MDedge Pediatrics

The restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic altered patterns of substance use by early adolescents to less alcohol use and greater use and misuse of nicotine and prescription drugs, based on data from more than 7,000 youth aged 10-14 years.

Substance use in early adolescence is a function of many environmental factors including substance availability, parent and peer use, and family function, as well as macroeconomic factors, William E. Pelham III, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, it is critical to evaluate how substance use during early adolescence has been impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a source of large and sustained disruptions to adolescents’ daily lives in terms of education, contact with family/friends, and health behaviors.”

In a prospective, community-based cohort study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers conducted a three-wave assessment of substance use between May 2020 and August 2020, and reviewed prepandemic assessments from 2018 to 2019. The participants included 7,842 adolescents with an average age of 12 years who were initially enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study at age 9-10 years. At the start of the study, 48% of the participants were female, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, and 2% were Asian. Participants completed three online surveys between May 2020 and August 2020.

Each survey included the number of days in the past 30 days in which the adolescents drank alcohol; smoked cigarettes; used electronic nicotine delivery systems; smoked a cigar, hookah, or pipe; used smokeless tobacco products; used a cannabis product; abused prescription drugs; used inhalants; or used any other drugs. The response scale was 0 days to 10-plus days.

The overall prevalence of substance use among young adolescents was similar between prepandemic and pandemic periods; however fewer respondents reported using alcohol, but more reported using nicotine or misusing prescription medications.

Across all three survey periods, 7.4% of youth reported any substance use, 3.4% reported ever using alcohol, and 3.2% reported ever using nicotine. Of those who reported substance use, 79% reported 1-2 days of use in the past month, and 87% reported using a single substance.

In comparing prepandemic and pandemic substance use, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past 30 days decreased significantly, from 2.1% to 0.8%. However, use of nicotine increased significantly from 0% to 1.3%, and misuse of prescription drugs increased significantly from 0% to 0.6%. “Changes in the rates of use of any substance, cannabis, or inhalants were not statistically significant,” the researchers wrote.

Sex and ethnicity were not associated with substance use during the pandemic, but rates of substance use were higher among youth whose parents were unmarried or had lower levels of education, and among those with preexisting externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Youth who reported higher levels of uncertainty related to COVID-19 were significantly more likely to report substance use; additionally, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were positively association with any substance use during the pandemic survey periods. Youth whose parents experienced hardship or whose parents used alcohol or drugs also were more likely to report substance use.

“Stability in the overall rate of substance use in this cohort is reassuring given that the pandemic has brought increases in teens’ unoccupied time, stress, and loneliness, reduced access to support services, and disruptions to routines and family/parenting practices, all of which might be expected to have increased youth substance use,” the researchers noted. The findings do not explain the decreased alcohol use, but the researchers cited possible reasons for reduced alcohol use including lack of contact with friends and social activities, and greater supervision by parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the comparison of prepandemic and pandemic substance use in younger adolescents, which may not reflect changes in substance use in older adolescents. The study also could not establish causality, and did not account for the intensity of substance use, such as number of drinks, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal design and large, diverse study population, and the use of prepandemic assessments that allowed evaluation of changes over time.

Overall, the results highlight the importance of preexisting and acute risk protective factors in mitigating substance use in young adolescents, and suggest the potential of economic support for families and emotional support for youth as ways to reduce risk, the researchers concluded.
 

Predicting use and identifying risk factors

“It was important to conduct research at this time so we know how trends have changed during the pandemic,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. The research helps clinicians “so we can better predict which substances our patients may be using, especially those with preexisting psychological conditions and those at socioeconomic disadvantage.

“I was surprised by the increased prescription drug use, but it make sense, as adolescents are at home more and may be illicitly using their parents medications,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “I think as they go back to school, trends will shift back to where they were as they will be spending more time with friends.” The take-home message to clinicians is the increased use of nicotine and prescription drugs during the pandemic, and future research should focus on substance use trends in 14- to 20-year-olds.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the current study also received support from the National Science Foundation and Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

The restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic altered patterns of substance use by early adolescents to less alcohol use and greater use and misuse of nicotine and prescription drugs, based on data from more than 7,000 youth aged 10-14 years.

Substance use in early adolescence is a function of many environmental factors including substance availability, parent and peer use, and family function, as well as macroeconomic factors, William E. Pelham III, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, it is critical to evaluate how substance use during early adolescence has been impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a source of large and sustained disruptions to adolescents’ daily lives in terms of education, contact with family/friends, and health behaviors.”

In a prospective, community-based cohort study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers conducted a three-wave assessment of substance use between May 2020 and August 2020, and reviewed prepandemic assessments from 2018 to 2019. The participants included 7,842 adolescents with an average age of 12 years who were initially enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study at age 9-10 years. At the start of the study, 48% of the participants were female, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, and 2% were Asian. Participants completed three online surveys between May 2020 and August 2020.

Each survey included the number of days in the past 30 days in which the adolescents drank alcohol; smoked cigarettes; used electronic nicotine delivery systems; smoked a cigar, hookah, or pipe; used smokeless tobacco products; used a cannabis product; abused prescription drugs; used inhalants; or used any other drugs. The response scale was 0 days to 10-plus days.

The overall prevalence of substance use among young adolescents was similar between prepandemic and pandemic periods; however fewer respondents reported using alcohol, but more reported using nicotine or misusing prescription medications.

Across all three survey periods, 7.4% of youth reported any substance use, 3.4% reported ever using alcohol, and 3.2% reported ever using nicotine. Of those who reported substance use, 79% reported 1-2 days of use in the past month, and 87% reported using a single substance.

In comparing prepandemic and pandemic substance use, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past 30 days decreased significantly, from 2.1% to 0.8%. However, use of nicotine increased significantly from 0% to 1.3%, and misuse of prescription drugs increased significantly from 0% to 0.6%. “Changes in the rates of use of any substance, cannabis, or inhalants were not statistically significant,” the researchers wrote.

Sex and ethnicity were not associated with substance use during the pandemic, but rates of substance use were higher among youth whose parents were unmarried or had lower levels of education, and among those with preexisting externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Youth who reported higher levels of uncertainty related to COVID-19 were significantly more likely to report substance use; additionally, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were positively association with any substance use during the pandemic survey periods. Youth whose parents experienced hardship or whose parents used alcohol or drugs also were more likely to report substance use.

