Pediatric News

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The Janssen/Johnson & Johnson single-dose adenovirus vaccine provides 85% efficacy globally against severe COVID-19 illness, according to the highly anticipated interim phase 3 results announced this morning.

The efficacy against severe disease provided by the Janssen/J&J vaccine held true regardless of age, race/ethnicity, absence or presence of comorbidities, and geography. The 44,000-participant ENSEMBLE study was conducted in the United States, South America, and South Africa.

“The team is very diligently monitoring all the variants that come up, and there are literally thousands of these. We are acting in anticipation of a variant being a potential problem. The South African variant we too acted on right away. So we too are preparing that antigen for testing.

“With data today, we do see that not a single South African, after 28 days post vaccination, ended up needing to go to the hospital, no South African died who was vaccinated.

“We do see that 85%-plus protection in South African against severe disease. That is one of the most exciting results in the dataset today,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of Janssen Research & Development.

The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, 66% in Latin America, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2 28 days post vaccination, officials from the National Institutes of Health and Janssen reported during a media briefing.

But the J&J vaccine has potential advantages over the existing two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines because it’s single dose and has less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration is needed versus a need to freeze the two-dose Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. The J&J vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46° F (2°-8° C).

But the difference between these just-released efficacy figures and the 94%-95% efficacy provided by the existing Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines generated many questions during the briefing.

Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the focus should not just be on the overall numbers. “The most important thing from a public health standpoint domestically is to keep people out of the hospital and prevent them from getting severe illness,” he said. “Many in the general public might look at a number and want to know if they get symptomatic disease or not.”

“More important than preventing someone from getting some aches and a sore throat is to prevent people – particularly people who have underlying conditions and the elderly, the ones most susceptible to a severe outcome – [from getting] severe disease,” Dr. Fauci added. Prevention of severe outcomes in a high percentage of individuals “will alleviate so much of the stress, human suffering, and death.”

Dr. Fauci acknowledged that many people will naturally focus on the distinction between 72% efficacy and 94%-95% efficacy. “This could be a messaging challenge [but] you have to make sure people understand the implications.”

It is more complex, he added, than just asking people: “If you go to the door on the left, you get 94% or 95%. If you go to the door to the right, you get 72%. What door do you want to go to?”

Instead, the messaging should be that “this and the other vaccines we have are actually preventing severe disease to a very substantial degree.”
 

Company defends numbers

Janssen defended their efficacy findings, pointing out that it is not a fair comparison.

“The vaccine programs that went a couple of months ago, they ran their studies during different times, when the pandemic was less complex. There were not these variants, and there was not the same level of incidence, which puts pressure on vaccine efficacy,” said Mathai Mammen, MD, PhD, global head of research and development for Janssen.

“So the numbers cannot really be compared, and that does pose a messaging challenge,” he said. “But the reality is, if one was to run the same studies [for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines] today you would likely see different results.”

Asked if the efficacy figures could affect vaccine hesitancy, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, MD, PhD, said at the announcement that most reluctance among people to get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 stems from concerns about safety. “The safety record is extremely good for this vaccine, as it is for the others that have received emergency use authorization.”

Janssen/J&J plans to submit for emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration next week, at which point the company plans to release more information on side effects, deaths, and patient subpopulation efficacy, and more from the ENSEMBLE trial.

Janssen is aiming to provide 1 billion doses by the end of this year.

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

The United States is facing a “Category 5” storm as coronavirus variants begin to spread across the country, one of the nation’s top infectious disease experts said Sunday.

“We are going to see something like we have not seen yet in this country,” Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said on NBC’s Meet the Press.

The United States has reported 467 cases of the coronavirus variant first identified in the United Kingdom, across 32 states, according to the CDC variant tracker. The United States has also reported three cases of the variant first identified in South Africa in South Carolina and Maryland. One case of the variant first identified in Brazil has been found in Minnesota.

Although overall COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations have declined during the past few weeks, another storm is brewing on the horizon with the variants, Dr. Osterholm told host Chuck Todd. The U.K. variant will likely cause a surge in COVID-19 cases during the next 6-14 weeks, he said. “You and I are sitting on this beach where it’s 70 degrees, perfectly blue skies, gentle breeze. But I see that hurricane 5, Category 5 or higher, 450 miles offshore. And telling people to evacuate on that nice blue sky day is going to be hard. But I can also tell you that hurricane is coming.”

Dr. Osterholm urged federal and state officials to vaccinate as many people as possible to reduce the oncoming storm. The United States has distributed 49.9 million doses and administered 31.1 million doses, according to the latest CDC data updated Sunday, including 25.2 million first doses and 5.6 million second doses.

Doling out more doses to older Americans, rather than holding onto the second dose of the two-shot regimen, is an urgent decision, Dr. Osterholm said.

“I think right now, in advance of this surge, we need to get as many one doses in as many people over 65 as we possibly can to reduce serious illnesses and deaths that are going to occur over the weeks ahead,” he said.

The U.K. variant will likely become the dominant coronavirus strain in the United States in coming weeks, Dr. Osterholm said, adding that COVID-19 vaccines should be able to protect against it. In the meantime, however, he’s worried that the variant will cause more infections and deaths until more people get vaccinated.

“What we have to do now is also anticipate this and understand that we’re going to have change quickly,” he said. “As fast as we’re opening restaurants, we’re likely going to be closing them in the near term.”

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

School antibullying programs may have small effect sizes but a valuable population impact, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

A meta-analysis of 69 randomized trials with more than 111,600 participants found that school antibullying programs had a statistically significant effect on reducing bullying and improving mental health.

The investigators estimated population effect numbers for the interventions, such as the number of students needed to participate in an antibullying program to prevent one case of bullying.

Assuming a bullying prevalence of 15%, “an average antibullying intervention needs to include 207 people to prevent 1 case of bullying perpetration or 140 people to prevent 1 case of bullying exposure,” reported David Fraguas, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health at Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, and colleagues. To improve mental health, the average antibullying program needs to include 107 people, the results indicate.

Few trials assessed the same antibullying program, so the researchers examined antibullying programs as a whole. Still, “not all antibullying programs are efficacious,” and “effectiveness may vary in different settings,” they noted.
 

Public health implications

Schools frequently implement programs to address bullying, which research suggests is a prevalent, modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders and therefore a “major public health concern,” the authors said. Studies have suggested that antibullying programs may be effective, though the evidence has been unclear.

“I see teens with mental health issues frequently in my practice, and often during their assessment, these patients and parents disclose a history of bullying at school or online,” said Kelly A. Curran, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. “The impact of bullying on these teens is obvious – from the mental health issues to school absenteeism and dropouts to long-term health consequences. Often, parents ask for guidance on how to ‘make it stop’ or for help working with the teen’s school. It’s hard in these cases as a clinician to know what to recommend – while it’s clear that the bullying is contributing to the teen’s health issues, giving evidenced-based guidance on bullying has been difficult.”

