collaborate with him professionally?

Dr. Koenig: I spent the first few years after residency working with Paul and Partners In Health. Initially, I served as a liaison between PIH in Haiti and the Brigham, bringing several more patients to Boston for care, and arranging specialty surgical trips to Haiti.

Later, when HIV funding became available from the Global Fund for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, I moved to rural Haiti to provide treatment for patients with HIV and/or TB at one of the first PIH expansion sites. We treated many patients with advanced stages of HIV and/or TB, and many of them recovered remarkably quickly with antiretroviral therapy.

When I returned to Boston to complete an infectious disease fellowship I switched my focus to conducting clinical research to improve HIV and TB treatment outcomes. Paul emailed his mentor and friend, Jean “Bill” Pape, the director of a Haitian NGO called GHESKIO (Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections), which is an internationally celebrated center of excellence in HIV-related research and clinical care, to ask if I could collaborate with them.

Ever since that time, I have been based between the Brigham’s division of global health equity, which was led by Paul, and GHESKIO.

Paul was very supportive of our research, which aims to improve health service delivery and treatment regimens for HIV and TB.
 

Q. What lessons do you think other physicians can learn from him?

Dr. Koenig: As Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer of Partners In Health, has said, Paul left us a roadmap. He wrote many books, and he was very eloquent in expressing his philosophy about equity and justice in numerous interviews. This is relevant not only for international sites, but in the United States as well, with our major disparities in health outcomes by race, geography, and socioeconomic status.

No one will be able to replace Paul, but he left us with a vision of what is achievable.

Dr. Koenig is associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, with faculty appointments in the divisions of global health equity and infectious diseases. She is also associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

Infectious disease specialist and humanitarian, Paul Edward Farmer, MD, PhD, who cofounded Partners In Health, died suddenly on Feb. 21. To celebrate his life, this news organization interviewed Serena Koenig, MD, MPH, who met Dr. Farmer when she was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Koenig had worked closely with Dr. Farmer ever since they met.

Q. Can you please share one of your best memories of Dr. Farmer?

Dr. Serena Koenig: There are so many memories it is hard to choose. One that was very formative for me occurred during one of my first trips to Haiti, in 2001. Paul and some other incredible colleagues at Partners IN Health (PIH) had started the HIV Equity Initiative, which was one of the first programs in the world to provide free, comprehensive treatment for HIV. This was at the time when millions of people in Africa were dying of HIV and many experts said it was not feasible to treat HIV in a poor country, because it was too complicated and expensive. Paul took me on some home visits with patients who had what he called the Lazarus effect, coming back from death’s door from advanced AIDS to vigorous health on antiretroviral therapy. I had just started working in Haiti with Paul and PIH, and I felt the enormous magnitude of what he was doing.

Q. What aspects of him and his work do you find most admirable?

Dr. Koenig: I most admired Paul’s humanity, his belief that every person matters and has the right to high-quality health care, and his vision of global health equity.

He said: “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Paul lived this philosophy. He has spoken extensively about harms of socialization for scarcity on behalf of those who are poor, leading policy makers to decisions regarding the feasibility of treating some diseases, but not others.

He said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in 2018: “The most compelling thing to fight socialization for scarcity on behalf of others is health system strengthening. Health systems that integrate prevention and quality care.”

A few weeks ago, I asked him his thoughts about the high-level resources we have invested in some patients who have needed specialty care over the years, and he said: “No way that we should waste all of our emotional energy responding only to those constant, nagging critics that it’s not cost effective, not feasible, not sustainable, not even prudent. Because you know what they would have done if it was their child or family member.”
 

Q. When did you first meet Dr. Farmer, and what inspired you to work with him?

Dr. Koenig: When I was an internal medicine resident at the Brigham, Paul and I bonded over the care of one of my clinic patients who I followed very closely, and who was admitted to his inpatient service.

Like everyone else who has worked with Paul, I was touched by his kindness and warmth.

A couple of years later, he asked me to help him raise money to bring a young man named Wilnot from Haiti to the Brigham for an aortic valve replacement. After we raised the money, he asked me to go to Haiti to help Wilnot get his medical visa and to escort him to Boston.

That short trip to Haiti had an enormous impact on my life. I was shattered to see the poverty that the people of Haiti were enduring – and in a country a short plane flight from Miami.

Shortly after this, Paul asked me to help him find treatment for another patient, a young boy named John, who presented with neck masses that were later diagnosed as nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

It took us some time to make the diagnosis and then to arrange free care at Mass General.

When I returned to Haiti with two PIH colleagues to help John get a visa and escort him back to Boston, we found that John’s condition was much worse. We ended up medically evacuating him to Boston, because he was too sick for a commercial flight.

Tracy Kidder wrote about this heartbreaking experience in the book “Mountains Beyond Mountains.”

Throughout all of these experiences, I was deeply impressed with Paul’s commitment to do whatever it took to provide the best care for patients, as if they were members of his own family. He said “Tout Moun Se Moun” (Haitian Creole for “every person is a person”), and I could tell that he meant it.
 

Q. How did you collaborate with him professionally?

Dr. Koenig: I spent the first few years after residency working with Paul and Partners In Health. Initially, I served as a liaison between PIH in Haiti and the Brigham, bringing several more patients to Boston for care, and arranging specialty surgical trips to Haiti.

Later, when HIV funding became available from the Global Fund for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, I moved to rural Haiti to provide treatment for patients with HIV and/or TB at one of the first PIH expansion sites. We treated many patients with advanced stages of HIV and/or TB, and many of them recovered remarkably quickly with antiretroviral therapy.

When I returned to Boston to complete an infectious disease fellowship I switched my focus to conducting clinical research to improve HIV and TB treatment outcomes. Paul emailed his mentor and friend, Jean “Bill” Pape, the director of a Haitian NGO called GHESKIO (Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections), which is an internationally celebrated center of excellence in HIV-related research and clinical care, to ask if I could collaborate with them.

Ever since that time, I have been based between the Brigham’s division of global health equity, which was led by Paul, and GHESKIO.

Paul was very supportive of our research, which aims to improve health service delivery and treatment regimens for HIV and TB.
 

Q. What lessons do you think other physicians can learn from him?

Dr. Koenig: As Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer of Partners In Health, has said, Paul left us a roadmap. He wrote many books, and he was very eloquent in expressing his philosophy about equity and justice in numerous interviews. This is relevant not only for international sites, but in the United States as well, with our major disparities in health outcomes by race, geography, and socioeconomic status.

No one will be able to replace Paul, but he left us with a vision of what is achievable.

Dr. Koenig is associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, with faculty appointments in the divisions of global health equity and infectious diseases. She is also associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

Infectious disease specialist and humanitarian, Paul Edward Farmer, MD, PhD, who cofounded Partners In Health, died suddenly on Feb. 21. To celebrate his life, this news organization interviewed Serena Koenig, MD, MPH, who met Dr. Farmer when she was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Koenig had worked closely with Dr. Farmer ever since they met.

Q. Can you please share one of your best memories of Dr. Farmer?

Dr. Serena Koenig: There are so many memories it is hard to choose. One that was very formative for me occurred during one of my first trips to Haiti, in 2001. Paul and some other incredible colleagues at Partners IN Health (PIH) had started the HIV Equity Initiative, which was one of the first programs in the world to provide free, comprehensive treatment for HIV. This was at the time when millions of people in Africa were dying of HIV and many experts said it was not feasible to treat HIV in a poor country, because it was too complicated and expensive. Paul took me on some home visits with patients who had what he called the Lazarus effect, coming back from death’s door from advanced AIDS to vigorous health on antiretroviral therapy. I had just started working in Haiti with Paul and PIH, and I felt the enormous magnitude of what he was doing.

Q. What aspects of him and his work do you find most admirable?

Dr. Koenig: I most admired Paul’s humanity, his belief that every person matters and has the right to high-quality health care, and his vision of global health equity.

He said: “The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.” Paul lived this philosophy. He has spoken extensively about harms of socialization for scarcity on behalf of those who are poor, leading policy makers to decisions regarding the feasibility of treating some diseases, but not others.

He said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette in 2018: “The most compelling thing to fight socialization for scarcity on behalf of others is health system strengthening. Health systems that integrate prevention and quality care.”

A few weeks ago, I asked him his thoughts about the high-level resources we have invested in some patients who have needed specialty care over the years, and he said: “No way that we should waste all of our emotional energy responding only to those constant, nagging critics that it’s not cost effective, not feasible, not sustainable, not even prudent. Because you know what they would have done if it was their child or family member.”
 

Q. When did you first meet Dr. Farmer, and what inspired you to work with him?

Dr. Koenig: When I was an internal medicine resident at the Brigham, Paul and I bonded over the care of one of my clinic patients who I followed very closely, and who was admitted to his inpatient service.

Like everyone else who has worked with Paul, I was touched by his kindness and warmth.

A couple of years later, he asked me to help him raise money to bring a young man named Wilnot from Haiti to the Brigham for an aortic valve replacement. After we raised the money, he asked me to go to Haiti to help Wilnot get his medical visa and to escort him to Boston.