“Stability in the overall rate of substance use in this cohort is reassuring given that the pandemic has brought increases in teens’ unoccupied time, stress, and loneliness, reduced access to support services, and disruptions to routines and family/parenting practices, all of which might be expected to have increased youth substance use,” the researchers noted. The findings do not explain the decreased alcohol use, but the researchers cited possible reasons for reduced alcohol use including lack of contact with friends and social activities, and greater supervision by parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the comparison of prepandemic and pandemic substance use in younger adolescents, which may not reflect changes in substance use in older adolescents. The study also could not establish causality, and did not account for the intensity of substance use, such as number of drinks, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal design and large, diverse study population, and the use of prepandemic assessments that allowed evaluation of changes over time.

Overall, the results highlight the importance of preexisting and acute risk protective factors in mitigating substance use in young adolescents, and suggest the potential of economic support for families and emotional support for youth as ways to reduce risk, the researchers concluded.
 

Predicting use and identifying risk factors

“It was important to conduct research at this time so we know how trends have changed during the pandemic,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. The research helps clinicians “so we can better predict which substances our patients may be using, especially those with preexisting psychological conditions and those at socioeconomic disadvantage.

“I was surprised by the increased prescription drug use, but it make sense, as adolescents are at home more and may be illicitly using their parents medications,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “I think as they go back to school, trends will shift back to where they were as they will be spending more time with friends.” The take-home message to clinicians is the increased use of nicotine and prescription drugs during the pandemic, and future research should focus on substance use trends in 14- to 20-year-olds.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the current study also received support from the National Science Foundation and Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

The restrictions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic altered patterns of substance use by early adolescents to less alcohol use and greater use and misuse of nicotine and prescription drugs, based on data from more than 7,000 youth aged 10-14 years.

Substance use in early adolescence is a function of many environmental factors including substance availability, parent and peer use, and family function, as well as macroeconomic factors, William E. Pelham III, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues wrote. “Thus, it is critical to evaluate how substance use during early adolescence has been impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a source of large and sustained disruptions to adolescents’ daily lives in terms of education, contact with family/friends, and health behaviors.”

In a prospective, community-based cohort study, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, the researchers conducted a three-wave assessment of substance use between May 2020 and August 2020, and reviewed prepandemic assessments from 2018 to 2019. The participants included 7,842 adolescents with an average age of 12 years who were initially enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study at age 9-10 years. At the start of the study, 48% of the participants were female, 20% were Hispanic, 15% were Black, and 2% were Asian. Participants completed three online surveys between May 2020 and August 2020.

Each survey included the number of days in the past 30 days in which the adolescents drank alcohol; smoked cigarettes; used electronic nicotine delivery systems; smoked a cigar, hookah, or pipe; used smokeless tobacco products; used a cannabis product; abused prescription drugs; used inhalants; or used any other drugs. The response scale was 0 days to 10-plus days.

The overall prevalence of substance use among young adolescents was similar between prepandemic and pandemic periods; however fewer respondents reported using alcohol, but more reported using nicotine or misusing prescription medications.

Across all three survey periods, 7.4% of youth reported any substance use, 3.4% reported ever using alcohol, and 3.2% reported ever using nicotine. Of those who reported substance use, 79% reported 1-2 days of use in the past month, and 87% reported using a single substance.

In comparing prepandemic and pandemic substance use, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past 30 days decreased significantly, from 2.1% to 0.8%. However, use of nicotine increased significantly from 0% to 1.3%, and misuse of prescription drugs increased significantly from 0% to 0.6%. “Changes in the rates of use of any substance, cannabis, or inhalants were not statistically significant,” the researchers wrote.

Sex and ethnicity were not associated with substance use during the pandemic, but rates of substance use were higher among youth whose parents were unmarried or had lower levels of education, and among those with preexisting externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Youth who reported higher levels of uncertainty related to COVID-19 were significantly more likely to report substance use; additionally, stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms were positively association with any substance use during the pandemic survey periods. Youth whose parents experienced hardship or whose parents used alcohol or drugs also were more likely to report substance use.

“Stability in the overall rate of substance use in this cohort is reassuring given that the pandemic has brought increases in teens’ unoccupied time, stress, and loneliness, reduced access to support services, and disruptions to routines and family/parenting practices, all of which might be expected to have increased youth substance use,” the researchers noted. The findings do not explain the decreased alcohol use, but the researchers cited possible reasons for reduced alcohol use including lack of contact with friends and social activities, and greater supervision by parents.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the comparison of prepandemic and pandemic substance use in younger adolescents, which may not reflect changes in substance use in older adolescents. The study also could not establish causality, and did not account for the intensity of substance use, such as number of drinks, the researchers wrote. However, the results were strengthened by the longitudinal design and large, diverse study population, and the use of prepandemic assessments that allowed evaluation of changes over time.

Overall, the results highlight the importance of preexisting and acute risk protective factors in mitigating substance use in young adolescents, and suggest the potential of economic support for families and emotional support for youth as ways to reduce risk, the researchers concluded.
 

Predicting use and identifying risk factors

“It was important to conduct research at this time so we know how trends have changed during the pandemic,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in private practice in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview. The research helps clinicians “so we can better predict which substances our patients may be using, especially those with preexisting psychological conditions and those at socioeconomic disadvantage.

“I was surprised by the increased prescription drug use, but it make sense, as adolescents are at home more and may be illicitly using their parents medications,” Dr. Kinsella noted. “I think as they go back to school, trends will shift back to where they were as they will be spending more time with friends.” The take-home message to clinicians is the increased use of nicotine and prescription drugs during the pandemic, and future research should focus on substance use trends in 14- to 20-year-olds.

The ABCD study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, and the current study also received support from the National Science Foundation and Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Kinsella had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

An independent expert panel within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has studied the potential benefits and risks of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and voted unanimously to recommend the shots for all Americans ages 16 and older.

All 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted ‘yes’ to recommend the vaccine for Americans ages 16 and up. The vaccine was fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last week.

The inoculation is still available to teens ages 12 to 15 under an emergency use authorization from the FDA.

ACIP now sends its recommendation to the CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, for her sign off.

After reviewing the evidence behind the vaccine, panel member Sarah Long, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, said she couldn’t recall another instance where panelists had so much data on which to base their recommendation.

“This vaccine is worthy of the trust of the American people,” she said.

Doctors across the country use vaccines in line with the recommendations made by the ACIP. Their approval typically means that private and government insurers will cover the cost of the shots. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccines, the government is already picking up the tab.