Relative to control groups

To assess the population impact of antibullying interventions, Dr. Fraguas and collaborators conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They identified 69 trials that included 56,511 participants in intervention groups and 55,148 in control groups. Five of the trials tested interventions targeting cyberbullying.

Participants ranged in age from 4 to 17 years, and the weighted average age was 11 years. The durations of the interventions ranged from 1 week to more than 2 years, with an average duration of 29.4 weeks.

“Antibullying interventions showed statistically significant effectiveness compared with control groups on all assessed bullying-related outcomes after the intervention,” the researchers reported. “The effect sizes were mostly statistically significant and small ... with high statistical heterogeneity and risk of publication bias. Antibullying interventions also showed statistically significant effectiveness in improving mental health problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) at study endpoint, with small effect size.”

Consistent with prior research, results varied by region. For example, interventions in Europe, where 31 of the trials were conducted, significantly decreased bullying exposure and attitudes that encourage bullying, whereas interventions in North America, where 19 of the trials were conducted, did not. In addition, European trials found greater effect sizes for the outcome measure of increasing attitudes that discourage bullying, compared with North American trials. The regional differences could reflect different programs or study designs, or differences in “social, educational, or cultural context,” the authors said.
 

‘Substantial’ impact

Together, the findings suggest that “universal antibullying interventions have a substantial population impact,” Dr. Fraguas and coauthors wrote. “To put these results into context, the [population impact number] is 35,450 for taking aspirin to avoid 1 death during the 6 months after a first nonhemorrhagic stroke, and the [population impact number] is 324 for human papillomavirus vaccination in girls to prevent cervical cancer.”

Furthermore, the interventions appear to be safe, they said. None of the trials in the meta-analysis reported an increase in bullying perpetration or bullying exposure at the end of the study or during follow-up, and mental health improved in all trials that assessed that outcome.
 

Pediatricians may be seen as resource

“From our survey work among parents all across Chicago, we know that almost one-half of all parents with children in school are concerned that their children get bullied,” said Matthew M. Davis, MD chair of the department of pediatrics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and professor of pediatrics, medicine, medical social sciences, and preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Among those parents, about one-half sought help from a teacher and about one-third asked a school administrator or school social worker for help. That means that schools are, by far, the go-to source for help when parents are worried about bullying.”

The survey of 1,642 parents in Chicago also found that 20% of parents with concerns sought help from mental health care providers, and 16% sought help from their pediatricians.

“Pediatricians can provide psychosocial support for their patients who are being bullied,” Dr. Davis said. “They can also talk with patients and their parents/guardians about how to team up with school personnel to address the bullying in the school environment.”

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund from the European Commission. It also was supported by Madrid Regional Government, European Union programs, Fundación Familia Alonso, Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, and Fundación Mutua Madrileña.

Dr. Fraguas disclosed consulting for or receiving fees from Angelini, Eisai, IE4Lab, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grant support from Fundación Alicia Koplowitz and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, as well as government and foundation grants. Dr. Curran is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. Dr. Davis had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

School antibullying programs may have small effect sizes but a valuable population impact, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

A meta-analysis of 69 randomized trials with more than 111,600 participants found that school antibullying programs had a statistically significant effect on reducing bullying and improving mental health.

The investigators estimated population effect numbers for the interventions, such as the number of students needed to participate in an antibullying program to prevent one case of bullying.

Assuming a bullying prevalence of 15%, “an average antibullying intervention needs to include 207 people to prevent 1 case of bullying perpetration or 140 people to prevent 1 case of bullying exposure,” reported David Fraguas, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health at Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, and colleagues. To improve mental health, the average antibullying program needs to include 107 people, the results indicate.

Few trials assessed the same antibullying program, so the researchers examined antibullying programs as a whole. Still, “not all antibullying programs are efficacious,” and “effectiveness may vary in different settings,” they noted.
 

Public health implications

Schools frequently implement programs to address bullying, which research suggests is a prevalent, modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders and therefore a “major public health concern,” the authors said. Studies have suggested that antibullying programs may be effective, though the evidence has been unclear.

“I see teens with mental health issues frequently in my practice, and often during their assessment, these patients and parents disclose a history of bullying at school or online,” said Kelly A. Curran, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. “The impact of bullying on these teens is obvious – from the mental health issues to school absenteeism and dropouts to long-term health consequences. Often, parents ask for guidance on how to ‘make it stop’ or for help working with the teen’s school. It’s hard in these cases as a clinician to know what to recommend – while it’s clear that the bullying is contributing to the teen’s health issues, giving evidenced-based guidance on bullying has been difficult.”

Relative to control groups

To assess the population impact of antibullying interventions, Dr. Fraguas and collaborators conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They identified 69 trials that included 56,511 participants in intervention groups and 55,148 in control groups. Five of the trials tested interventions targeting cyberbullying.

Participants ranged in age from 4 to 17 years, and the weighted average age was 11 years. The durations of the interventions ranged from 1 week to more than 2 years, with an average duration of 29.4 weeks.

“Antibullying interventions showed statistically significant effectiveness compared with control groups on all assessed bullying-related outcomes after the intervention,” the researchers reported. “The effect sizes were mostly statistically significant and small ... with high statistical heterogeneity and risk of publication bias. Antibullying interventions also showed statistically significant effectiveness in improving mental health problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) at study endpoint, with small effect size.”

Consistent with prior research, results varied by region. For example, interventions in Europe, where 31 of the trials were conducted, significantly decreased bullying exposure and attitudes that encourage bullying, whereas interventions in North America, where 19 of the trials were conducted, did not. In addition, European trials found greater effect sizes for the outcome measure of increasing attitudes that discourage bullying, compared with North American trials. The regional differences could reflect different programs or study designs, or differences in “social, educational, or cultural context,” the authors said.
 

‘Substantial’ impact

Together, the findings suggest that “universal antibullying interventions have a substantial population impact,” Dr. Fraguas and coauthors wrote. “To put these results into context, the [population impact number] is 35,450 for taking aspirin to avoid 1 death during the 6 months after a first nonhemorrhagic stroke, and the [population impact number] is 324 for human papillomavirus vaccination in girls to prevent cervical cancer.”

Furthermore, the interventions appear to be safe, they said. None of the trials in the meta-analysis reported an increase in bullying perpetration or bullying exposure at the end of the study or during follow-up, and mental health improved in all trials that assessed that outcome.
 

Pediatricians may be seen as resource

“From our survey work among parents all across Chicago, we know that almost one-half of all parents with children in school are concerned that their children get bullied,” said Matthew M. Davis, MD chair of the department of pediatrics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and professor of pediatrics, medicine, medical social sciences, and preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Among those parents, about one-half sought help from a teacher and about one-third asked a school administrator or school social worker for help. That means that schools are, by far, the go-to source for help when parents are worried about bullying.”

The survey of 1,642 parents in Chicago also found that 20% of parents with concerns sought help from mental health care providers, and 16% sought help from their pediatricians.