That short trip to Haiti had an enormous impact on my life. I was shattered to see the poverty that the people of Haiti were enduring – and in a country a short plane flight from Miami.

Shortly after this, Paul asked me to help him find treatment for another patient, a young boy named John, who presented with neck masses that were later diagnosed as nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

It took us some time to make the diagnosis and then to arrange free care at Mass General.

When I returned to Haiti with two PIH colleagues to help John get a visa and escort him back to Boston, we found that John’s condition was much worse. We ended up medically evacuating him to Boston, because he was too sick for a commercial flight.

Tracy Kidder wrote about this heartbreaking experience in the book “Mountains Beyond Mountains.”

Throughout all of these experiences, I was deeply impressed with Paul’s commitment to do whatever it took to provide the best care for patients, as if they were members of his own family. He said “Tout Moun Se Moun” (Haitian Creole for “every person is a person”), and I could tell that he meant it.
 

Q. How did you collaborate with him professionally?

Dr. Koenig: I spent the first few years after residency working with Paul and Partners In Health. Initially, I served as a liaison between PIH in Haiti and the Brigham, bringing several more patients to Boston for care, and arranging specialty surgical trips to Haiti.

Later, when HIV funding became available from the Global Fund for HIV, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, I moved to rural Haiti to provide treatment for patients with HIV and/or TB at one of the first PIH expansion sites. We treated many patients with advanced stages of HIV and/or TB, and many of them recovered remarkably quickly with antiretroviral therapy.

When I returned to Boston to complete an infectious disease fellowship I switched my focus to conducting clinical research to improve HIV and TB treatment outcomes. Paul emailed his mentor and friend, Jean “Bill” Pape, the director of a Haitian NGO called GHESKIO (Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections), which is an internationally celebrated center of excellence in HIV-related research and clinical care, to ask if I could collaborate with them.

Ever since that time, I have been based between the Brigham’s division of global health equity, which was led by Paul, and GHESKIO.

Paul was very supportive of our research, which aims to improve health service delivery and treatment regimens for HIV and TB.
 

Q. What lessons do you think other physicians can learn from him?

Dr. Koenig: As Joia Mukherjee, chief medical officer of Partners In Health, has said, Paul left us a roadmap. He wrote many books, and he was very eloquent in expressing his philosophy about equity and justice in numerous interviews. This is relevant not only for international sites, but in the United States as well, with our major disparities in health outcomes by race, geography, and socioeconomic status.

No one will be able to replace Paul, but he left us with a vision of what is achievable.

Dr. Koenig is associate physician, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, with faculty appointments in the divisions of global health equity and infectious diseases. She is also associate professor at Harvard Medical School.

Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest was roughly one-third lower in patients with COVID-19 infections compared to uninfected patients, based on data from nearly 25,000 individuals.

Survival rates of less than 3% were reported in the United States and China for patients who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) while infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the data came from small, single-center studies in overwhelmed hospitals, wrote Saket Girotra, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and fellow American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Whether these early reports reflect the broader experience of patients with COVID-19 in hospitals in the United States remains unknown.

In a study published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry. The registry collects detailed information on patients aged 18 years and older who experience cardiac arrest at participating hospitals in the United States. The study population included 24,915 patients aged 18 years and older from 286 hospitals who experienced IHCA during March–December 2020. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 61.1% were White, 24.8% were Black, 3.8% were of other race or ethnicity, and 10.3% were of unknown race or ethnicity.

The primary outcomes were survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for at least 20 minutes.

A total of 5,916 patients (23.7%) had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections, and infected patients were more likely to be younger, male, and Black. Patients with COVID-19 infections also were significantly more likely than noninfected patients to have nonshockable rhythm, pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis, and to be on mechanical ventilation or vasopressors when the IHCA occurred, the researchers noted.

Survival rates to hospital discharge were 11.9% for COVID-19 patients, compared with 23.5% for noninfected patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; P < .001). ROSC was 53.7% and 63.6%, for infected and noninfected patients, respectively (aRR, 0.86; P < .001).

COVID-19 patients also were more likely than noninfected patients to receive delayed defibrillation, the researchers said. “Although delays in resuscitation, especially defibrillation, may have contributed to lower survival, the negative association of COVID-19 with survival in this study was consistent across subgroups, including patients who received timely treatment with defibrillation and epinephrine.”

The extremely low survival rate in early pandemic studies likely reflected the overwhelming burden on health systems at the time, the researchers said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential confounding from unmeasured variables, the use of a quality improvement registry that may not reflect nonparticipating hospitals, and potential false-positive COVID-19 cases. However, the result support findings from recent studies of multiple centers and extend clinical knowledge by comparing infected and noninfected patients from a larger group of hospitals than previously studied, the researchers said.

“We believe that these data will be relevant to health care providers and hospital administrators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues,” they concluded.
 

Think beyond COVID-19 for cardiac care

“Early during the pandemic, questions were raised whether COVID-19 patients should be treated with CPR,” Dr. Girotra said in an interview. “This was because initial studies had found a dismal survival of 0%-3% in COVID patients treated with CPR. The potential of transmitting the virus to health care professionals during CPR further heightened these concerns. We wanted to know whether the poor survival reported in these initial studies were broadly representative.”

Dr. Girotra said that some of the study findings were surprising. “We found that of all patients with IHCA in 2020 in our study, one in four were suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 infection. We were surprised by the magnitude of COVID’s impact on the cardiac arrest incidence.”

The implications for clinical decision-making are to think outside of COVID-19 infection, said Dr. Girotra. In the current study, “Although overall survival of cardiac arrest in COVID-positive patients was 30% lower, compared to non-COVID patients, it was not as poor as previously reported. COVID-19 infection alone should not be considered the sole factor for making decisions regarding CPR.

“Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced large gains in survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded these gains,” said Dr. Girotra. “Future studies are needed to monitor the impact of any new variants on cardiac arrest care,” as well as studies “to see whether we return to the prepandemic levels of IHCA survival once the pandemic recedes.”

Dr. Girotra has no relevant financial disclosures.

Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest was roughly one-third lower in patients with COVID-19 infections compared to uninfected patients, based on data from nearly 25,000 individuals.

Survival rates of less than 3% were reported in the United States and China for patients who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) while infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the data came from small, single-center studies in overwhelmed hospitals, wrote Saket Girotra, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and fellow American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Whether these early reports reflect the broader experience of patients with COVID-19 in hospitals in the United States remains unknown.

In a study published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry. The registry collects detailed information on patients aged 18 years and older who experience cardiac arrest at participating hospitals in the United States. The study population included 24,915 patients aged 18 years and older from 286 hospitals who experienced IHCA during March–December 2020. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 61.1% were White, 24.8% were Black, 3.8% were of other race or ethnicity, and 10.3% were of unknown race or ethnicity.

The primary outcomes were survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for at least 20 minutes.

A total of 5,916 patients (23.7%) had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections, and infected patients were more likely to be younger, male, and Black. Patients with COVID-19 infections also were significantly more likely than noninfected patients to have nonshockable rhythm, pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis, and to be on mechanical ventilation or vasopressors when the IHCA occurred, the researchers noted.

Survival rates to hospital discharge were 11.9% for COVID-19 patients, compared with 23.5% for noninfected patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; P < .001). ROSC was 53.7% and 63.6%, for infected and noninfected patients, respectively (aRR, 0.86; P < .001).

COVID-19 patients also were more likely than noninfected patients to receive delayed defibrillation, the researchers said. “Although delays in resuscitation, especially defibrillation, may have contributed to lower survival, the negative association of COVID-19 with survival in this study was consistent across subgroups, including patients who received timely treatment with defibrillation and epinephrine.”

The extremely low survival rate in early pandemic studies likely reflected the overwhelming burden on health systems at the time, the researchers said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential confounding from unmeasured variables, the use of a quality improvement registry that may not reflect nonparticipating hospitals, and potential false-positive COVID-19 cases. However, the result support findings from recent studies of multiple centers and extend clinical knowledge by comparing infected and noninfected patients from a larger group of hospitals than previously studied, the researchers said.

“We believe that these data will be relevant to health care providers and hospital administrators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues,” they concluded.
 

Think beyond COVID-19 for cardiac care

“Early during the pandemic, questions were raised whether COVID-19 patients should be treated with CPR,” Dr. Girotra said in an interview. “This was because initial studies had found a dismal survival of 0%-3% in COVID patients treated with CPR. The potential of transmitting the virus to health care professionals during CPR further heightened these concerns. We wanted to know whether the poor survival reported in these initial studies were broadly representative.”

Dr. Girotra said that some of the study findings were surprising. “We found that of all patients with IHCA in 2020 in our study, one in four were suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 infection. We were surprised by the magnitude of COVID’s impact on the cardiac arrest incidence.”

The implications for clinical decision-making are to think outside of COVID-19 infection, said Dr. Girotra. In the current study, “Although overall survival of cardiac arrest in COVID-positive patients was 30% lower, compared to non-COVID patients, it was not as poor as previously reported. COVID-19 infection alone should not be considered the sole factor for making decisions regarding CPR.

“Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced large gains in survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded these gains,” said Dr. Girotra. “Future studies are needed to monitor the impact of any new variants on cardiac arrest care,” as well as studies “to see whether we return to the prepandemic levels of IHCA survival once the pandemic recedes.”

Dr. Girotra has no relevant financial disclosures.

Survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest was roughly one-third lower in patients with COVID-19 infections compared to uninfected patients, based on data from nearly 25,000 individuals.

Survival rates of less than 3% were reported in the United States and China for patients who suffered in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) while infected with COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the data came from small, single-center studies in overwhelmed hospitals, wrote Saket Girotra, MD, of the University of Iowa, Iowa City, and fellow American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators. Whether these early reports reflect the broader experience of patients with COVID-19 in hospitals in the United States remains unknown.

In a study published as a research letter in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from the American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation registry. The registry collects detailed information on patients aged 18 years and older who experience cardiac arrest at participating hospitals in the United States. The study population included 24,915 patients aged 18 years and older from 286 hospitals who experienced IHCA during March–December 2020. The mean age of the patients was 64.7 years; 61.1% were White, 24.8% were Black, 3.8% were of other race or ethnicity, and 10.3% were of unknown race or ethnicity.

The primary outcomes were survival to discharge and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) for at least 20 minutes.

A total of 5,916 patients (23.7%) had suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infections, and infected patients were more likely to be younger, male, and Black. Patients with COVID-19 infections also were significantly more likely than noninfected patients to have nonshockable rhythm, pneumonia, respiratory insufficiency, or sepsis, and to be on mechanical ventilation or vasopressors when the IHCA occurred, the researchers noted.

Survival rates to hospital discharge were 11.9% for COVID-19 patients, compared with 23.5% for noninfected patients (adjusted relative risk, 0.65; P < .001). ROSC was 53.7% and 63.6%, for infected and noninfected patients, respectively (aRR, 0.86; P < .001).

COVID-19 patients also were more likely than noninfected patients to receive delayed defibrillation, the researchers said. “Although delays in resuscitation, especially defibrillation, may have contributed to lower survival, the negative association of COVID-19 with survival in this study was consistent across subgroups, including patients who received timely treatment with defibrillation and epinephrine.”

The extremely low survival rate in early pandemic studies likely reflected the overwhelming burden on health systems at the time, the researchers said in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including potential confounding from unmeasured variables, the use of a quality improvement registry that may not reflect nonparticipating hospitals, and potential false-positive COVID-19 cases. However, the result support findings from recent studies of multiple centers and extend clinical knowledge by comparing infected and noninfected patients from a larger group of hospitals than previously studied, the researchers said.

“We believe that these data will be relevant to health care providers and hospital administrators as the COVID-19 pandemic continues,” they concluded.
 

Think beyond COVID-19 for cardiac care

“Early during the pandemic, questions were raised whether COVID-19 patients should be treated with CPR,” Dr. Girotra said in an interview. “This was because initial studies had found a dismal survival of 0%-3% in COVID patients treated with CPR. The potential of transmitting the virus to health care professionals during CPR further heightened these concerns. We wanted to know whether the poor survival reported in these initial studies were broadly representative.”

Dr. Girotra said that some of the study findings were surprising. “We found that of all patients with IHCA in 2020 in our study, one in four were suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 infection. We were surprised by the magnitude of COVID’s impact on the cardiac arrest incidence.”

The implications for clinical decision-making are to think outside of COVID-19 infection, said Dr. Girotra. In the current study, “Although overall survival of cardiac arrest in COVID-positive patients was 30% lower, compared to non-COVID patients, it was not as poor as previously reported. COVID-19 infection alone should not be considered the sole factor for making decisions regarding CPR.

“Over the past 2 decades, we have experienced large gains in survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has eroded these gains,” said Dr. Girotra. “Future studies are needed to monitor the impact of any new variants on cardiac arrest care,” as well as studies “to see whether we return to the prepandemic levels of IHCA survival once the pandemic recedes.”

Dr. Girotra has no relevant financial disclosures.

A new statistical analysis of an existing meta-analysis reaffirms a finding that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are on simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation can benefit from treatment with the arthritis drug tocilizumab (Actemra) in conjunction with corticosteroids. But the report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients who are on ventilators.

“Clinicians should prescribe steroids and tocilizumab for hospitalized patients needing simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation,” epidemiologist and study coauthor James (Jay) Brophy, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Further research is required to answer the question of whether tocilizumab is beneficial in patients requiring invasive ventilation, and consideration of participation in further tocilizumab studies seems reasonable.”

The new analysis was published Feb. 28, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The initial meta-analysis, published in 2021 in JAMA, was conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies Working Group. It analyzed the results of 27 randomized trials that explored the use of interleukin-6 antagonists, including tocilizumab, and found that “28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received IL-6 antagonists, compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.86). The summary ORs for the association of IL-6 antagonist treatment with 28-day all-cause mortality were 0.78 with concomitant administration of corticosteroids versus 1.09 without administration of corticosteroids.”

For the new report, researchers conducted a Bayesian statistical analysis of 15 studies within the meta-analysis that specifically examined the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug tocilizumab. “Bayesian analysis allows one to make direct probability statements regarding the exact magnitude and the certainty of any benefit,” Dr. Brophy said. “This provides clinicians with the information they require to make well-informed decisions.”

The analysis estimated that the probability of a “clinically meaningful association” (absolute mortality risk difference, >1%) because of use of tocilizumab was higher than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen and higher than 90% in those receiving noninvasive ventilation. But the probability was only about 67% higher in those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Also, the researchers estimated that about 72% of future tocilizumab studies in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation would show a benefit.

The new analysis findings don’t add much to existing knowledge, said nephrologist David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who’s studied tocilizumab in COVID-19.

“The signal seems to be consistent that there is a greater benefit of tocilizumab in less ill patients than those who are more ill – e.g., those who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Leaf said in an interview. “This is interesting because in clinical practice the opposite approach is often undertaken, with tocilizumab use only being used in the sickest patients, even though the patients most likely to benefit seem to be those who are less ill.”

Clinically, he said, “hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive tocilizumab unless they have a clear contraindication and assuming it can be administered relatively early in their disease course. Earlier administration, before the onset of irreversible organ injury, is likely to have greater benefit.”

Dr. Leaf also noted it’s unknown whether the drug is helpful in several groups – patients presenting later in the course of COVID-19 illness, patients with additional infections, and immunocompromised patients.

It’s also not clear if tocilizumab benefits patients with lower levels of C-reactive protein, Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. The RECOVERY trial, for example, limited subjects to those with C-reactive protein of at least 75 mg/L.

Dr. Leaf and Dr. Gupta coauthored a 2021 cohort study analyzing mortality rates in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with tocilizumab versus those who were not.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Brophy, Dr. Leaf, and Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported participating in one of the randomized clinical trials included in the analysis.

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

A new statistical analysis of an existing meta-analysis reaffirms a finding that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are on simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation can benefit from treatment with the arthritis drug tocilizumab (Actemra) in conjunction with corticosteroids. But the report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients who are on ventilators.

“Clinicians should prescribe steroids and tocilizumab for hospitalized patients needing simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation,” epidemiologist and study coauthor James (Jay) Brophy, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Further research is required to answer the question of whether tocilizumab is beneficial in patients requiring invasive ventilation, and consideration of participation in further tocilizumab studies seems reasonable.”

The new analysis was published Feb. 28, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The initial meta-analysis, published in 2021 in JAMA, was conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies Working Group. It analyzed the results of 27 randomized trials that explored the use of interleukin-6 antagonists, including tocilizumab, and found that “28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received IL-6 antagonists, compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.86). The summary ORs for the association of IL-6 antagonist treatment with 28-day all-cause mortality were 0.78 with concomitant administration of corticosteroids versus 1.09 without administration of corticosteroids.”

For the new report, researchers conducted a Bayesian statistical analysis of 15 studies within the meta-analysis that specifically examined the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug tocilizumab. “Bayesian analysis allows one to make direct probability statements regarding the exact magnitude and the certainty of any benefit,” Dr. Brophy said. “This provides clinicians with the information they require to make well-informed decisions.”

The analysis estimated that the probability of a “clinically meaningful association” (absolute mortality risk difference, >1%) because of use of tocilizumab was higher than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen and higher than 90% in those receiving noninvasive ventilation. But the probability was only about 67% higher in those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Also, the researchers estimated that about 72% of future tocilizumab studies in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation would show a benefit.

The new analysis findings don’t add much to existing knowledge, said nephrologist David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who’s studied tocilizumab in COVID-19.

“The signal seems to be consistent that there is a greater benefit of tocilizumab in less ill patients than those who are more ill – e.g., those who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Leaf said in an interview. “This is interesting because in clinical practice the opposite approach is often undertaken, with tocilizumab use only being used in the sickest patients, even though the patients most likely to benefit seem to be those who are less ill.”

Clinically, he said, “hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive tocilizumab unless they have a clear contraindication and assuming it can be administered relatively early in their disease course. Earlier administration, before the onset of irreversible organ injury, is likely to have greater benefit.”