Few surprises

The panel’s independent review of the vaccine’s effectiveness from nine studies held few surprises. 

They found the Pfizer vaccine prevented a COVID infection with symptoms about 90%–92% of the time, at least for the first 4 months after the second shot. Protection against hospitalization and death was even higher.

The vaccine was about 89% effective at preventing a COVID infection without symptoms, according to a pooled estimate of five studies.

The data included in the review was updated only through March 13 of this year, however, and does not reflect the impact of further waning of immunity or the impact of the Delta variant.

In making their recommendation, the panel got an update on the safety of the vaccines, which have now been used in the United States for about 9 months.

The rate of anaphylaxis has settled at around five cases for every million shots given, according to the ACIP’s review of the evidence. 

Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were more common after getting a Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine than would be expected to happen naturally in the general population, but the risk was still very rare, and elevated primarily for men younger than age 30. 

Out of 17 million second doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines in the United States, there have been 327 confirmed cases of myocarditis reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in people who are younger than age 30. The average hospital stay for a myocarditis cases is 1 to 2 days. 

So far, no one in the United States diagnosed with myocarditis after vaccination has died.

What’s more, the risk of myocarditis after vaccination was dwarfed by the risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection. The risk of myocarditis after a COVID infection was 6 to 34 times higher than the risk after receiving an mRNA vaccine.

About 11% of people who get the vaccine experience a serious reaction to the shot, compared with about 3% in the placebo group. Serious reactions were defined as pain; swelling or redness at the injection site that interferes with activity; needing to visit the hospital or ER for pain; tissue necrosis, or having skin slough off; high fever; vomiting that requires hydration; persistent diarrhea; severe headache;  or muscle pain/severe joint pain.

“Safe and effective”

After hearing a presentation on the state of the pandemic in the US, some panel members were struck and shaken that 38% of Americans who are eligible are still not fully vaccinated.

Pablo Sanchez, MD, a pediatrician at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, said, “We’re doing an abysmal job vaccinating the American people. The message has to go out that the vaccines are safe and effective.”



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

Epithelial and immune cells of the upper airways of children are preactivated and primed to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may contribute to stronger early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection than adults, new research suggests.

The findings may help to explain why children have a lower risk of developing severe COVID-19 illness or becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the first place, the researchers say.

The study was published online Aug. 18 in Nature Biotechnology.
 

Primed for action

Children appear to be better able than adults to control SARS-CoV-2 infection, but, until now, the exact molecular mechanisms have been unclear.

A team of investigators from Germany did an in-depth analysis of nasal swab samples obtained from 24 children and 21 adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, as well as a control group of 18 children and 23 adults who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We wanted to understand why viral defense appears to work so much better in children than in adults,” Irina Lehmann, PhD, head of the molecular epidemiology unit at the Berlin Institute of Health Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, explained in a news release. 

Single-cell sequencing showed that children had higher baseline levels of certain RNA-sensing receptors that are relevant to SARS-CoV-2 detection, such as MDA5 and RIG-I, in the epithelial and immune cells of their noses.

This differential expression led to stronger early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children than in adults.

Children were also more likely than adults to have distinct immune cell subpopulations, including KLRC1+ cytotoxic T cells, involved in fighting infection, and memory CD8+ T cells, associated with the development of long-lasting immunity.
 

‘Clear evidence’

The study provides “clear evidence” that upper-airway immune cells of children are “primed for virus sensing, resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults,” the investigators say.

Primed virus sensing and a preactivated innate immune response in children leads to efficient early production of interferons (IFNs) in the infected airways, likely mediating substantial antiviral effects, they note.

Ultimately, this may lead to lower viral replication and faster clearance in children. In fact, several studies have already shown that children eliminate the virus more quickly than adults, consistent with the concept that they shut down viral replication earlier, the study team says.

Weighing in on the findings for this news organization, John Wherry, PhD, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said this “interesting study highlights potential differences in innate immunity and possibly geographic immunity in the upper respiratory tract in children versus adults.”

“We know there are differences in innate immunity over a lifespan, but exactly how these differences might relate to viral infection remains unclear,” said Dr. Wherry, who was not involved in the study.

“Children, of course, often have more respiratory infections than adults [but] whether this is due to exposure [i.e., daycare, schools, etc.] or susceptibility [lack of accumulated adaptive immunity over a greater number of years of exposure] is unclear,” Dr. Wherry noted.

“These data may help reveal what kinds of innate immune responses in the upper respiratory tract might help restrain SARS-CoV-2 and [perhaps partially] explain why children typically have milder COVID-19 disease,” he added.

The study was supported by the Berlin Institute of Health COVID-19 research program and fightCOVID@DKFZ initiative, European Commission, German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), and German Research Foundation. Dr. Lehmann and Dr. Wherry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Epithelial and immune cells of the upper airways of children are preactivated and primed to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may contribute to stronger early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection than adults, new research suggests.

The findings may help to explain why children have a lower risk of developing severe COVID-19 illness or becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the first place, the researchers say.

The study was published online Aug. 18 in Nature Biotechnology.
 

Primed for action

Children appear to be better able than adults to control SARS-CoV-2 infection, but, until now, the exact molecular mechanisms have been unclear.

A team of investigators from Germany did an in-depth analysis of nasal swab samples obtained from 24 children and 21 adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, as well as a control group of 18 children and 23 adults who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We wanted to understand why viral defense appears to work so much better in children than in adults,” Irina Lehmann, PhD, head of the molecular epidemiology unit at the Berlin Institute of Health Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, explained in a news release. 

Single-cell sequencing showed that children had higher baseline levels of certain RNA-sensing receptors that are relevant to SARS-CoV-2 detection, such as MDA5 and RIG-I, in the epithelial and immune cells of their noses.

This differential expression led to stronger early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children than in adults.

Children were also more likely than adults to have distinct immune cell subpopulations, including KLRC1+ cytotoxic T cells, involved in fighting infection, and memory CD8+ T cells, associated with the development of long-lasting immunity.
 

‘Clear evidence’

The study provides “clear evidence” that upper-airway immune cells of children are “primed for virus sensing, resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults,” the investigators say.

Primed virus sensing and a preactivated innate immune response in children leads to efficient early production of interferons (IFNs) in the infected airways, likely mediating substantial antiviral effects, they note.

Ultimately, this may lead to lower viral replication and faster clearance in children. In fact, several studies have already shown that children eliminate the virus more quickly than adults, consistent with the concept that they shut down viral replication earlier, the study team says.