“Pediatricians can provide psychosocial support for their patients who are being bullied,” Dr. Davis said. “They can also talk with patients and their parents/guardians about how to team up with school personnel to address the bullying in the school environment.”

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund from the European Commission. It also was supported by Madrid Regional Government, European Union programs, Fundación Familia Alonso, Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, and Fundación Mutua Madrileña.

Dr. Fraguas disclosed consulting for or receiving fees from Angelini, Eisai, IE4Lab, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grant support from Fundación Alicia Koplowitz and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, as well as government and foundation grants. Dr. Curran is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. Dr. Davis had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

School antibullying programs may have small effect sizes but a valuable population impact, according to research published in JAMA Pediatrics.

A meta-analysis of 69 randomized trials with more than 111,600 participants found that school antibullying programs had a statistically significant effect on reducing bullying and improving mental health.

The investigators estimated population effect numbers for the interventions, such as the number of students needed to participate in an antibullying program to prevent one case of bullying.

Assuming a bullying prevalence of 15%, “an average antibullying intervention needs to include 207 people to prevent 1 case of bullying perpetration or 140 people to prevent 1 case of bullying exposure,” reported David Fraguas, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry and Mental Health at Hospital Clínico San Carlos in Madrid, and colleagues. To improve mental health, the average antibullying program needs to include 107 people, the results indicate.

Few trials assessed the same antibullying program, so the researchers examined antibullying programs as a whole. Still, “not all antibullying programs are efficacious,” and “effectiveness may vary in different settings,” they noted.
 

Public health implications

Schools frequently implement programs to address bullying, which research suggests is a prevalent, modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders and therefore a “major public health concern,” the authors said. Studies have suggested that antibullying programs may be effective, though the evidence has been unclear.

“I see teens with mental health issues frequently in my practice, and often during their assessment, these patients and parents disclose a history of bullying at school or online,” said Kelly A. Curran, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City. “The impact of bullying on these teens is obvious – from the mental health issues to school absenteeism and dropouts to long-term health consequences. Often, parents ask for guidance on how to ‘make it stop’ or for help working with the teen’s school. It’s hard in these cases as a clinician to know what to recommend – while it’s clear that the bullying is contributing to the teen’s health issues, giving evidenced-based guidance on bullying has been difficult.”

Relative to control groups

To assess the population impact of antibullying interventions, Dr. Fraguas and collaborators conducted random-effects meta-analyses. They identified 69 trials that included 56,511 participants in intervention groups and 55,148 in control groups. Five of the trials tested interventions targeting cyberbullying.

Participants ranged in age from 4 to 17 years, and the weighted average age was 11 years. The durations of the interventions ranged from 1 week to more than 2 years, with an average duration of 29.4 weeks.

“Antibullying interventions showed statistically significant effectiveness compared with control groups on all assessed bullying-related outcomes after the intervention,” the researchers reported. “The effect sizes were mostly statistically significant and small ... with high statistical heterogeneity and risk of publication bias. Antibullying interventions also showed statistically significant effectiveness in improving mental health problems (e.g., anxiety and depression) at study endpoint, with small effect size.”

Consistent with prior research, results varied by region. For example, interventions in Europe, where 31 of the trials were conducted, significantly decreased bullying exposure and attitudes that encourage bullying, whereas interventions in North America, where 19 of the trials were conducted, did not. In addition, European trials found greater effect sizes for the outcome measure of increasing attitudes that discourage bullying, compared with North American trials. The regional differences could reflect different programs or study designs, or differences in “social, educational, or cultural context,” the authors said.
 

‘Substantial’ impact

Together, the findings suggest that “universal antibullying interventions have a substantial population impact,” Dr. Fraguas and coauthors wrote. “To put these results into context, the [population impact number] is 35,450 for taking aspirin to avoid 1 death during the 6 months after a first nonhemorrhagic stroke, and the [population impact number] is 324 for human papillomavirus vaccination in girls to prevent cervical cancer.”

Furthermore, the interventions appear to be safe, they said. None of the trials in the meta-analysis reported an increase in bullying perpetration or bullying exposure at the end of the study or during follow-up, and mental health improved in all trials that assessed that outcome.
 

Pediatricians may be seen as resource

“From our survey work among parents all across Chicago, we know that almost one-half of all parents with children in school are concerned that their children get bullied,” said Matthew M. Davis, MD chair of the department of pediatrics at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago and professor of pediatrics, medicine, medical social sciences, and preventive medicine at Northwestern University in Chicago. “Among those parents, about one-half sought help from a teacher and about one-third asked a school administrator or school social worker for help. That means that schools are, by far, the go-to source for help when parents are worried about bullying.”

The survey of 1,642 parents in Chicago also found that 20% of parents with concerns sought help from mental health care providers, and 16% sought help from their pediatricians.

“Pediatricians can provide psychosocial support for their patients who are being bullied,” Dr. Davis said. “They can also talk with patients and their parents/guardians about how to team up with school personnel to address the bullying in the school environment.”

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund from the European Commission. It also was supported by Madrid Regional Government, European Union programs, Fundación Familia Alonso, Fundación Alicia Koplowitz, and Fundación Mutua Madrileña.

Dr. Fraguas disclosed consulting for or receiving fees from Angelini, Eisai, IE4Lab, Janssen, Lundbeck, and Otsuka and grant support from Fundación Alicia Koplowitz and Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Coauthors disclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, as well as government and foundation grants. Dr. Curran is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. Dr. Davis had no relevant disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

More people with fever and body aches are turning to NSAIDs to ease symptoms, but the drugs have come under new scrutiny as investigators work to determine whether they are a safe way to relieve the pain of COVID-19 vaccination or symptoms of the disease.

Early on in the pandemic, French health officials warned that NSAIDs, such as ibuprofen, could worsen coronavirus disease, and they recommended switching to acetaminophen instead.

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom followed with a similar recommendation for acetaminophen.

But the European Medicines Agency took a different approach, reporting “no scientific evidence” that NSAIDs could worsen COVID-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also opted not to take a stance.

The debate prompted discussion on social media, with various reactions from around the world. It also inspired Craig Wilen, MD, PhD, from Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and associates to examine the effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 infection and immune response. Their findings were published online Jan.20 in the Journal of Virology.

“It really bothered me that non–evidence-based decisions were driving the conversation,” Dr. Wilen said. “Millions of people are taking NSAIDs every day and clinical decisions about their care shouldn’t be made on a hypothesis.”

One theory is that NSAIDs alter susceptibility to infection by modifying ACE2. The drugs might also change the cell entry receptor for SARS-CoV-2, alter virus replication, or even modify the immune response.

British researchers, also questioning the safety of NSAIDs in patients with COVID-19, delved into National Health Service records to study two large groups of patients, some of whom were taking the pain relievers.

“We were watching the controversy and the lack of evidence and wanted to contribute,” lead investigator Angel Wong, PhD, from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said in an interview.