Dr. Leaf also noted it’s unknown whether the drug is helpful in several groups – patients presenting later in the course of COVID-19 illness, patients with additional infections, and immunocompromised patients.

It’s also not clear if tocilizumab benefits patients with lower levels of C-reactive protein, Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. The RECOVERY trial, for example, limited subjects to those with C-reactive protein of at least 75 mg/L.

Dr. Leaf and Dr. Gupta coauthored a 2021 cohort study analyzing mortality rates in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with tocilizumab versus those who were not.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Brophy, Dr. Leaf, and Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported participating in one of the randomized clinical trials included in the analysis.

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

A new statistical analysis of an existing meta-analysis reaffirms a finding that hospitalized patients with COVID-19 who are on simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation can benefit from treatment with the arthritis drug tocilizumab (Actemra) in conjunction with corticosteroids. But the report also casts doubt on the effectiveness of tocilizumab in patients who are on ventilators.

“Clinicians should prescribe steroids and tocilizumab for hospitalized patients needing simple oxygen or noninvasive ventilation,” epidemiologist and study coauthor James (Jay) Brophy, MD, PhD, of McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview. “Further research is required to answer the question of whether tocilizumab is beneficial in patients requiring invasive ventilation, and consideration of participation in further tocilizumab studies seems reasonable.”

The new analysis was published Feb. 28, 2022, in JAMA Network Open.

The initial meta-analysis, published in 2021 in JAMA, was conducted by the WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies Working Group. It analyzed the results of 27 randomized trials that explored the use of interleukin-6 antagonists, including tocilizumab, and found that “28-day all-cause mortality was lower among patients who received IL-6 antagonists, compared with those who received usual care or placebo (summary odds ratio, 0.86). The summary ORs for the association of IL-6 antagonist treatment with 28-day all-cause mortality were 0.78 with concomitant administration of corticosteroids versus 1.09 without administration of corticosteroids.”

For the new report, researchers conducted a Bayesian statistical analysis of 15 studies within the meta-analysis that specifically examined the use of the rheumatoid arthritis drug tocilizumab. “Bayesian analysis allows one to make direct probability statements regarding the exact magnitude and the certainty of any benefit,” Dr. Brophy said. “This provides clinicians with the information they require to make well-informed decisions.”

The analysis estimated that the probability of a “clinically meaningful association” (absolute mortality risk difference, >1%) because of use of tocilizumab was higher than 95% in patients receiving simple oxygen and higher than 90% in those receiving noninvasive ventilation. But the probability was only about 67% higher in those receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

Also, the researchers estimated that about 72% of future tocilizumab studies in patients on invasive mechanical ventilation would show a benefit.

The new analysis findings don’t add much to existing knowledge, said nephrologist David E. Leaf, MD, MMSc, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, who’s studied tocilizumab in COVID-19.

“The signal seems to be consistent that there is a greater benefit of tocilizumab in less ill patients than those who are more ill – e.g., those who are receiving invasive mechanical ventilation,” Dr. Leaf said in an interview. “This is interesting because in clinical practice the opposite approach is often undertaken, with tocilizumab use only being used in the sickest patients, even though the patients most likely to benefit seem to be those who are less ill.”

Clinically, he said, “hospitalized patients with COVID-19 should receive tocilizumab unless they have a clear contraindication and assuming it can be administered relatively early in their disease course. Earlier administration, before the onset of irreversible organ injury, is likely to have greater benefit.”

Dr. Leaf also noted it’s unknown whether the drug is helpful in several groups – patients presenting later in the course of COVID-19 illness, patients with additional infections, and immunocompromised patients.

It’s also not clear if tocilizumab benefits patients with lower levels of C-reactive protein, Shruti Gupta, MD, MPH, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said in an interview. The RECOVERY trial, for example, limited subjects to those with C-reactive protein of at least 75 mg/L.

Dr. Leaf and Dr. Gupta coauthored a 2021 cohort study analyzing mortality rates in patients with COVID-19 who were treated with tocilizumab versus those who were not.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Brophy, Dr. Leaf, and Dr. Gupta disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One study author reported participating in one of the randomized clinical trials included in the analysis.

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

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

LAS VEGAS – While frontline health care workers may have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the entire workforce has experienced some level of anxiety, stress, loss, grief, and trauma, according to Jon A. Levenson, MD.

“There are those who will need mental health treatment, so creating an easy way to reach out for help and facilitate linkage with care is critically important,” Dr. Levenson, associate professor of psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said during an annual psychopharmacology update held by the Nevada Psychiatric Association. “The vast majority of our workforce will thrive with proper support. But what can each of us do to take care of ourselves?”

Step one is to recognize common stress reactions as well as signs of distress. He offered the oxygen mask metaphor, the idea that before we can take care of and support anyone else, we must first take care of ourselves. “When people are stressed, they don’t always think about the oxygen mask metaphor,” Dr. Levenson said. Step two is to practice and model self-care by adopting principles often discussed in acceptance and commitment therapy: to focus on what you can control, not on what you can’t control.

“We can’t control the amount of toilet paper at the grocery store, how long the pandemic will last, or how others have reacted,” Dr. Levenson said. “We also can’t control other people’s motives, predict what will happen, or the actions of others, including whether they will follow social distancing guidelines or not.”

How about what we can control? One is a positive attitude, “which can sustain people during times of intense stress,” he said. “Other things that we can do include turn off the news and find fun and enriching activities to do at home, whether it be playing a game with family or reaching out to friends through an iPad or a smartphone. You can also follow [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations, control your own social distancing, and limit social media activity, which can be stressful. We can also control our kindness and grace.” He added that resilience does not mean “snapping back” to how you were before the pandemic, but rather “learning to integrate the adverse experiences into who you are and growing with them, which is sometimes known as posttraumatic growth.”

Dr. Levenson encouraged health care workers to use their coping resources, connect to others, and cultivate their values and purpose in life as they navigate these challenging times. “You also want to promote realistic optimism; find a way to stay positive,” he said. “We emphasize to our staff that while you won’t forget this time, focus on what you can control – your positive relationships – and remind yourself of your values and sources of gratitude. Figure out, and reflect on, what you care about, and then care about it. Remind yourself in a deliberate, purposeful way what anchors you to your job, which in the health care setting tends to be a desire to care for others, to assist those in need, and to work in teams. We also encourage staff to refrain from judgment. Guilt is a normal and near-universal response to this stressor, but there are many ways to contribute without a judgmental or guilty tone.”

Other tips for self-support are to remind yourself that it is not selfish to take breaks. “The needs of your patients are not more important than your own needs,” Dr. Levenson said. “Working nonstop can put you at higher risk for stress, exhaustion, and illness. You may need to give yourself more time to step back and recover from workplace challenges or extended coverage for peers; this is important. We remind our staff that your work may feel more emotionally draining than usual because everything is more intense overall during the COVID-19 pandemic. This reminder helps staff normalize what they already may be experiencing, and in turn, to further support each other.”

Soothing activities to relieve stress include meditation, prayer, deep and slow breathing, relaxation exercises, yoga, mindfulness, stretching, staying hydrated, eating healthfully, exercise, and getting sufficient sleep. Other stress management tips include avoiding excessive alcohol intake, reaching out to others, asking for assistance, and delegating when possible. “We want to promote psychological flexibility: the ability to stay in contact with the present moment,” he said. “We encourage our peers to be aware of unpleasant thoughts and feelings, and to try to redirect negative thought patterns to a proactive problem-solving approach; this includes choosing one’s behaviors based on the situation and personal values.”

Dr. Levenson reported having no disclosures related to his presentation.

Among individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, according to a new retrospective analysis. The link is particularly strong among B-cell depleting drugs.

“A lot of patients ask us if having MS by itself affects the vaccine response. We did not find that, but it’s about the disease-modifying therapy that a patient is being treated with,” Tirisham Gyang, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gyang presented the study at a poster session during the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“These patients (on DMTs) had decreased neutralizing antibody levels to the vaccine after they received it. We also saw a similar marker in drugs that modulate the sphingosine S-1 receptor. These patients also had a lower titer. It wasn’t statistically significant, but we think it’s positive. It was underpowered because there was a small number of patients in that subgroup,” said Dr. Gyang, assistant professor of neurology at The Ohio State University.

The results can inform vaccine strategies among people with MS, but the issue remains complex. “I don’t know that we could do a blanket statement and say, if you wait this amount of time, everybody will be okay. It’s a very individualized approach, and patients need to discuss timing of vaccines with their providers, because we know that waiting is better. It’s preferable to wait until towards the end of the dosing cycle. The other factor is making sure that the MS is well treated,” said Dr. Gyang.

The researchers prospectively followed 83 MS patients at the The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Among the cohort, 71% were female. Fifty-one subjects had serum samples analyzed following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and they were compared with 38 health care worker controls.

After vaccination, people with MS had about 2.4-fold lower levels of half-maximal neutralization titer (NT50) values compared with health care worker controls. This appeared to be driven primarily by DMTs. There was a more than ninefold reduction in the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response among 13 patients on B-cell depleting agents, compared with no therapy or other therapies (P < .001). Among of individuals on these agents, 61.5% had no detectable nAb.