Weighing in on the findings for this news organization, John Wherry, PhD, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said this “interesting study highlights potential differences in innate immunity and possibly geographic immunity in the upper respiratory tract in children versus adults.”

“We know there are differences in innate immunity over a lifespan, but exactly how these differences might relate to viral infection remains unclear,” said Dr. Wherry, who was not involved in the study.

“Children, of course, often have more respiratory infections than adults [but] whether this is due to exposure [i.e., daycare, schools, etc.] or susceptibility [lack of accumulated adaptive immunity over a greater number of years of exposure] is unclear,” Dr. Wherry noted.

“These data may help reveal what kinds of innate immune responses in the upper respiratory tract might help restrain SARS-CoV-2 and [perhaps partially] explain why children typically have milder COVID-19 disease,” he added.

The study was supported by the Berlin Institute of Health COVID-19 research program and fightCOVID@DKFZ initiative, European Commission, German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), and German Research Foundation. Dr. Lehmann and Dr. Wherry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Epithelial and immune cells of the upper airways of children are preactivated and primed to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection, which may contribute to stronger early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection than adults, new research suggests.

The findings may help to explain why children have a lower risk of developing severe COVID-19 illness or becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the first place, the researchers say.

The study was published online Aug. 18 in Nature Biotechnology.
 

Primed for action

Children appear to be better able than adults to control SARS-CoV-2 infection, but, until now, the exact molecular mechanisms have been unclear.

A team of investigators from Germany did an in-depth analysis of nasal swab samples obtained from 24 children and 21 adults who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, as well as a control group of 18 children and 23 adults who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2.

“We wanted to understand why viral defense appears to work so much better in children than in adults,” Irina Lehmann, PhD, head of the molecular epidemiology unit at the Berlin Institute of Health Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, explained in a news release. 

Single-cell sequencing showed that children had higher baseline levels of certain RNA-sensing receptors that are relevant to SARS-CoV-2 detection, such as MDA5 and RIG-I, in the epithelial and immune cells of their noses.

This differential expression led to stronger early immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection in children than in adults.

Children were also more likely than adults to have distinct immune cell subpopulations, including KLRC1+ cytotoxic T cells, involved in fighting infection, and memory CD8+ T cells, associated with the development of long-lasting immunity.
 

‘Clear evidence’

The study provides “clear evidence” that upper-airway immune cells of children are “primed for virus sensing, resulting in a stronger early innate antiviral response to SARS-CoV-2 infection than in adults,” the investigators say.

Primed virus sensing and a preactivated innate immune response in children leads to efficient early production of interferons (IFNs) in the infected airways, likely mediating substantial antiviral effects, they note.

Ultimately, this may lead to lower viral replication and faster clearance in children. In fact, several studies have already shown that children eliminate the virus more quickly than adults, consistent with the concept that they shut down viral replication earlier, the study team says.

Weighing in on the findings for this news organization, John Wherry, PhD, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said this “interesting study highlights potential differences in innate immunity and possibly geographic immunity in the upper respiratory tract in children versus adults.”

“We know there are differences in innate immunity over a lifespan, but exactly how these differences might relate to viral infection remains unclear,” said Dr. Wherry, who was not involved in the study.

“Children, of course, often have more respiratory infections than adults [but] whether this is due to exposure [i.e., daycare, schools, etc.] or susceptibility [lack of accumulated adaptive immunity over a greater number of years of exposure] is unclear,” Dr. Wherry noted.

“These data may help reveal what kinds of innate immune responses in the upper respiratory tract might help restrain SARS-CoV-2 and [perhaps partially] explain why children typically have milder COVID-19 disease,” he added.

The study was supported by the Berlin Institute of Health COVID-19 research program and fightCOVID@DKFZ initiative, European Commission, German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), and German Research Foundation. Dr. Lehmann and Dr. Wherry have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

As governors and legislatures in states such as Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Arkansas have banned schools and other entities from implementing mask mandates, disability rights advocates have pushed back. In federal civil rights lawsuits, they argue that bans on mask mandates violate antidiscrimination laws protecting people with disabilities.

OsakaWayne Studios/Moment

For unvaccinated and immunosuppressed individuals, masks can provide crucial protection from SARS-CoV-2.

People who are immunocompromised can harness the power of the Americans With Disabilities Act to fight against bans on mask mandates and protect themselves in their workplaces, argues Mical Raz, MD, PhD, a professor at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and a physician at Strong Memorial Hospital, also in Rochester, New York, in an article published in JAMA with coauthor Doron Dorfman, LLB, JSD.

This news organization talked with Dr. Raz about approaching mask requirements as disability accommodation during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following interview was lightly edited for length and clarity.
 

How did you come to think about mask requirements as a form of disability accommodation?

I saw a tweet from a professor at a university who said they couldn’t ask students about their vaccination status or to wear a mask. All agency was removed from the professor to take care of and protect themselves. I thought, well, that can’t be right. And ostensibly, that would be particularly dangerous for somebody with immunosuppression for whom the vaccine is not adequately protective. So, I called my friend, Doron Dorfman, and asked him to help me think through the legal part of this. We fleshed it out and wrote the article that same night.
 

How novel is it to view accommodations for people who are immunosuppressed through the lens of disability accommodation?

I think there has not been enough focus during the pandemic on individuals with disabilities or on how disability law can be mobilized during this pandemic to help supplement the public health law. This framework should be used a lot more because it’s good for everybody, not just for individuals with disabilities.

For example, take what’s called the “curb effect.” If you expand sidewalks, yes, it helps individuals who use a wheelchair. But it also helps me as a mom with a stroller. It helps somebody with a shopping cart, or a kid with a bike. If we adopt policies that are inclusive to those who are disadvantaged, it’s good for everybody. We should always strive to be an inclusive society, not just because it’s the right thing to do but because it really makes our society better.
 

How can mask requirements be used as a form of disability accommodation, as you argue in the JAMA article?

The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for disability. In this case, the disability is your immunosuppressive status. We have an abundance of evidence showing individuals who are immunocompromised and vaccinated are still inadequately protected from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So, there is absolute data to show individuals with immunosuppression have a disability that requires accommodation.

The ADA has a mandate requiring employers to adjust or modify policies in order to accommodate a disability. There are certain situations in which you cannot or do not need to accommodate a disability, when it would fundamentally alter the kind of employment you offer or if it’s an undue burden or hardship. But given that we’ve been wearing masks and working remotely for a year now, arguing that somehow these accommodations are no longer possible seems disingenuous.