And with nearly 11 million NSAID prescriptions dispensed in primary care in England alone in the past 12 months, the inconsistency was concerning.

The team compared COVID-19–related deaths in two groups: one group of more than 700,000 people taking NSAIDs, including patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and another of almost 3.5 million people not on the medication.

NSAIDs work by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-1 and COX-2 enzymes in the body, which are crucial for the generation of prostaglandins. These lipid molecules play a role in inflammation and are blocked by NSAIDs.

The investigators found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19-related deaths; their results were published online Jan. 21 in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The results, they pointed out, are in line with a Danish study that also showed no evidence of a higher risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes with NSAID use.

“It’s reassuring,” Dr. Wong said, “that patients can safely continue treatment.”
 

More new evidence

Dr. Wilen’s team found that SARS-CoV-2 infection stimulated COX-2 expression in human and mice cells. However, suppression of COX-2 by two commonly used NSAIDs, ibuprofen and meloxicam, had no effect on ACE2 expression, viral entry, or viral replication.

In their mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the investigators saw that NSAIDs impaired the production of proinflammatory cytokines and neutralizing antibodies. The findings suggest that NSAIDs influence COVID-19 outcomes by dampening the inflammatory response and production of protective antibodies, rather than modifying susceptibility to infection or viral replication.

Understanding the effect of NSAIDs on cytokine production is critical, Dr. Wilen pointed out, because they might be protective early in COVID-19 but pathologic at later stages.

Timing is crucial in the case of other immunomodulatory drugs. For example, dexamethasone lowers mortality in COVID-19 patients on respiratory support but is potentially harmful for those with milder disease.

There still is a lot to learn, Dr. Wilen acknowledged. “We may be seeing something similar going on with NSAIDs, where the timing of treatment is important.”

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 cross the placenta during pregnancy and are detectable in most newborns born to mothers who had COVID-19 during pregnancy, according to findings from a study presented Jan. 28 at the meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“I think the most striking finding is that we noticed a high degree of neutralizing response to natural infection even among asymptomatic infection, but of course a higher degree was seen in those with symptomatic infection,” Naima Joseph, MD, MPH, of Emory University, Atlanta, said in an interview.

“Our data demonstrate maternal capacity to mount an appropriate and robust immune response,” and maternal protective immunity lasted at least 28 days after infection, Dr. Joseph said. “Also, we noted higher neonatal cord blood titers in moms with higher titers, which suggests a relationship, but we need to better understand how transplacental transfer occurs as well as establish neonatal correlates of protection in order to see if and how maternal immunity may also benefit neonates.”

The researchers analyzed the amount of IgG and IgM antibodies in maternal and cord blood samples prospectively collected at delivery from women who tested positive for COVID-19 at any time while pregnant. They used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to assess for antibodies for the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

The 32 pairs of mothers and infants in the study were predominantly non-Hispanic Black (72%) and Hispanic (25%), and 84% used Medicaid as their payer. Most of the mothers (72%) had at least one comorbidity, most commonly obesity, hypertension, and asthma or pulmonary disease. Just over half the women (53%) were symptomatic while they were infected, and 88% were ill with COVID-19 during the third trimester. The average time from infection to delivery was 28 days.

All the mothers had IgG antibodies, 94% had IgM antibodies, and 94% had neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Among the cord blood samples, 91% had IgG antibodies, 9% had IgM antibodies, and 25% had neutralizing antibodies.

“It’s reassuring that, so far, the physiological response is exactly what we expected it to be,” Judette Louis, MD, MPH, an associate professor of ob.gyn. and the ob.gyn. department chair at the University of South Florida, Tampa, said in an interview. “It’s what we would expect, but it’s always helpful to have more data to support that. Otherwise, you’re extrapolating from what you know from other conditions,” said Dr. Louis, who moderated the oral abstracts session.

Symptomatic infection was associated with significantly higher IgG titers than asymptomatic infection (P = .03), but no correlation was seen for IgM or neutralizing antibodies. In addition, although mothers who delivered more than 28 days after their infection had higher IgG titers (P = .05), no differences existed in IgM or neutralizing response.

Infants’ cord blood titers were significantly lower than their corresponding maternal samples, independently of symptoms or latency from infection to delivery (P < .001), Dr. Joseph reported.

“Transplacental efficiency in other pathogens has been shown to be correlated with neonatal immunity when the ratio of cord to maternal blood is greater than 1,” Dr. Joseph said in her presentation. Their data showed “suboptimal efficiency” at a ratio of 0.81.

The study’s small sample size and lack of a control group were weaknesses, but a major strength was having a population at disproportionately higher risk for infection and severe morbidity than the general population.
 

Implications for maternal COVID-19 vaccination

Although the data are not yet available, Dr. Joseph said they have expanded their protocol to include vaccinated pregnant women.

“The key to developing an effective vaccine [for pregnant people] is in really characterizing adaptive immunity in pregnancy,” Dr. Joseph told SMFM attendees. “I think that these findings inform further vaccine development in demonstrating that maternal immunity is robust.”

The World Health Organization recently recommended withholding COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant people, but the SMFM and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists subsequently issued a joint statement reaffirming that the COVID-19 vaccines authorized by the FDA “should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”

“One of the questions people ask is whether in pregnancy you’re going to mount a good response to the vaccine the way you would outside of pregnancy,” Dr. Louis said. “If we can demonstrate that you do, that may provide the information that some mothers need to make their decisions.” Data such as those from Dr. Joseph’s study can also inform recommendations on timing of maternal vaccination.

“For instance, Dr. Joseph demonstrated that, 28 days out from the infection, you had more antibodies, so there may be a scenario where we say this vaccine may be more beneficial in the middle of the pregnancy for the purpose of forming those antibodies,” Dr. Louis said.
 

Consensus emerging from maternal antibodies data

The findings from Dr. Joseph’s study mirror those reported in a study published online Jan. 29 in JAMA Pediatrics. That study, led by Dustin D. Flannery, DO, MSCE, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, also examined maternal and neonatal levels of IgG and IgM antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. They also found a positive correlation between cord blood and maternal IgG concentrations (P < .001), but notably, the ratio of cord to maternal blood titers was greater than 1, unlike in Dr. Joseph’s study.

For their study, Dr. Flannery and colleagues obtained maternal and cord blood sera at the time of delivery from 1471 pairs of mothers and infants, independently of COVID status during pregnancy. The average maternal age was 32 years, and just over a quarter of the population (26%) were Black, non-Hispanic women. About half (51%) were White, 12% were Hispanic, and 7% were Asian.

About 6% of the women had either IgG or IgM antibodies at delivery, and 87% of infants born to those mothers had measurable IgG in their cord blood. No infants had IgM antibodies. As with the study presented at SMFM, the mothers’ infections included asymptomatic, mild, moderate, and severe cases, and the degree of severity of cases had no apparent effect on infant antibody concentrations. Most of the women who tested positive for COVID-19 (60%) were asymptomatic.