The researchers also found an association between postvaccine NT50 values and when the vaccine was received compared with the last infusion of B-cell depleting agents. Every additional day since the previous infusion was associated with a 3.7% increase in NT50 value (P = .0032).

The average length of exposure to B-cell depleting agents was 24 months and the median was 25 months. There was no association between length of time on a B-cell depleting agent and NT50 values after vaccination (Spearman correlation 0.35, P = .24).

Subanalyses by sex and vaccine type revealed no differences in nAb levels.

The study did not look at T-cell responses after vaccination or the effect of T-cell depleting agents, and T cells likely still provide some protection, according to Dr. Gyang. “Even though the vaccine response may not be as robust as it would have been if they were not on the drug, there is still some degree of protection,” she said.
 

Some answers, more questions

The study is important, even though it was presented at the time that the COVID-19 Omicron variant surge was waning. “COVID still remains a major concern. Even though it seems to be on the wane at the moment, that doesn’t mean it will be on the wane next week,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates (Patchogue, N.Y.), who was asked to comment on the study.

He noted that about 21% of patients in the study who received a vaccination had no detectable antibodies. “That’s a problem. You need to pick a medication that works, but not if the medication puts you at risk for other problems, especially in the world of now, where we know there are viral pandemics that occur. And that calls into question: What if you’re immunocompromised and you get a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine? How much do we know about the vaccination response to most of these? No one really considers [vaccine response] when choosing a medication,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The results broadly confirm what has been seen in other studies, though its focus on the humoral response is a limitation, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook (N.Y.) MS Comprehensive Care Center. “For example, there have been independent studies with the (anti-CD-20 therapies) that indicate that they have a normal cell-mediated vaccine response to the COVID vaccine, even though the antibody response may be impaired in a significant number of individuals, though as you continue to vaccinate the antibody response seems to get better,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview.

Dr. Gyang has served as consultant for Genentech, Horizon Therapeutics, Greenwich Biosciences and EMD Serono. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accordant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Among individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, according to a new retrospective analysis. The link is particularly strong among B-cell depleting drugs.

“A lot of patients ask us if having MS by itself affects the vaccine response. We did not find that, but it’s about the disease-modifying therapy that a patient is being treated with,” Tirisham Gyang, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gyang presented the study at a poster session during the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“These patients (on DMTs) had decreased neutralizing antibody levels to the vaccine after they received it. We also saw a similar marker in drugs that modulate the sphingosine S-1 receptor. These patients also had a lower titer. It wasn’t statistically significant, but we think it’s positive. It was underpowered because there was a small number of patients in that subgroup,” said Dr. Gyang, assistant professor of neurology at The Ohio State University.

The results can inform vaccine strategies among people with MS, but the issue remains complex. “I don’t know that we could do a blanket statement and say, if you wait this amount of time, everybody will be okay. It’s a very individualized approach, and patients need to discuss timing of vaccines with their providers, because we know that waiting is better. It’s preferable to wait until towards the end of the dosing cycle. The other factor is making sure that the MS is well treated,” said Dr. Gyang.

The researchers prospectively followed 83 MS patients at the The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Among the cohort, 71% were female. Fifty-one subjects had serum samples analyzed following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and they were compared with 38 health care worker controls.

After vaccination, people with MS had about 2.4-fold lower levels of half-maximal neutralization titer (NT50) values compared with health care worker controls. This appeared to be driven primarily by DMTs. There was a more than ninefold reduction in the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response among 13 patients on B-cell depleting agents, compared with no therapy or other therapies (P < .001). Among of individuals on these agents, 61.5% had no detectable nAb.

The researchers also found an association between postvaccine NT50 values and when the vaccine was received compared with the last infusion of B-cell depleting agents. Every additional day since the previous infusion was associated with a 3.7% increase in NT50 value (P = .0032).

The average length of exposure to B-cell depleting agents was 24 months and the median was 25 months. There was no association between length of time on a B-cell depleting agent and NT50 values after vaccination (Spearman correlation 0.35, P = .24).

Subanalyses by sex and vaccine type revealed no differences in nAb levels.

The study did not look at T-cell responses after vaccination or the effect of T-cell depleting agents, and T cells likely still provide some protection, according to Dr. Gyang. “Even though the vaccine response may not be as robust as it would have been if they were not on the drug, there is still some degree of protection,” she said.
 

Some answers, more questions

The study is important, even though it was presented at the time that the COVID-19 Omicron variant surge was waning. “COVID still remains a major concern. Even though it seems to be on the wane at the moment, that doesn’t mean it will be on the wane next week,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates (Patchogue, N.Y.), who was asked to comment on the study.

He noted that about 21% of patients in the study who received a vaccination had no detectable antibodies. “That’s a problem. You need to pick a medication that works, but not if the medication puts you at risk for other problems, especially in the world of now, where we know there are viral pandemics that occur. And that calls into question: What if you’re immunocompromised and you get a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine? How much do we know about the vaccination response to most of these? No one really considers [vaccine response] when choosing a medication,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The results broadly confirm what has been seen in other studies, though its focus on the humoral response is a limitation, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook (N.Y.) MS Comprehensive Care Center. “For example, there have been independent studies with the (anti-CD-20 therapies) that indicate that they have a normal cell-mediated vaccine response to the COVID vaccine, even though the antibody response may be impaired in a significant number of individuals, though as you continue to vaccinate the antibody response seems to get better,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview.

Dr. Gyang has served as consultant for Genentech, Horizon Therapeutics, Greenwich Biosciences and EMD Serono. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accordant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Among individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS), disease modifying therapies (DMTs) are associated with a reduced humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, according to a new retrospective analysis. The link is particularly strong among B-cell depleting drugs.

“A lot of patients ask us if having MS by itself affects the vaccine response. We did not find that, but it’s about the disease-modifying therapy that a patient is being treated with,” Tirisham Gyang, MD, said in an interview. Dr. Gyang presented the study at a poster session during the annual meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ACTRIMS).

“These patients (on DMTs) had decreased neutralizing antibody levels to the vaccine after they received it. We also saw a similar marker in drugs that modulate the sphingosine S-1 receptor. These patients also had a lower titer. It wasn’t statistically significant, but we think it’s positive. It was underpowered because there was a small number of patients in that subgroup,” said Dr. Gyang, assistant professor of neurology at The Ohio State University.

The results can inform vaccine strategies among people with MS, but the issue remains complex. “I don’t know that we could do a blanket statement and say, if you wait this amount of time, everybody will be okay. It’s a very individualized approach, and patients need to discuss timing of vaccines with their providers, because we know that waiting is better. It’s preferable to wait until towards the end of the dosing cycle. The other factor is making sure that the MS is well treated,” said Dr. Gyang.

The researchers prospectively followed 83 MS patients at the The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. Among the cohort, 71% were female. Fifty-one subjects had serum samples analyzed following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination, and they were compared with 38 health care worker controls.

After vaccination, people with MS had about 2.4-fold lower levels of half-maximal neutralization titer (NT50) values compared with health care worker controls. This appeared to be driven primarily by DMTs. There was a more than ninefold reduction in the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response among 13 patients on B-cell depleting agents, compared with no therapy or other therapies (P < .001). Among of individuals on these agents, 61.5% had no detectable nAb.

The researchers also found an association between postvaccine NT50 values and when the vaccine was received compared with the last infusion of B-cell depleting agents. Every additional day since the previous infusion was associated with a 3.7% increase in NT50 value (P = .0032).

The average length of exposure to B-cell depleting agents was 24 months and the median was 25 months. There was no association between length of time on a B-cell depleting agent and NT50 values after vaccination (Spearman correlation 0.35, P = .24).

Subanalyses by sex and vaccine type revealed no differences in nAb levels.

The study did not look at T-cell responses after vaccination or the effect of T-cell depleting agents, and T cells likely still provide some protection, according to Dr. Gyang. “Even though the vaccine response may not be as robust as it would have been if they were not on the drug, there is still some degree of protection,” she said.
 

Some answers, more questions

The study is important, even though it was presented at the time that the COVID-19 Omicron variant surge was waning. “COVID still remains a major concern. Even though it seems to be on the wane at the moment, that doesn’t mean it will be on the wane next week,” said Mark Gudesblatt, MD, medical director at South Shore Neurologic Associates (Patchogue, N.Y.), who was asked to comment on the study.

He noted that about 21% of patients in the study who received a vaccination had no detectable antibodies. “That’s a problem. You need to pick a medication that works, but not if the medication puts you at risk for other problems, especially in the world of now, where we know there are viral pandemics that occur. And that calls into question: What if you’re immunocompromised and you get a flu vaccine or a tetanus vaccine? How much do we know about the vaccination response to most of these? No one really considers [vaccine response] when choosing a medication,” said Dr. Gudesblatt.

The results broadly confirm what has been seen in other studies, though its focus on the humoral response is a limitation, according to Patricia Coyle, MD, professor of neurology and director of Stony Brook (N.Y.) MS Comprehensive Care Center. “For example, there have been independent studies with the (anti-CD-20 therapies) that indicate that they have a normal cell-mediated vaccine response to the COVID vaccine, even though the antibody response may be impaired in a significant number of individuals, though as you continue to vaccinate the antibody response seems to get better,” Dr. Coyle said in an interview.