In that way, allowing a person who’s immunocompromised to require those around them to mask is a form of modified protective policies. And in this case, those policies line up with a public health good, masking in the face of the highly contagious Delta variant ravaging our country right now.
 

In your view, can this argument be used in the mask debates happening right now across the country?

This argument can and should be useful for a couple of different lawsuits that are now underway in different states. I hope our article will provide further support for those suits. And I hope in school board hearings, when parents and teachers are talking about their concerns, this could be one way to argue for why we should allow mask mandates in classes. I’ve received emails from parents who said they’re going to bring this article to their school board hearing.

I also hope this could shift the narrative around the pandemic. Instead of focusing on individual responsibility – I got my vaccine shot so I’m fine – let’s focus on how we create an inclusive environment where we protect everybody, including those who cannot be vaccinated because of age or disability, or those who are vaccinated but inadequately protected because of their underlying conditions.
 

In the JAMA article, you talk about how our pandemic response has focused on individual health and how that individual focus can be ableist. Can you explain that point?

I think this idea that we just make our choices – like whether to get vaccinated or wear a mask, or not – and live with it really perpetuates a highly individualistic and ableist mindset. It doesn’t consider the people I admit to the hospital who are vaccinated but have a heart transplant and didn’t mount the sufficient immune response. Or even the people who chose not to be vaccinated because they were exposed to hours and hours of misinformation on TV.

We like to individualize everything, focusing on personal responsibility and choices, but a pandemic is one of those moments where everybody’s choices affect everybody else. Laying responsibility at the doorstep of each person, rather than thinking about what steps we as a society could be taking, is cheap and politically expedient. There is no public health rationale behind the bans on mask requirements in states like Texas, Iowa, and Florida. These choices are about politics. And the price is always borne by the most disadvantaged among us.

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

After working two busy evening hospital shifts, I was eating breakfast with my children when I started reading about physicians confronted and verbally abused during school board meetings for advocating for face masks in school. The pandemic changed course with the Delta variant increasing hospitalizations, and it seems to me the public response to physicians and health care workers also changed.

During the first wave of the pandemic, public support accompanied health care workers’ sacrifices. Nightly applause rang through New York City, there were donations of food, and murals reflected public backing.

We as a nation rallied. We masked up and locked down. We produced vaccines. COVID cases decreased, and by spring, a hint of normalcy bloomed.

Then the virus changed, and the Delta variant spread. Pandemic fatigue set in. Health care workers asked for help with continued masking and increased vaccinations and instead were met with threats. The summer, already made difficult, makes the prospect of winter even more daunting.
 

This kind of abuse is persistent

Violence against health care workers is not a new dilemma. Stories abound of patients or family members physically attacking, verbally abusing, or harassing health care workers. A 2014 survey reported almost 80% of nurses attacked during their career. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reveals health care workers experience more nonfatal workplace violence, as compared with other professions.

Nurses, who often spend the most face-to-face time with patients, receive a litany of abuse. A 2019 nursing survey reported 59% of respondents experiencing verbal abuse from patients and more than 43% experiencing verbal abuse from patients’ families. Even more concerning is 23% of survey respondents reporting physical abuse, an increase from 20% in 2018.

Physicians, likewise, are not immune from the same maltreatment. A 2014 physician survey reported more than 71% of physicians in the United States have experienced at least one incident of workplace violence in their careers. Of the physician specialties, the highest rates of violence are in the emergency department and against less experienced physicians. This is likely caused by the higher rates of patient frustration in EDs as a result of long wait times, overcrowding, and boarding while awaiting an inpatient room.

These statistics are disheartening. However, what I find most discouraging is the almost submissive acceptance of this abuse in the health care field as almost 73% of health care workers feel that the abuse is part of the job.
 

COVID and the increase in violence against health care workers

The specter of COVID-19 has not only increased the problem of violence toward health care workers but has accelerated it at an alarming rate. As the Delta variant spreads, hospitals’ capacity to handle both COVID and non-COVID issues is further strained. Compounding this stress is the public’s pandemic fatigue and the ongoing battles with masking and vaccinations.

In San Antonio, health care workers faced verbal and physical abuse as they enforced masking and visitation restrictions for COVID patients. Online, health care workers, who advocate for masking or vaccination, are often subject to death threats, threats to family members, and verbal abuse on social media. Veiled threats of “we know who you are” and “we will find you” follow physicians who advocate for masking in schools.

This problem is not isolated to the United States. In Italy, a COVID patient spat at health care workers who asked them to wait, resulting in closure of an entire hospital ward. In the United Kingdom, health care workers were subject to the same abuse as those in San Antonio when trying to enforce masking in the hospital. In India, Pakistan, and Spain, a stigma exists against health care workers for being sources of contagion.

The presence of a growing divide between health care workers and those we serve threatens to undermine not only delivery of care but also our response to the pandemic. This is in addition to the mental health burden and compassion fatigue suffered by many health care workers who find their efforts in doubt. An already strained medical system will find it difficult to withstand the loss of its essential workforce.
 

Standing united against health care worker abuse

Despite the level of discord surrounding COVID-19, it is important that health care workers remain united. An effective response to the increase in violence toward health care workers will greatly depend on how we address the following.

First, we must actively work to combat the spread of misinformation that erodes the public trust in science and medicine. Transparency is paramount. Policy changes and plans for implementation should be open and free of political influence. This remains a challenge due to the CDC’s standing as both a federal and scientific institution. A steadfast and explicit presentation of scientific evidence by the CDC is a vital first step in repairing this trust.

In addition, we must become our own advocates. The passage of HR 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support is an indication that the time is ripe for sweeping change. Its supporters include the American Nurses Association, American Psychiatric Nurses Association, National Nurses United, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Active opposition includes the American Hospital Association, which cites prohibitive cost as a source of objection.

HR 1195 now waits in the U.S. Senate for approval. We should alert local, state, and health system leadership to the violence against health care workers. We should demand increased protection for our most vulnerable colleagues in EDs and hospitals. Our advocacy will produce a paradigm shift away from the acceptance of this abuse.

Lastly, we must be mindful of compassion fatigue and health care worker burnout. Cynicism threatens to take away our greatest strengths of empathy and humanity. In our work environment, we must lift each other up and increase our awareness of when our colleagues need help. Self-care and creative outlets are encouraged. Admittedly, I am blogging as a personal safeguard against compassion fatigue and burnout.