Among the 11 mothers who had antibodies but whose infants’ cord blood did not, 5 had only IgM antibodies, and 6 had significantly lower IgG concentrations than those seen in the other mothers.

In a commentary about the JAMA Pediatrics study, Flor Munoz, MD, of the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, suggested that the findings are grounds for optimism about a maternal vaccination strategy to protect infants from COVID-19.

“However, the timing of maternal vaccination to protect the infant, as opposed to the mother alone, would necessitate an adequate interval from vaccination to delivery (of at least 4 weeks), while vaccination early in gestation and even late in the third trimester could still be protective for the mother,” Dr. Munoz wrote.

Given the interval between two-dose vaccination regimens and the fact that transplacental transfer begins at about the 17th week of gestation, “maternal vaccination starting in the early second trimester of gestation might be optimal to achieve the highest levels of antibodies in the newborn,” Dr. Munoz wrote. But questions remain, such as how effective the neonatal antibodies would be in protecting against COVID-19 and how long they last after birth.

No external funding was used in Dr. Joseph’s study. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Louis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The JAMA Pediatrics study was funded by the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. One coauthor received consultancy fees from Sanofi Pasteur, Lumen, Novavax, and Merck unrelated to the study. Dr. Munoz served on the data and safety monitoring boards of Moderna, Pfizer, Virometix, and Meissa Vaccines and has received grants from Novavax Research and Gilead Research.

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

New data on COVID-19 vaccines should serve as a “wake-up call” about the need to stop the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus among people and thus deprive it of opportunities to evolve its defenses, the top federal expert on infectious diseases said.

“The virus will continue to mutate and will mutate for its own selective advantage,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, at a Friday news conference organized by the White House.

The continued transmission of SARS-CoV-2 “gives the virus the chance to adapt to the forces, in this case the immune response, that’s trying to get rid of it,” Dr. Fauci said. “That’s where you get mutations.”

Federal health officials are working to boost the U.S. supply of COVID-19 vaccines, even as signals emerge about the extent that the virus is already evolving.

Data released this week about the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Novavax COVID-19 vaccines in late-stage development provides further evidence that they may not protect as well against emerging variants, Dr. Fauci said.

“Mutations that lead to different lineage do have clinical consequences,” he said, while also emphasizing that the emerging vaccines appear to confer broad protection. Dr. Fauci earlier in the day addressed the “messaging challenge” for clinicians and researchers in discussing the results of the J&J vaccine trial, which appear to fall short of those reported for the two vaccines already approved and in use in the United States. He noted the benefits of possibly soon having more authorized vaccines to combat COVID-19. But continued community spread of the infection will foster conditions that can undermine the vaccines’ effectiveness.

“Even though the long-range effect in the sense of severe disease is still handled reasonably well by the vaccines, this is a wake-up call to all of us,” Dr. Fauci said.

Pharmaceutical scientists and executives and government health officials will need to work together to continue to develop vaccines that can outwit the emerging variants, he said.

On Jan. 29, J&J reported that its highly anticipated single-dose vaccine had shown its worst results in South Africa where many cases of COVID-19 were caused by infection with a SARS-CoV-2 variant from the B.1.351 lineage. The overall efficacy was 66% globally, 72% in the United States, and 57% in South Africa against moderate to severe SARS-CoV-2, J&J said.

Novavax on Jan. 28 reported an efficacy rate for its COVID-19 vaccine of 49.4% from a clinical trial conducted in South Africa, compared with an 89.3% rate from a U.K. study. There already have been attempts to estimate how well the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines can handle new variants of the virus. They both have been granted emergency-use authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

‘Genomic surveillance’

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday reported the first U.S.-documented cases of the B.1.351 variant of SARS-CoV-2 in South Carolina. On Jan. 26, the first confirmed U.S. case of a highly transmissible Brazilian coronavirus variant was detected in Minnesota, state health officials said.

The CDC’s stepped-up “genomic surveillance” will help keep clinicians and researchers aware of how SARS-CoV-2 is changing, Dr. Fauci said.

Speaking at the same White House news conference, CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD, MPH, said the two South Carolina cases of the B.1.351 variant were reported in different parts of the state and not believed to be epidemiologically linked. The people involved “did not have any travel history,” she added.

The SARS-CoV-2 mutations were expected to emerge at some point, as with any virus, but their appearance underscores the need for people to remain vigilant about precautions that can stop its spread, Dr. Walensky said.

She and Dr. Fauci both stressed the need for continued use of masks and social distancing and urged people to get COVID-19 vaccines as they become available. Continued community spread of the virus allows this global health threat to keep replicating, and thus increases its chances to thwart medical interventions, Dr. Fauci said.

“The virus has a playing field, as it were, to mutate,” Dr. Fauci said. “If you stop that and stop the replication, the viruses cannot mutate if they don’t replicate.”

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

An international team of researchers studying COVID-19 has made a startling and pivotal discovery: The virus appears to cause the body to make weapons to attack its own tissues.

The finding could unlock a number of COVID-19’s clinical mysteries. They include the puzzling collection of symptoms that can come with the infection; the persistence of symptoms in some people for months after they clear the virus, a phenomenon dubbed long COVID-19; and why some children and adults have a serious inflammatory syndrome, called multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or MIS in adults (MIS-A), after their infections.

“It suggests that the virus might be directly causing autoimmunity, which would be fascinating,” says lead study author Paul Utz, MD, who studies immunology and autoimmunity at Stanford (Calif.) University.

The study also deepens the question of whether other respiratory viruses might also break the body’s tolerance to itself, setting people up for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus later in life.

Dr. Utz said he and his team are next going to study flu patients to see if that virus might also cause this phenomenon.

“My prediction is that it isn’t going to be specific just to SARS-CoV-2. I’m willing to bet that we will find this with other respiratory viruses,” he said.

The study comes on the heels of a handful of smaller, detailed investigations that have come to similar conclusions.

The study included data from more than 300 patients from four hospitals: two in California, one in Pennsylvania, and another in Germany.

Researchers used blood tests to study their immune responses as their infections progressed. Researchers looked for autoantibodies – weapons of the immune system that go rogue and launch an attack against the body’s own tissues. They compared these autoantibodies with those found in people who were not infected with the virus that causes COVID.

As previous studies have found, autoantibodies were more common after COVID – 50% of people hospitalized for their infections had autoantibodies, compared with less than 15% of those who were healthy and uninfected.

Some people with autoantibodies had little change in them as their infections progressed. That suggests the autoantibodies were there to begin with, possibly allowing the infection to burn out of control in the body.

“Their body is set up to get bad COVID, and it’s probably caused by the autoantibodies,” Dr. Utz said.

But in others, about 20% of people who had them, the autoantibodies became more common as the infection progressed, suggesting they were directly related to the viral infection, instead of being a preexisting condition.