Dr. Gyang has served as consultant for Genentech, Horizon Therapeutics, Greenwich Biosciences and EMD Serono. Dr. Gudesblatt has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Coyle has consulted or received speaker fees from Accordant, Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon Therapeutics, Janssen, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio. Dr. Coyle has received research funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Celgene, CorEvitas LLC, Genentech/Roche, MedDay, Novartis, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Azithromycin administered for severe early-life respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis did not prevent recurrent wheezing in affected children over the next 2-4 years, a randomized, single-center study found.

Antibiotics are frequently given to patients with RSV bronchiolitis, although this practice is not supported by American Academy of Pediatrics clinical guidelines. Many doctors will prescribe them anyway if they see redness in the ears or other signs of infection, lead author Avraham Beigelman, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, presented at the 2022 meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in Phoenix, was simultaneously published online Feb. 27, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine–Evidence.

Since azithromycin has shown anti-inflammatory benefit in chronic lung diseases and is a mainstay of care in cystic fibrosis and had shown previous effects in RSV patients, this trial examined its potential for preventing future recurrent wheezing in infants hospitalized with RSV who are at risk for developing asthma later. About half of children admitted to the hospital for RSV will develop asthma by age 7, Dr. Beigelman said.

“We were very surprised that azithromycin didn’t help in this trial given our previous findings,” Dr. Beigelman said.

And while those given azithromycin versus those given a placebo showed no significant decrease in recurrent wheezing, there was a slight suggestion that treatment with antibiotics of any kind may increase the risk of later wheezing in infants hospitalized with the virus.

“The study was not designed to tease at the effects of different antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics, so we have to be very cautious about this trend,” Dr. Beigelman said. “There may be short-term effects and long-term effects. Certain antibiotics may affect the infant microbiome in other parts of the body, such as the gut, [in] a way that may predispose to asthma. But all these associations suggest that early-life antibiotics for viral infections are not good for you.”

He pointed to the longstanding question among clinicians whether it is the antibiotic that’s increasing the risk of the harm or the condition for which the antibiotic is prescribed. These exploratory data, however, suggest that antibiotics for RSV may be causing harm.

In pursuit of that hypothesis, his group has collected airway microbiome samples from these infants and plan to investigate whether bacteria colonizing the airway may interact with the antibiotics to increase wheezing. The researchers will analyze stool samples from the babies to see whether the gut microbiome may also play a role in wheezing and the subsequent risk of developing childhood asthma.
 

Study details

The trial prospectively enrolled 200 otherwise healthy babies aged 1-18 months who were hospitalized at St. Louis Children’s Hospital for acute RSV bronchiolitis. Although RSV is a very common pediatric virus, only bout 3% of babies will require hospitalization in order to receive oxygen, Dr. Beigelman said.

Babies were randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral azithromycin at 10 mg/kg daily for 7 days, followed by 5 mg/kg daily for 7 days. Randomization was stratified by recent open-label antibiotic use. The primary outcome was recurrent wheeze, defined as a third episode of post-RSV wheeze over the following 2-4 years.

The biologic activity of azithromycin was clear since nasal-wash interleukin at day 14 after randomization was lower in azithromycin-treated infants. But despite evidence of activity, the risk of post-RSV recurrent wheeze was similar in both arms: 47% in the azithromycin group versus 36% in the placebo group, for an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.29; P = .11).

Nor did azithromycin lower the risk of recurrent wheeze in babies already receiving other antibiotics at the time of enrollment (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.43-2.07). As for antibiotic-naive participants receiving azithromycin, there was a slight signal of potential increased risk of developing recurrent wheezing (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.03-3.1).

The bottom line? The findings support current clinical guidelines recommending against the use of antibiotics for RSV. “At the very least, azithromycin and antibiotics in general have no benefit in preventing recurrent wheeze, and there is a possibility they may be harmful,” Dr. Beigelman said.

This trial is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Beigelman reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi. Two study coauthors disclosed various ties to industry.

Azithromycin administered for severe early-life respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis did not prevent recurrent wheezing in affected children over the next 2-4 years, a randomized, single-center study found.

Antibiotics are frequently given to patients with RSV bronchiolitis, although this practice is not supported by American Academy of Pediatrics clinical guidelines. Many doctors will prescribe them anyway if they see redness in the ears or other signs of infection, lead author Avraham Beigelman, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, presented at the 2022 meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in Phoenix, was simultaneously published online Feb. 27, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine–Evidence.

Since azithromycin has shown anti-inflammatory benefit in chronic lung diseases and is a mainstay of care in cystic fibrosis and had shown previous effects in RSV patients, this trial examined its potential for preventing future recurrent wheezing in infants hospitalized with RSV who are at risk for developing asthma later. About half of children admitted to the hospital for RSV will develop asthma by age 7, Dr. Beigelman said.

“We were very surprised that azithromycin didn’t help in this trial given our previous findings,” Dr. Beigelman said.

And while those given azithromycin versus those given a placebo showed no significant decrease in recurrent wheezing, there was a slight suggestion that treatment with antibiotics of any kind may increase the risk of later wheezing in infants hospitalized with the virus.

“The study was not designed to tease at the effects of different antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics, so we have to be very cautious about this trend,” Dr. Beigelman said. “There may be short-term effects and long-term effects. Certain antibiotics may affect the infant microbiome in other parts of the body, such as the gut, [in] a way that may predispose to asthma. But all these associations suggest that early-life antibiotics for viral infections are not good for you.”

He pointed to the longstanding question among clinicians whether it is the antibiotic that’s increasing the risk of the harm or the condition for which the antibiotic is prescribed. These exploratory data, however, suggest that antibiotics for RSV may be causing harm.

In pursuit of that hypothesis, his group has collected airway microbiome samples from these infants and plan to investigate whether bacteria colonizing the airway may interact with the antibiotics to increase wheezing. The researchers will analyze stool samples from the babies to see whether the gut microbiome may also play a role in wheezing and the subsequent risk of developing childhood asthma.
 

Study details

The trial prospectively enrolled 200 otherwise healthy babies aged 1-18 months who were hospitalized at St. Louis Children’s Hospital for acute RSV bronchiolitis. Although RSV is a very common pediatric virus, only bout 3% of babies will require hospitalization in order to receive oxygen, Dr. Beigelman said.

Babies were randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral azithromycin at 10 mg/kg daily for 7 days, followed by 5 mg/kg daily for 7 days. Randomization was stratified by recent open-label antibiotic use. The primary outcome was recurrent wheeze, defined as a third episode of post-RSV wheeze over the following 2-4 years.

The biologic activity of azithromycin was clear since nasal-wash interleukin at day 14 after randomization was lower in azithromycin-treated infants. But despite evidence of activity, the risk of post-RSV recurrent wheeze was similar in both arms: 47% in the azithromycin group versus 36% in the placebo group, for an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.29; P = .11).

Nor did azithromycin lower the risk of recurrent wheeze in babies already receiving other antibiotics at the time of enrollment (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.43-2.07). As for antibiotic-naive participants receiving azithromycin, there was a slight signal of potential increased risk of developing recurrent wheezing (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.03-3.1).

The bottom line? The findings support current clinical guidelines recommending against the use of antibiotics for RSV. “At the very least, azithromycin and antibiotics in general have no benefit in preventing recurrent wheeze, and there is a possibility they may be harmful,” Dr. Beigelman said.

This trial is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Beigelman reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi. Two study coauthors disclosed various ties to industry.

Azithromycin administered for severe early-life respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) bronchiolitis did not prevent recurrent wheezing in affected children over the next 2-4 years, a randomized, single-center study found.

Antibiotics are frequently given to patients with RSV bronchiolitis, although this practice is not supported by American Academy of Pediatrics clinical guidelines. Many doctors will prescribe them anyway if they see redness in the ears or other signs of infection, lead author Avraham Beigelman, MD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview.

The double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, presented at the 2022 meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology in Phoenix, was simultaneously published online Feb. 27, 2022, in the New England Journal of Medicine–Evidence.

Since azithromycin has shown anti-inflammatory benefit in chronic lung diseases and is a mainstay of care in cystic fibrosis and had shown previous effects in RSV patients, this trial examined its potential for preventing future recurrent wheezing in infants hospitalized with RSV who are at risk for developing asthma later. About half of children admitted to the hospital for RSV will develop asthma by age 7, Dr. Beigelman said.

“We were very surprised that azithromycin didn’t help in this trial given our previous findings,” Dr. Beigelman said.

And while those given azithromycin versus those given a placebo showed no significant decrease in recurrent wheezing, there was a slight suggestion that treatment with antibiotics of any kind may increase the risk of later wheezing in infants hospitalized with the virus.

“The study was not designed to tease at the effects of different antibiotics or combinations of antibiotics, so we have to be very cautious about this trend,” Dr. Beigelman said. “There may be short-term effects and long-term effects. Certain antibiotics may affect the infant microbiome in other parts of the body, such as the gut, [in] a way that may predispose to asthma. But all these associations suggest that early-life antibiotics for viral infections are not good for you.”