The pandemic will have enduring implications both positive and negative. It is my hope that support for health care workers not only endures but is also enhanced long after the pandemic ends.

Giancarlo Toledanes, DO, is an assistant professor of pediatrics and a pediatric hospitalist at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

After working two busy evening hospital shifts, I was eating breakfast with my children when I started reading about physicians confronted and verbally abused during school board meetings for advocating for face masks in school. The pandemic changed course with the Delta variant increasing hospitalizations, and it seems to me the public response to physicians and health care workers also changed.

During the first wave of the pandemic, public support accompanied health care workers’ sacrifices. Nightly applause rang through New York City, there were donations of food, and murals reflected public backing.

We as a nation rallied. We masked up and locked down. We produced vaccines. COVID cases decreased, and by spring, a hint of normalcy bloomed.

Then the virus changed, and the Delta variant spread. Pandemic fatigue set in. Health care workers asked for help with continued masking and increased vaccinations and instead were met with threats. The summer, already made difficult, makes the prospect of winter even more daunting.
 

This kind of abuse is persistent

Violence against health care workers is not a new dilemma. Stories abound of patients or family members physically attacking, verbally abusing, or harassing health care workers. A 2014 survey reported almost 80% of nurses attacked during their career. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reveals health care workers experience more nonfatal workplace violence, as compared with other professions.

Nurses, who often spend the most face-to-face time with patients, receive a litany of abuse. A 2019 nursing survey reported 59% of respondents experiencing verbal abuse from patients and more than 43% experiencing verbal abuse from patients’ families. Even more concerning is 23% of survey respondents reporting physical abuse, an increase from 20% in 2018.

Physicians, likewise, are not immune from the same maltreatment. A 2014 physician survey reported more than 71% of physicians in the United States have experienced at least one incident of workplace violence in their careers. Of the physician specialties, the highest rates of violence are in the emergency department and against less experienced physicians. This is likely caused by the higher rates of patient frustration in EDs as a result of long wait times, overcrowding, and boarding while awaiting an inpatient room.

These statistics are disheartening. However, what I find most discouraging is the almost submissive acceptance of this abuse in the health care field as almost 73% of health care workers feel that the abuse is part of the job.
 

COVID and the increase in violence against health care workers

The specter of COVID-19 has not only increased the problem of violence toward health care workers but has accelerated it at an alarming rate. As the Delta variant spreads, hospitals’ capacity to handle both COVID and non-COVID issues is further strained. Compounding this stress is the public’s pandemic fatigue and the ongoing battles with masking and vaccinations.

In San Antonio, health care workers faced verbal and physical abuse as they enforced masking and visitation restrictions for COVID patients. Online, health care workers, who advocate for masking or vaccination, are often subject to death threats, threats to family members, and verbal abuse on social media. Veiled threats of “we know who you are” and “we will find you” follow physicians who advocate for masking in schools.

This problem is not isolated to the United States. In Italy, a COVID patient spat at health care workers who asked them to wait, resulting in closure of an entire hospital ward. In the United Kingdom, health care workers were subject to the same abuse as those in San Antonio when trying to enforce masking in the hospital. In India, Pakistan, and Spain, a stigma exists against health care workers for being sources of contagion.

The presence of a growing divide between health care workers and those we serve threatens to undermine not only delivery of care but also our response to the pandemic. This is in addition to the mental health burden and compassion fatigue suffered by many health care workers who find their efforts in doubt. An already strained medical system will find it difficult to withstand the loss of its essential workforce.
 

Standing united against health care worker abuse

Despite the level of discord surrounding COVID-19, it is important that health care workers remain united. An effective response to the increase in violence toward health care workers will greatly depend on how we address the following.

First, we must actively work to combat the spread of misinformation that erodes the public trust in science and medicine. Transparency is paramount. Policy changes and plans for implementation should be open and free of political influence. This remains a challenge due to the CDC’s standing as both a federal and scientific institution. A steadfast and explicit presentation of scientific evidence by the CDC is a vital first step in repairing this trust.

In addition, we must become our own advocates. The passage of HR 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support is an indication that the time is ripe for sweeping change. Its supporters include the American Nurses Association, American Psychiatric Nurses Association, National Nurses United, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Active opposition includes the American Hospital Association, which cites prohibitive cost as a source of objection.

HR 1195 now waits in the U.S. Senate for approval. We should alert local, state, and health system leadership to the violence against health care workers. We should demand increased protection for our most vulnerable colleagues in EDs and hospitals. Our advocacy will produce a paradigm shift away from the acceptance of this abuse.

Lastly, we must be mindful of compassion fatigue and health care worker burnout. Cynicism threatens to take away our greatest strengths of empathy and humanity. In our work environment, we must lift each other up and increase our awareness of when our colleagues need help. Self-care and creative outlets are encouraged. Admittedly, I am blogging as a personal safeguard against compassion fatigue and burnout.

The pandemic will have enduring implications both positive and negative. It is my hope that support for health care workers not only endures but is also enhanced long after the pandemic ends.

Giancarlo Toledanes, DO, is an assistant professor of pediatrics and a pediatric hospitalist at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

After working two busy evening hospital shifts, I was eating breakfast with my children when I started reading about physicians confronted and verbally abused during school board meetings for advocating for face masks in school. The pandemic changed course with the Delta variant increasing hospitalizations, and it seems to me the public response to physicians and health care workers also changed.

During the first wave of the pandemic, public support accompanied health care workers’ sacrifices. Nightly applause rang through New York City, there were donations of food, and murals reflected public backing.

We as a nation rallied. We masked up and locked down. We produced vaccines. COVID cases decreased, and by spring, a hint of normalcy bloomed.

Then the virus changed, and the Delta variant spread. Pandemic fatigue set in. Health care workers asked for help with continued masking and increased vaccinations and instead were met with threats. The summer, already made difficult, makes the prospect of winter even more daunting.
 

This kind of abuse is persistent

Violence against health care workers is not a new dilemma. Stories abound of patients or family members physically attacking, verbally abusing, or harassing health care workers. A 2014 survey reported almost 80% of nurses attacked during their career. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics also reveals health care workers experience more nonfatal workplace violence, as compared with other professions.

Nurses, who often spend the most face-to-face time with patients, receive a litany of abuse. A 2019 nursing survey reported 59% of respondents experiencing verbal abuse from patients and more than 43% experiencing verbal abuse from patients’ families. Even more concerning is 23% of survey respondents reporting physical abuse, an increase from 20% in 2018.