Some of these were antibodies that attack key components of the immune system’s weapons against the virus, like interferon. Interferons are proteins that help infected cells call for reinforcements and can also interfere with a virus’s ability to copy itself. Taking them out is a powerful evasive tactic, and previous studies have shown that people who are born with genes that cause them to have lower interferon function, or who make autoantibodies against these proteins, appear to be at higher risk for life-threatening COVID infections.

“It seems to give the virus a powerful advantage,” said study author, John Wherry, PhD, who directs the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “Now your immune system, instead of having a tiny little hill to climb, is staring at Mount Everest. That really is devious.”

In addition to those that sabotage the immune system, some people in the study had autoantibodies against muscles and connective tissues that are seen in some rare disorders.

Dr. Utz said they started the study after seeing COVID patients with strange collections of symptoms that looked more like autoimmune diseases than viral infections – skin rashes, joint pain, fatigue, aching muscles, brain swelling, dry eyes, blood that clots easily, and inflamed blood vessels.

“One thing that’s very important to note is that we don’t know if these patients are going to go on to develop autoimmune disease,” Dr. Utz said. “I think we’ll be able to answer that question in the next 6-12 months as we follow the long haulers and study their samples.”

Dr. Utz said it will be important to study autoantibodies in long haulers to see if they can identify exactly which ones seem to be at work in the condition. If you can catch them early, it might be possible to treat those at risk for enduring symptoms with drugs that suppress the immune system.

What this means, he said, is that COVID will be with us for a long, long time.

“We have to realize that there’s going to be long-term damage from this virus for the survivors. Not just the long haulers, but all the people who have lung damage and heart damage and everything else. We’re going to be studying this virus and it’s badness for decades,” Dr. Utz said.

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

Maternal autoimmune diseases significantly increased the risk of ADHD in children, based on data from a large cohort study of more than 800,000 mothers and children and a subsequent meta-analysis.

“There is growing evidence that immune-related cells and proteins play a role in brain development and function and that maternal immune activation, including infection, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation during pregnancy, increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children,” wrote Timothy C. Nielsen, MPH, of the University of Sydney, and colleagues.

Previous research has examined a link between maternal autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders in children, but associations with ADHD have not been well studied, they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 831,718 mothers and their 831,718 singleton infants in Australia. A total of 12,787 infants were born to mothers with an autoimmune diagnosis; 12,610 of them were matched to 50,440 control infants. ADHD was determined based on prescription for a stimulant treatment or a hospital diagnosis; children with a first ADHD event younger than 3 years were excluded.

In the total cohort of 63,050 infants, the presence of any maternal autoimmune disease was associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.30) as was the presence of several specific conditions: type 1 diabetes (HR, 2.23), psoriasis (HR, 1.66), and rheumatic fever or rheumatic carditis (HR, 1.75).

In addition, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the current study and four additional studies that yielded similar results. In the meta-analysis, the risk of ADHD was significantly associated with any maternal autoimmune disease in two studies (HR, 1.20); with maternal type 1 diabetes in four studies (HR, 1.53); with maternal hyperthyroidism in three studies (HR 1.15); and with maternal psoriasis in two studies (HR, 1.31).

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) had the highest HR and was the most often studied condition. However, “the observed association may also be related to nonimmune aspects of T1D, such as glycemic control, as nonautoimmune diabetes has been associated with ADHD among children,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of outpatient and primary care records to identify maternal autoimmune disease, and lack of data on any medication used to managed diseases during pregnancy, as well as a lack of data on children with ADHD who might not have been treated with medication, the researchers noted. In addition, “given differences in study design and definitions, the pooled HRs presented in the meta-analysis need to be treated cautiously.”

However, the results were strengthened by the hybrid study design and large study population, and were generally consistent with previous research supporting an effect of maternal immune function on fetal neurodevelopment, they noted.

“Our study provides justification for future studies that examine the effect of maternal autoimmune diseases, including biomarkers, condition severity, and management in pregnancy and in the periconception period, on neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” they concluded.

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

The current study, with its hybrid design, adds support to the evidence of an association between any maternal autoimmune disease and ADHD in children, as well as an association between the specific conditions of type 1 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and psoriasis in mothers and ADHD in children, Søren Dalsgaard, MD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Importantly, Nielsen et al. emphasized in their article that, for the many different autoimmune diseases, different underlying mechanisms for the associations with disorders of the central nervous system were likely. They mentioned that, for T1D, low glycemic control may play a role, as type 2 diabetes has been associated with ADHD,” said Dr. Dalsgaard.

“Overall, these mechanisms are thought to include shared genetic and environmental risk factors or direct effects of maternal autoantibodies or cytokines crossing the placenta and altering the fetal immune response, which in turns leads to changes in the central nervous system,” Dr. Dalsgaard explained. However, the current study and previous studies have not identified the mechanisms to explain the association between ADHD in children and maternal autoimmune disease.

“To understand more about these associations, future studies should include researchers and data from different scientific disciplines, such as epidemiology, animal modeling, genetics, and neuroimmunology,” he concluded.
 

Association is not causality

Overall, the study findings add to the evidence of a correlation between autoimmune diseases and neurologic disease, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. “Anything that might contribute to behavioral problems is worth investigating.” However, it is important to remember that association is not causation.

“There is some literature and evidence that autoimmune disease is associated with mental health issues, but the mechanisms of action are unknown,” said Dr. Lessin. ADHD is highly heritable, so the association may be caused by a similar genetic predisposition, or it may be something related to autoimmunity that is impacting the fetus by passing through the placenta.

The current study’s strengths include the large size and hybrid design, but limitations such as the identification of ADHD based on medication prescriptions may have led to underreporting, and identifying maternal autoimmune disease via inpatient hospital diagnosis could have selected for more severe disease, he said.

From a clinical standpoint, the study suggests a correlation that should be noted in a family history and potentially used to inform a diagnosis, especially in cases of type 1 diabetes where the association was strongest, Dr. Lessin said. The findings also support the value of further research to look for mechanisms that might explain whether the association between autoimmune disease and ADHD is autoimmune system causality or shared genetic susceptibility.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Blood Authority Australia and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr. Dalsgaard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin disclosed serving as editor of the ADHD toolkit for the American Academy of Pediatrics and coauthor of the current ADHD clinical guidelines. He also serves in advisory capacity to Cognoa, a company involved in diagnosis of autism, and Corium/KemPharm, companies involved in the development of ADHD treatments.

Maternal autoimmune diseases significantly increased the risk of ADHD in children, based on data from a large cohort study of more than 800,000 mothers and children and a subsequent meta-analysis.

“There is growing evidence that immune-related cells and proteins play a role in brain development and function and that maternal immune activation, including infection, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation during pregnancy, increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children,” wrote Timothy C. Nielsen, MPH, of the University of Sydney, and colleagues.

Previous research has examined a link between maternal autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders in children, but associations with ADHD have not been well studied, they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 831,718 mothers and their 831,718 singleton infants in Australia. A total of 12,787 infants were born to mothers with an autoimmune diagnosis; 12,610 of them were matched to 50,440 control infants. ADHD was determined based on prescription for a stimulant treatment or a hospital diagnosis; children with a first ADHD event younger than 3 years were excluded.