He pointed to the longstanding question among clinicians whether it is the antibiotic that’s increasing the risk of the harm or the condition for which the antibiotic is prescribed. These exploratory data, however, suggest that antibiotics for RSV may be causing harm.

In pursuit of that hypothesis, his group has collected airway microbiome samples from these infants and plan to investigate whether bacteria colonizing the airway may interact with the antibiotics to increase wheezing. The researchers will analyze stool samples from the babies to see whether the gut microbiome may also play a role in wheezing and the subsequent risk of developing childhood asthma.
 

Study details

The trial prospectively enrolled 200 otherwise healthy babies aged 1-18 months who were hospitalized at St. Louis Children’s Hospital for acute RSV bronchiolitis. Although RSV is a very common pediatric virus, only bout 3% of babies will require hospitalization in order to receive oxygen, Dr. Beigelman said.

Babies were randomly assigned to receive placebo or oral azithromycin at 10 mg/kg daily for 7 days, followed by 5 mg/kg daily for 7 days. Randomization was stratified by recent open-label antibiotic use. The primary outcome was recurrent wheeze, defined as a third episode of post-RSV wheeze over the following 2-4 years.

The biologic activity of azithromycin was clear since nasal-wash interleukin at day 14 after randomization was lower in azithromycin-treated infants. But despite evidence of activity, the risk of post-RSV recurrent wheeze was similar in both arms: 47% in the azithromycin group versus 36% in the placebo group, for an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.29; P = .11).

Nor did azithromycin lower the risk of recurrent wheeze in babies already receiving other antibiotics at the time of enrollment (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.43-2.07). As for antibiotic-naive participants receiving azithromycin, there was a slight signal of potential increased risk of developing recurrent wheezing (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.03-3.1).

The bottom line? The findings support current clinical guidelines recommending against the use of antibiotics for RSV. “At the very least, azithromycin and antibiotics in general have no benefit in preventing recurrent wheeze, and there is a possibility they may be harmful,” Dr. Beigelman said.

This trial is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Beigelman reported relationships with AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Sanofi. Two study coauthors disclosed various ties to industry.

The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the goal of reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries, was “associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes,” according to new findings.

The OCM led to a statistically significant reduction in the use of denosumab – a pricier bone-modifying drug – by patients with bone metastases without changing the overall use of bone-modifying medications. The OCM also prompted more rapid adoption of a less expensive white blood cell growth factor agent – the biosimilar filgrastim – and more selective use of costly antiemetics as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Overall, the “OCM led to the reduced use of some high-cost supportive care medications, suggesting more value-conscious care,” study author Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write.

The study was published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Since the OCM was launched in 2016, several studies have evaluated whether the alternative payment model reached its goal of reducing spending while improving or maintaining the quality of cancer care.

The results have been decidedly mixed.

As previously reported by this news organization, one study found that after 4 years, the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare. During that time, physician participation in the program also declined, with the number of practices dropping almost 30% between 2016 and 2020.

Other studies, however, have highlighted more positive results.

One large community practice reported saving Medicare $3 million over the course of 1 year. Another analysis found that among community practices that adopted the OCM, in the first year of the program, there was less physician-administered drug use by patients with prostate cancer, lower drug costs by patients with lung and prostate cancer, fewer visits by patients with breast or colon cancer, and lower office-based costs in all cancers analyzed. However, these savings were largely offset by the costs of these programs.

In the current study, DR. Brooks and colleagues compared the use of supportive care medications – bone-modifying drugs as well as prophylactic white blood cell (WBC) growth factors and antiemetics – in practices that adopted the OCM and those that didn’t.

More specifically, the authors zeroed in on the bone-modifying agent denosumab for patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and the WBC growth factor biosimilar filgrastim for those receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Prophylactic use of higher-cost neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for patients receiving chemotherapy for any type of cancer was also evaluated.

The authors evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims from 2013-2019.

There was a total of 255,638 treatment episodes for bone metastases. The authors found that the OCM led to relative reductions in the use of denosumab but not in the overall use of bone-modifying medications, which included the less costly options zoledronic acid and pamidronate. The use of denosumab was similar for OCM and comparison practices during the baseline period, but during the intervention period, there were statistically significant relative reductions in the use of denosumab at OCM practices for breast (-5.0%), prostate (-4.0%), and lung cancer (-4.1%).

For WBC growth factors, 164,310 episodes were included in analyses. The OCM did not affect the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer chemotherapy for those at high risk of febrile neutropenia but did lead to a relative decrease during intermediate-risk chemotherapy (-7.6%). The authors observed no OCM impact on the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors among intermediate-risk lung or colorectal cancer patients. But, during the intervention period, OCM practices did demonstrate an increased use of originator or biosimilar filgrastim (57.3%) compared to other practices (47.6%), and the quarterly rate of increase in the use of the biosimilar grew 2.6 percentage points faster in OCM practices.

The authors report that there were 414,792 treatment episodes involving the use of prophylactic antiemetics. Overall, among patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, the OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists. The authors report a 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.

“We found that OCM was associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes consistent with value-based care redesign,” the authors conclude. “These impacts on supportive care medication use align with previously reported spending reductions attributable to OCM and suggest that alternative payment models have potential to drive value-based changes in supportive care during cancer treatment.”

The study was supported by CMS. Several of the coauthors have reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article.

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

The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the goal of reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries, was “associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes,” according to new findings.

The OCM led to a statistically significant reduction in the use of denosumab – a pricier bone-modifying drug – by patients with bone metastases without changing the overall use of bone-modifying medications. The OCM also prompted more rapid adoption of a less expensive white blood cell growth factor agent – the biosimilar filgrastim – and more selective use of costly antiemetics as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Overall, the “OCM led to the reduced use of some high-cost supportive care medications, suggesting more value-conscious care,” study author Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write.

The study was published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Since the OCM was launched in 2016, several studies have evaluated whether the alternative payment model reached its goal of reducing spending while improving or maintaining the quality of cancer care.

The results have been decidedly mixed.

As previously reported by this news organization, one study found that after 4 years, the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare. During that time, physician participation in the program also declined, with the number of practices dropping almost 30% between 2016 and 2020.

Other studies, however, have highlighted more positive results.

One large community practice reported saving Medicare $3 million over the course of 1 year. Another analysis found that among community practices that adopted the OCM, in the first year of the program, there was less physician-administered drug use by patients with prostate cancer, lower drug costs by patients with lung and prostate cancer, fewer visits by patients with breast or colon cancer, and lower office-based costs in all cancers analyzed. However, these savings were largely offset by the costs of these programs.

In the current study, DR. Brooks and colleagues compared the use of supportive care medications – bone-modifying drugs as well as prophylactic white blood cell (WBC) growth factors and antiemetics – in practices that adopted the OCM and those that didn’t.

More specifically, the authors zeroed in on the bone-modifying agent denosumab for patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and the WBC growth factor biosimilar filgrastim for those receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Prophylactic use of higher-cost neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for patients receiving chemotherapy for any type of cancer was also evaluated.

The authors evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims from 2013-2019.

There was a total of 255,638 treatment episodes for bone metastases. The authors found that the OCM led to relative reductions in the use of denosumab but not in the overall use of bone-modifying medications, which included the less costly options zoledronic acid and pamidronate. The use of denosumab was similar for OCM and comparison practices during the baseline period, but during the intervention period, there were statistically significant relative reductions in the use of denosumab at OCM practices for breast (-5.0%), prostate (-4.0%), and lung cancer (-4.1%).

For WBC growth factors, 164,310 episodes were included in analyses. The OCM did not affect the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer chemotherapy for those at high risk of febrile neutropenia but did lead to a relative decrease during intermediate-risk chemotherapy (-7.6%). The authors observed no OCM impact on the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors among intermediate-risk lung or colorectal cancer patients. But, during the intervention period, OCM practices did demonstrate an increased use of originator or biosimilar filgrastim (57.3%) compared to other practices (47.6%), and the quarterly rate of increase in the use of the biosimilar grew 2.6 percentage points faster in OCM practices.

The authors report that there were 414,792 treatment episodes involving the use of prophylactic antiemetics. Overall, among patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, the OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists. The authors report a 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.

“We found that OCM was associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes consistent with value-based care redesign,” the authors conclude. “These impacts on supportive care medication use align with previously reported spending reductions attributable to OCM and suggest that alternative payment models have potential to drive value-based changes in supportive care during cancer treatment.”

The study was supported by CMS. Several of the coauthors have reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article.

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

The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) with the goal of reducing spending for Medicare beneficiaries, was “associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes,” according to new findings.

The OCM led to a statistically significant reduction in the use of denosumab – a pricier bone-modifying drug – by patients with bone metastases without changing the overall use of bone-modifying medications. The OCM also prompted more rapid adoption of a less expensive white blood cell growth factor agent – the biosimilar filgrastim – and more selective use of costly antiemetics as primary prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Overall, the “OCM led to the reduced use of some high-cost supportive care medications, suggesting more value-conscious care,” study author Gabriel A. Brooks, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write.