Physicians, likewise, are not immune from the same maltreatment. A 2014 physician survey reported more than 71% of physicians in the United States have experienced at least one incident of workplace violence in their careers. Of the physician specialties, the highest rates of violence are in the emergency department and against less experienced physicians. This is likely caused by the higher rates of patient frustration in EDs as a result of long wait times, overcrowding, and boarding while awaiting an inpatient room.

These statistics are disheartening. However, what I find most discouraging is the almost submissive acceptance of this abuse in the health care field as almost 73% of health care workers feel that the abuse is part of the job.
 

COVID and the increase in violence against health care workers

The specter of COVID-19 has not only increased the problem of violence toward health care workers but has accelerated it at an alarming rate. As the Delta variant spreads, hospitals’ capacity to handle both COVID and non-COVID issues is further strained. Compounding this stress is the public’s pandemic fatigue and the ongoing battles with masking and vaccinations.

In San Antonio, health care workers faced verbal and physical abuse as they enforced masking and visitation restrictions for COVID patients. Online, health care workers, who advocate for masking or vaccination, are often subject to death threats, threats to family members, and verbal abuse on social media. Veiled threats of “we know who you are” and “we will find you” follow physicians who advocate for masking in schools.

This problem is not isolated to the United States. In Italy, a COVID patient spat at health care workers who asked them to wait, resulting in closure of an entire hospital ward. In the United Kingdom, health care workers were subject to the same abuse as those in San Antonio when trying to enforce masking in the hospital. In India, Pakistan, and Spain, a stigma exists against health care workers for being sources of contagion.

The presence of a growing divide between health care workers and those we serve threatens to undermine not only delivery of care but also our response to the pandemic. This is in addition to the mental health burden and compassion fatigue suffered by many health care workers who find their efforts in doubt. An already strained medical system will find it difficult to withstand the loss of its essential workforce.
 

Standing united against health care worker abuse

Despite the level of discord surrounding COVID-19, it is important that health care workers remain united. An effective response to the increase in violence toward health care workers will greatly depend on how we address the following.

First, we must actively work to combat the spread of misinformation that erodes the public trust in science and medicine. Transparency is paramount. Policy changes and plans for implementation should be open and free of political influence. This remains a challenge due to the CDC’s standing as both a federal and scientific institution. A steadfast and explicit presentation of scientific evidence by the CDC is a vital first step in repairing this trust.

In addition, we must become our own advocates. The passage of HR 1195, the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, in the House of Representatives with bipartisan support is an indication that the time is ripe for sweeping change. Its supporters include the American Nurses Association, American Psychiatric Nurses Association, National Nurses United, and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Active opposition includes the American Hospital Association, which cites prohibitive cost as a source of objection.

HR 1195 now waits in the U.S. Senate for approval. We should alert local, state, and health system leadership to the violence against health care workers. We should demand increased protection for our most vulnerable colleagues in EDs and hospitals. Our advocacy will produce a paradigm shift away from the acceptance of this abuse.

Lastly, we must be mindful of compassion fatigue and health care worker burnout. Cynicism threatens to take away our greatest strengths of empathy and humanity. In our work environment, we must lift each other up and increase our awareness of when our colleagues need help. Self-care and creative outlets are encouraged. Admittedly, I am blogging as a personal safeguard against compassion fatigue and burnout.

The pandemic will have enduring implications both positive and negative. It is my hope that support for health care workers not only endures but is also enhanced long after the pandemic ends.

Giancarlo Toledanes, DO, is an assistant professor of pediatrics and a pediatric hospitalist at Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, both in Houston. He has no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Urgent recommendations from a European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) task force are aimed at reducing antibiotic overuse with allergic disease.

Top recommendations include limiting antibiotic therapy in pregnancy and early childhood to help reduce the allergy epidemic in children, and restricting antibiotic therapy in exacerbations and chronic treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma and atopic dermatitis.

The review, by lead author Gerdien Tramper-Stranders, MD, PhD, department of pediatrics, Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues, was published online Aug. 13 in the journal Allergy.

Several studies have shown that use of antibiotics in childhood and during pregnancy is associated with disturbing the intestinal and respiratory microbiome, which in turn leads to dysbiosis and an increased risk of acquiring allergic diseases, the authors noted.

In addition, patients with allergic diseases such as asthma have a higher risk of being prescribed antibiotics for infections compared with the general population, despite lack of clear clinical benefit.

“In fact, there are no clear data supporting antibiotic prescriptions for acute exacerbations; and clinical and/or laboratory criteria are lacking,” the authors wrote.

Despite that lack of data, antibiotics are often prescribed for exacerbations along with oral corticosteroids, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said in an interview. Some patients may benefit from antibiotics in a flare-up, she said, but more research is needed to determine which ones.

Dr. Tramper-Stranders said Franciscus has begun a large study that includes patients with asthma exacerbations to find biomarkers that might predict the type or origin of exacerbation to personalize treatment.
 

Recommendations have global relevance

She said although the recommendations are coming from the EAACI group, they apply worldwide.

“Especially in countries outside Northern Europe, antibiotic use is tremendous, leading to high rates of antibiotic resistance; but also increasing the risk for developing allergic diseases when prescribed in infancy,” she said.

She pointed out that in the United States, as many as one in six children receive unnecessary antibiotics for an asthma exacerbation. Overtreatment in adults with flare-ups is also prevalent, at rates from 40%-50%.

Millie Kwan, MD, PhD, an allergy specialist at University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said in an interview that in the U.S. there’s been a culture change in the direction of antibiotic restraint – but there are still problems.

“It’s a lot easier for us to whip out our prescription pads and prescribe antibiotics for an asthma patient who’s having a flare-up or a patient who has atopic dermatitis before addressing the underlying mechanism directly,” Dr. Kwan said. She agreed that antibiotic overuse is prevalent in pregnancies in the U.S., and she said that starts with the high prevalence of cesarean births. Nearly one-third of all births in the U.S. are by C-section, twice the rate recommended by the World Health Organization.

“Just bypassing the birth canal actually changes what kind of microflora the infant is being exposed to,” Dr. Kwan said. “That’s the first huge problem.”

The second problem, she said, is the potential for overuse of antibiotics with the surgical procedure.

The researchers wrote that pre-, pro- or postbiotics might alter the course of allergic disease, but clear evidence is lacking.

Until now, Dr. Tramper-Stranders said, pre- or probiotic treatment in infancy, irrespective of previous antibiotic use, has not proved effective in preventing allergies.