In the total cohort of 63,050 infants, the presence of any maternal autoimmune disease was associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.30) as was the presence of several specific conditions: type 1 diabetes (HR, 2.23), psoriasis (HR, 1.66), and rheumatic fever or rheumatic carditis (HR, 1.75).

In addition, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the current study and four additional studies that yielded similar results. In the meta-analysis, the risk of ADHD was significantly associated with any maternal autoimmune disease in two studies (HR, 1.20); with maternal type 1 diabetes in four studies (HR, 1.53); with maternal hyperthyroidism in three studies (HR 1.15); and with maternal psoriasis in two studies (HR, 1.31).

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) had the highest HR and was the most often studied condition. However, “the observed association may also be related to nonimmune aspects of T1D, such as glycemic control, as nonautoimmune diabetes has been associated with ADHD among children,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of outpatient and primary care records to identify maternal autoimmune disease, and lack of data on any medication used to managed diseases during pregnancy, as well as a lack of data on children with ADHD who might not have been treated with medication, the researchers noted. In addition, “given differences in study design and definitions, the pooled HRs presented in the meta-analysis need to be treated cautiously.”

However, the results were strengthened by the hybrid study design and large study population, and were generally consistent with previous research supporting an effect of maternal immune function on fetal neurodevelopment, they noted.

“Our study provides justification for future studies that examine the effect of maternal autoimmune diseases, including biomarkers, condition severity, and management in pregnancy and in the periconception period, on neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” they concluded.

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

The current study, with its hybrid design, adds support to the evidence of an association between any maternal autoimmune disease and ADHD in children, as well as an association between the specific conditions of type 1 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and psoriasis in mothers and ADHD in children, Søren Dalsgaard, MD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Importantly, Nielsen et al. emphasized in their article that, for the many different autoimmune diseases, different underlying mechanisms for the associations with disorders of the central nervous system were likely. They mentioned that, for T1D, low glycemic control may play a role, as type 2 diabetes has been associated with ADHD,” said Dr. Dalsgaard.

“Overall, these mechanisms are thought to include shared genetic and environmental risk factors or direct effects of maternal autoantibodies or cytokines crossing the placenta and altering the fetal immune response, which in turns leads to changes in the central nervous system,” Dr. Dalsgaard explained. However, the current study and previous studies have not identified the mechanisms to explain the association between ADHD in children and maternal autoimmune disease.

“To understand more about these associations, future studies should include researchers and data from different scientific disciplines, such as epidemiology, animal modeling, genetics, and neuroimmunology,” he concluded.
 

Association is not causality

Overall, the study findings add to the evidence of a correlation between autoimmune diseases and neurologic disease, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. “Anything that might contribute to behavioral problems is worth investigating.” However, it is important to remember that association is not causation.

“There is some literature and evidence that autoimmune disease is associated with mental health issues, but the mechanisms of action are unknown,” said Dr. Lessin. ADHD is highly heritable, so the association may be caused by a similar genetic predisposition, or it may be something related to autoimmunity that is impacting the fetus by passing through the placenta.

The current study’s strengths include the large size and hybrid design, but limitations such as the identification of ADHD based on medication prescriptions may have led to underreporting, and identifying maternal autoimmune disease via inpatient hospital diagnosis could have selected for more severe disease, he said.

From a clinical standpoint, the study suggests a correlation that should be noted in a family history and potentially used to inform a diagnosis, especially in cases of type 1 diabetes where the association was strongest, Dr. Lessin said. The findings also support the value of further research to look for mechanisms that might explain whether the association between autoimmune disease and ADHD is autoimmune system causality or shared genetic susceptibility.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Blood Authority Australia and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr. Dalsgaard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin disclosed serving as editor of the ADHD toolkit for the American Academy of Pediatrics and coauthor of the current ADHD clinical guidelines. He also serves in advisory capacity to Cognoa, a company involved in diagnosis of autism, and Corium/KemPharm, companies involved in the development of ADHD treatments.

Maternal autoimmune diseases significantly increased the risk of ADHD in children, based on data from a large cohort study of more than 800,000 mothers and children and a subsequent meta-analysis.

“There is growing evidence that immune-related cells and proteins play a role in brain development and function and that maternal immune activation, including infection, autoimmune disease, and chronic inflammation during pregnancy, increases the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders among children,” wrote Timothy C. Nielsen, MPH, of the University of Sydney, and colleagues.

Previous research has examined a link between maternal autoimmune disorders and autism spectrum disorders in children, but associations with ADHD have not been well studied, they said.

In a population-based cohort study published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers identified 831,718 mothers and their 831,718 singleton infants in Australia. A total of 12,787 infants were born to mothers with an autoimmune diagnosis; 12,610 of them were matched to 50,440 control infants. ADHD was determined based on prescription for a stimulant treatment or a hospital diagnosis; children with a first ADHD event younger than 3 years were excluded.

In the total cohort of 63,050 infants, the presence of any maternal autoimmune disease was associated with a significantly increased risk of ADHD (hazard ratio, 1.30) as was the presence of several specific conditions: type 1 diabetes (HR, 2.23), psoriasis (HR, 1.66), and rheumatic fever or rheumatic carditis (HR, 1.75).

In addition, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of the current study and four additional studies that yielded similar results. In the meta-analysis, the risk of ADHD was significantly associated with any maternal autoimmune disease in two studies (HR, 1.20); with maternal type 1 diabetes in four studies (HR, 1.53); with maternal hyperthyroidism in three studies (HR 1.15); and with maternal psoriasis in two studies (HR, 1.31).

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) had the highest HR and was the most often studied condition. However, “the observed association may also be related to nonimmune aspects of T1D, such as glycemic control, as nonautoimmune diabetes has been associated with ADHD among children,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the lack of outpatient and primary care records to identify maternal autoimmune disease, and lack of data on any medication used to managed diseases during pregnancy, as well as a lack of data on children with ADHD who might not have been treated with medication, the researchers noted. In addition, “given differences in study design and definitions, the pooled HRs presented in the meta-analysis need to be treated cautiously.”

However, the results were strengthened by the hybrid study design and large study population, and were generally consistent with previous research supporting an effect of maternal immune function on fetal neurodevelopment, they noted.

“Our study provides justification for future studies that examine the effect of maternal autoimmune diseases, including biomarkers, condition severity, and management in pregnancy and in the periconception period, on neurodevelopmental disorders in children,” they concluded.

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

The current study, with its hybrid design, adds support to the evidence of an association between any maternal autoimmune disease and ADHD in children, as well as an association between the specific conditions of type 1 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, and psoriasis in mothers and ADHD in children, Søren Dalsgaard, MD, of Aarhus (Denmark) University, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Importantly, Nielsen et al. emphasized in their article that, for the many different autoimmune diseases, different underlying mechanisms for the associations with disorders of the central nervous system were likely. They mentioned that, for T1D, low glycemic control may play a role, as type 2 diabetes has been associated with ADHD,” said Dr. Dalsgaard.