The study was published online Feb. 25 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Since the OCM was launched in 2016, several studies have evaluated whether the alternative payment model reached its goal of reducing spending while improving or maintaining the quality of cancer care.

The results have been decidedly mixed.

As previously reported by this news organization, one study found that after 4 years, the OCM led to a $155 million net loss to Medicare. During that time, physician participation in the program also declined, with the number of practices dropping almost 30% between 2016 and 2020.

Other studies, however, have highlighted more positive results.

One large community practice reported saving Medicare $3 million over the course of 1 year. Another analysis found that among community practices that adopted the OCM, in the first year of the program, there was less physician-administered drug use by patients with prostate cancer, lower drug costs by patients with lung and prostate cancer, fewer visits by patients with breast or colon cancer, and lower office-based costs in all cancers analyzed. However, these savings were largely offset by the costs of these programs.

In the current study, DR. Brooks and colleagues compared the use of supportive care medications – bone-modifying drugs as well as prophylactic white blood cell (WBC) growth factors and antiemetics – in practices that adopted the OCM and those that didn’t.

More specifically, the authors zeroed in on the bone-modifying agent denosumab for patients with breast, lung, or prostate cancer and the WBC growth factor biosimilar filgrastim for those receiving chemotherapy for breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. Prophylactic use of higher-cost neurokinin-1 (NK1) antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists for patients receiving chemotherapy for any type of cancer was also evaluated.

The authors evaluated chemotherapy episodes assigned to OCM (n = 201) and comparison practices (n = 534) using Medicare claims from 2013-2019.

There was a total of 255,638 treatment episodes for bone metastases. The authors found that the OCM led to relative reductions in the use of denosumab but not in the overall use of bone-modifying medications, which included the less costly options zoledronic acid and pamidronate. The use of denosumab was similar for OCM and comparison practices during the baseline period, but during the intervention period, there were statistically significant relative reductions in the use of denosumab at OCM practices for breast (-5.0%), prostate (-4.0%), and lung cancer (-4.1%).

For WBC growth factors, 164,310 episodes were included in analyses. The OCM did not affect the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors during breast cancer chemotherapy for those at high risk of febrile neutropenia but did lead to a relative decrease during intermediate-risk chemotherapy (-7.6%). The authors observed no OCM impact on the use of prophylactic WBC growth factors among intermediate-risk lung or colorectal cancer patients. But, during the intervention period, OCM practices did demonstrate an increased use of originator or biosimilar filgrastim (57.3%) compared to other practices (47.6%), and the quarterly rate of increase in the use of the biosimilar grew 2.6 percentage points faster in OCM practices.

The authors report that there were 414,792 treatment episodes involving the use of prophylactic antiemetics. Overall, among patients receiving chemotherapy with high or moderate emetic risk, the OCM led to reductions in the prophylactic use of NK1 antagonists and long-acting serotonin antagonists. The authors report a 6.0 percentage point reduction in the use of NK1 antagonists during high-emetic-risk chemotherapy.

“We found that OCM was associated with meaningful changes in the use of supportive care medications during chemotherapy treatment episodes consistent with value-based care redesign,” the authors conclude. “These impacts on supportive care medication use align with previously reported spending reductions attributable to OCM and suggest that alternative payment models have potential to drive value-based changes in supportive care during cancer treatment.”

The study was supported by CMS. Several of the coauthors have reported relationships with industry, as noted in the article.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mental disorders in early life are associated with a significantly increased risk of dementia in later years.

Results of a large, longitudinal, population-based study show that individuals hospitalized for a mental health disorder had a fourfold increased relative risk (RR) for developing dementia, compared with those who were not hospitalized with a mental illness.

In addition, those with dementia plus a mental disorder developed dementia almost 6 years earlier than those without a mental illness.

The findings were consistent among men and women, in patients with early- and late-onset dementia, in those with Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementia, and across all mental health disorders – and remained so after accounting for pre-existing physical illness and socioeconomic factors.

“Dementia is not typically treated until later in life, but our study suggests that we need to be thinking about dementia prevention much earlier in the life course,” study investigator Leah Richmond-Rakerd, PhD, assistant professor, department of psychology, University of Michigan, said in an interview.

“Supporting young people’s mental health could be a window of opportunity to help reduce the burden of dementia in older adults,” she said.

The findings were published online Feb. 16.
 

Underappreciated risk factor

“Recognition of the outsized influence of dementia on later-life functioning has fueled research into modifiable risk factors and prevention targets,” the investigators write.

Previous research suggests mental disorders may “comprise an underappreciated category of modifiable risk factors.” However, those studies focused primarily on midlife and older individuals, not on capturing mental disorders during young adulthood, which is the time of “peak prevalence,” they add. In addition, most studies have not explored the full range of mental disorders.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that it is well known that mental health disorders peak in adolescence and young adulthood – and are treatable.

“If the same people who have mental disorders when they are young tend to develop dementia when they are older, that would mean that preventing mental health problems in younger people might reduce or delay the burden of dementia in older people,” she said.

The investigators assessed records from the New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure, which is a de-identified register that includes the entire New Zealand population. They also examined information about hospitalizations and diagnoses from records kept by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

The researchers followed 1,711,386 individuals born between 1928 and 1967 (50.6% men, aged 21 to 60 years at baseline) for 30 years. The population was subdivided into age groups based on birth years: 1928-1937 (14.8%), 1938-1947 (20.85%), 1948-1957 (29.35%), and 1958-1967 (35.1%).
 

Earlier onset

During the study period, 3.8% of individuals were identified as having a mental disorder, and 2% were identified as having dementia. Similar percentages of men and women had a mental disorder, and similar percentages had dementia.

Dementia was “over-represented” among participants with versus without a mental disorder (6.1% vs. 1.8%). This finding held across all age groups.

Those diagnosed with a mental disorder were also more likely to develop dementia, compared with their peers without a mental disorder (RR, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 3.39-3.64), which is a larger association than that between physical diseases and dementia (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.16-1.21).

These associations were present in both sexes and in all age groups, although the associations were stronger in more recently born cohorts.

A sixfold higher risk for dementia remained even after adjusting for pre-existing physical illnesses (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 6.25-6.73); and the elevated risk was evident across different lengths of follow-up from the index mental disorder.

When the researchers focused specifically on individuals diagnosed with dementia, they found that those diagnosed with a mental disorder developed dementia a mean of 5.60 years earlier than those without a mental disorder diagnosis – an association observed across both sexes and all age groups.

“Individuals diagnosed with psychotic, substance use, mood, neurotic, and all other mental disorders and who engaged in self-harm were all more likely than those without a mental disorder to be diagnosed with subsequent dementia, even after accounting for their physical disease histories,” the investigators write.

Although there was a link between mental disorders in both Alzheimer’s and non-Alzheimer’s dementias, the association was larger in non-Alzheimer’s.

The researchers note that the study has several limitations, including the fact that it was conducted in New Zealand and therefore the results may not be generalizable to other regions. In addition, inpatient hospital records do not capture less severe mental disorder cases treated in the outpatient setting.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd suggested several potential mechanisms that could account for the link between mental illness and dementia, including poor lifestyle choices and metabolic side effects associated with some psychiatric medications.

“There could also be shared risk factors for both mental disorders and dementia, such as shared genetics, or individuals may experience a lifelong brain vulnerability that shows up as mental health problems earlier in life and shows up as dementia later in life,” she said.
 

An important risk factor

Commenting for this article, Ken Duckworth, MD, chief medical officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, said a major strength of the study was its longitudinal scope and large population size.

He described the study as allowing clinicians to “watch the movie,” as opposed to looking at a “snapshot” of data.

“Although you can learn things from snapshots, a large, comprehensive public health system looking at 30 years of claims – something not possible in the U.S. because of our more fragmented health care system – offers more insight,” said Dr. Duckworth, who was not involved with the research.

The investigators are “painting a picture of a correlation of risk, and to me, that’s the beginning of further inquiry,” he added. “Would preventive efforts targeting dementia, such as exercise and socialization, be helpful? It’s a great study that raises these interesting questions.”

Also commenting in an interview, Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, said the study “adds a wealth of data to our understanding” of mental disorders as a dementia risk factor.

However, the study was observational, so “the findings cannot imply causation, [and just] because someone has depression, that does not mean they will go on to develop Alzheimer’s,” said Dr. Sexton, who also was not involved with the research.

Still, “these data support the idea that taking care of one’s mental health is incredibly important for overall wellbeing. For providers, it’s important to have mental health evaluation be a part of your patient’s regular checkups,” she added.

Dr. Richmond-Rakerd noted that even if mental health conditions are not a causal risk factor for dementia, “the presence of a mental health problem is still an important indicator of risk. Mental health providers may wish to target other risk factors for dementia that are more common in individuals with mental health conditions, such as social disconnection.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the National Institute of Child Health and Development through the Duke Population Research Center, and the National Institute on Aging through the Center for Advancing Sociodemographic and Economic Study of Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias. Dr. Richmond-Rakerd reports no relevant financial relationships. The other investigators’ disclosures are listed in the original article. Dr. Sexton and Dr. Duckworth report no relevant financial relationships.

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