“Overall, these mechanisms are thought to include shared genetic and environmental risk factors or direct effects of maternal autoantibodies or cytokines crossing the placenta and altering the fetal immune response, which in turns leads to changes in the central nervous system,” Dr. Dalsgaard explained. However, the current study and previous studies have not identified the mechanisms to explain the association between ADHD in children and maternal autoimmune disease.

“To understand more about these associations, future studies should include researchers and data from different scientific disciplines, such as epidemiology, animal modeling, genetics, and neuroimmunology,” he concluded.
 

Association is not causality

Overall, the study findings add to the evidence of a correlation between autoimmune diseases and neurologic disease, said Herschel Lessin, MD, of Children’s Medical Group, Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in an interview. “Anything that might contribute to behavioral problems is worth investigating.” However, it is important to remember that association is not causation.

“There is some literature and evidence that autoimmune disease is associated with mental health issues, but the mechanisms of action are unknown,” said Dr. Lessin. ADHD is highly heritable, so the association may be caused by a similar genetic predisposition, or it may be something related to autoimmunity that is impacting the fetus by passing through the placenta.

The current study’s strengths include the large size and hybrid design, but limitations such as the identification of ADHD based on medication prescriptions may have led to underreporting, and identifying maternal autoimmune disease via inpatient hospital diagnosis could have selected for more severe disease, he said.

From a clinical standpoint, the study suggests a correlation that should be noted in a family history and potentially used to inform a diagnosis, especially in cases of type 1 diabetes where the association was strongest, Dr. Lessin said. The findings also support the value of further research to look for mechanisms that might explain whether the association between autoimmune disease and ADHD is autoimmune system causality or shared genetic susceptibility.

The study received no outside funding. One coauthor disclosed receiving grants from the National Blood Authority Australia and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Dr. Dalsgaard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Lessin disclosed serving as editor of the ADHD toolkit for the American Academy of Pediatrics and coauthor of the current ADHD clinical guidelines. He also serves in advisory capacity to Cognoa, a company involved in diagnosis of autism, and Corium/KemPharm, companies involved in the development of ADHD treatments.

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Experts discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious COVID-19 outcomes in a newly published article that summarizes in-depth discussions on the topic from a conference held online last year.

Lead author and Diabetes Technology Society founder and director David C. Klonoff, MD, said in an interview: “To my knowledge this is the largest article or learning that has been written anywhere ever about the co-occurrence of COVID-19 and diabetes and how COVID-19 affects diabetes ... There are a lot of different dimensions.” 

The 37-page report covers all sessions from the Virtual International COVID-19 and Diabetes Summit, held Aug. 26-27, 2020, which had 800 attendees from six continents, on topics including pathophysiology and COVID-19 risk factors, the impact of social determinants of health on diabetes and COVID-19, and psychological aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic for people with diabetes.

The freely available report was published online Jan. 21 in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology by Jennifer Y. Zhang of the Diabetes Technology Society, Burlingame, Calif., and colleagues.

Other topics include medications and vaccines, outpatient diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic and the growth of telehealth, inpatient management of diabetes in patients with or without COVID-19, ethical considerations, children, pregnancy, economics of care for COVID-19, government policy, regulation of tests and treatments, patient surveillance/privacy, and research gaps and opportunities.

“A comprehensive report like this is so important because it covers such a wide range of topics that are all relevant when it comes to protecting patients with diabetes during a pandemic. Our report aims to bring together all these different aspects of policy during the pandemic, patient physiology, and patient psychology, so I hope it will be widely read and widely appreciated,” Ms. Zhang said in an interview.

Two important clinical trends arising as a result of the pandemic – the advent of telehealth in diabetes management and the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in hospital – are expected to continue even after COVID-19 abates, said Dr. Klonoff, medical director of the Diabetes Research Institute at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, Calif.


 

Telehealth in diabetes here to stay, in U.S. at least  

Dr. Klonoff noted that with diabetes telehealth, or “telediabetes” as it’s been dubbed, by using downloaded device data patients don’t have to travel, pay for parking, or take as much time off work. “There are advantages ... patients really like it,” he said.

And for health care providers, an advantage of remote visits is that the clinician can look at the patient while reviewing the patient’s data. “With telehealth for diabetes, the patient’s face and the software data are right next to each other on the same screen. Even as I’m typing I’m looking at the patient ... I consider that a huge advantage,” Dr. Klonoff said.

Rule changes early in the pandemic made the shift to telehealth in the United States possible, he said.

“Fortunately, Medicare and other payers are covering telehealth. It used to be there was no coverage, so that was a damper. Now that it’s covered I don’t think that’s going to go back. Everybody likes it,” he said. 
 

CGM in hospitals helps detect hypoglycemia on wards

Regarding the increase of inpatient CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) prompted by the need to minimize patient exposure of nursing staff during the pandemic and the relaxing of Food and Drug Administration rules about its use, Dr. Klonoff said this phenomenon has led to two other positive developments.

“For FDA, it’s actually an opportunity to see some data collected. To do a clinical trial [prior to] March 2020 you had to go through a lot of processes to do a study. Once it becomes part of clinical care, then you can collect a lot of data,” he noted.   

Moreover, Dr. Klonoff said there’s an important new area where hospital use of CGM is emerging: detection of hypoglycemia on wards.

“When a patient is in the ICU, if they become hypoglycemic or hyperglycemic it will likely be detected. But on the wards, they simply don’t get the same attention. Just about every doctor has had a case where somebody drifted into hypoglycemia that wasn’t recognized and maybe even died,” he explained.

If, however, “patients treated with insulin could all have CGMs that would be so useful. It would send out an alarm. A lot of times people don’t eat when you think they will. Suddenly the insulin dose is inappropriate and the nurse didn’t realize. Or, if IV nutrition stops and the insulin is given [it can be harmful].”

Another example, he said, is a common scenario when insulin is used in patients who are treated with steroids. “They need insulin, but then the steroid is decreased and the insulin dose isn’t decreased fast enough. All those situations can be helped with CGM.”

Overall, he concluded, COVID-19 has provided many lessons, which are “expanding our horizons.”

Ms. Zhang has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klonoff has reported being a consultant for Dexcom, EOFlow, Fractyl, Lifecare, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, Samsung, and Thirdwayv.

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

Are pediatric atopic dermatitis and atopic dermatitis the same disease?

“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.

Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.

Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”

AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).

Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).

Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”

AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).

According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”

Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Are pediatric atopic dermatitis and atopic dermatitis the same disease?

“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.

Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.

Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”

AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).

Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).

Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”

AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).

According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”

Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Are pediatric atopic dermatitis and atopic dermatitis the same disease?

“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.

Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.

Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”

AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).

Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).

Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”

AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).

According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”

Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

dbrunk@mdedge.com