Data describing the effect of pre- or probiotics after an antibiotic course are scarce, are limited to older children and adults, and are focused on short-term effects, such as diarrhea prevention, she explained.

Dr. Kwan says she agrees that current data are not strong enough to recommend one over another.

“We don’t even know what the normal amount of bacteria should be to constitute an environment where the immune system develops ‘normally,’ “ she said.

Antibiotics should be prescribed cautiously and by following current recommendations to use the narrowest spectrum available, the authors wrote. Future research in antibiotic stewardship should incorporate biomarker-guided therapy to determine which patients might benefit most from antibiotic therapy.

“Practicing antibiotic stewardship needs recurrent attention and we hope that with this initiative, we specifically reach allergy doctors who will rethink their next [antibiotic] prescription. Within our EAACI task force, we will next work on a guideline for rational antibiotic use in asthma,” Dr. Tramper-Stranders said.

The review’s authors and Dr. Kwan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

As politicians battle over masks and mandates, heated rhetoric has been used to describe the fourth heartbreaking surge in COVID as a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

While it may serve to further divide red and blue states, I disagree with the assertion that the current surge in cases is driven simply by the unvaccinated. Why? First, the premise would assume complete efficacy with our vaccinated population, which is statistically incorrect (at least 15 million of the U.S. population never completed a second round of injections), which means they were not considered “fully vaccinated.”

Alternately, we need to examine what has occurred in nations with significantly higher vaccination rates than ours (the United Kingdom and Israel) to realize that variants have overrun the dramatic success achieved in those countries as well. Israel, once considered to be the most vaccinated country in the world, is facing a brutal fourth wave of COVID that has sent the country spiraling into another heartbreaking lockdown.

The unvaccinated could hardly be blamed for what is happening in either of these highly vaccinated countries.
 

The concept of blame

So why use blame? It defeats the purpose of encouraging those who are hesitant or possibly misinformed or disenfranchised to move forward. It lacks compassion. It does not encompass the art and science of nursing (for example, the University of Southern Indiana), such as those that hospitals have used to frame optimal nursing care. I abhor the idea of labeling because it denies the prospect of future comprehension.

Labeling reminds me of one of the saddest cases in my career.
 

An unfortunate case

I was the nurse caring for a man from a motor vehicular accident where an entire family was brutally killed. My patient was alleged to be the cause, with a blood alcohol level of 0.40%+ post hydration, intubated and ventilated, with a flailed chest and multiple orthopedic injuries as well as blunt head trauma. He was secured to the bed with handcuffs, although that was unnecessary. Multiple times I was asked how I could possibly care for such an individual, by the police and even a few colleagues. But it was not my place to judge the man.

He was in pain, and he was dying. I comforted him for the 2 weeks it took his battered body to pass into the next realm. No one visited him except the police, eagerly waiting for the man to wake up to explain the tragic events that occurred. It was my job to ease what pain I could and protect him from labels. Did he deserve the labels? Who knew? I did not care. I cared about his writhing and his physical anguish.
 

The comparison

Blame did not help the situation then, nor does it help us move forward now. As nurses, we seek to work within a framework of understanding. As we tire of caring for thousands of COVID patients, we do not stop to ask if they “deserve” care or if they have taken precautions and lived reasonably prior to seeking assistance for disease. We would not be nurses if we did this.

Think about Gov. Greg Abbott, who has asked that Texans not be allowed to mandate masks for children returning to school. He has recently been diagnosed with COVID, despite assuring the public he is fully vaccinated. Politically, his diagnosis could be visualized as a fiasco for a purple state where he has been adamant in denying the efficacy of masks for children.

Yet, his diagnosis should not be fodder for the press. The first concern should be his health and well-being, similar for any man of his age and potential comorbidity.
 

Conclusion

We should be people first, human beings that remain interconnected by our need for care and survival, not conservatives, independents, or liberals, not “vaccinated or unvaccinated,” not seen as “breakthrough” infections, or the immunosuppressed possibly unable to mount a robust response to COVID.

Labels do not define the ability to effectively defeat coronavirus or variants, as highly vaccinated countries have demonstrated in recent months. We are in the midst of a global pandemic, and the battle is raging onward.

In fact, the longer this pandemic continues, the more likely it is we will need to live with this as an endemic disease, so we should stop blaming those who become ill and need support.

It could be any of us.

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

The same genetic variations may boost susceptibility to both severe COVID-19 and cannabis use disorder (CUD), a new study suggests. The research does not confirm a genetic link, but the lead author said the signs of an association are still “troubling.”

“Reducing cannabis use among heavy users may potentially provide protection against severe COVID-19 presentations,” Alexander S. Hatoum, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview. “Outside of individual risk, these data also have important implications for policy regarding vaccination as well as treatment prioritization in an overly taxed medical system.”

The study was published in the journal Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science.

Dr. Hatoum and colleagues launched the study to gain insight into whether CUD might be a risk factor for severe COVID-19 presentations.

As defined by the DSM-5, people with CUD suffer from impairment or distress because of their cannabis use and meet at least 2 of 11 criteria over a 12-month period, such as cravings, cannabis tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms. According to a 2020 study that examined 2008-2016 data, 2.72% of children aged 12-17 showed signs of CUD, as did 1.23% of those aged over 26.

The primary reasons for hospitalization and death related to COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms. “And we have observed that genetic vulnerability to CUD is shared with respiratory disease, even after tobacco use is considered,” Dr. Hatoum said.

He and his colleagues examined data from genomewide association studies and searched for genetic correlations between CUD (14,080 cases, 343,726 controls) and COVID-19 hospitalization (9,373 cases, 1,197,256 controls). “Genetic vulnerability to COVID-19 was correlated with genetic liability to CUD (P = 1.33e^–6),” the researchers wrote. “This association remained when accounting for genetic liability to related risk factors and covariates (P = .012-.049).”

According to Dr. Hatoum, the researchers found inconclusive evidence that CUD might worsen COVID-19 cases. “We applied statistical causal models, which found an effect consistent with causality, but it was nonsignificant,” he said.

Despite the absence of causality, the study findings could prove useful for clinicians and policy makers.

“Those struggling with CUD may be prioritized for vaccination and vaccination boosters to mitigate their higher likelihood of a severe COVID-19 presentation,” Dr. Hatoum said. “When testing positive for COVID-19, they may also be prioritized for earlier treatment.”

The study authors also added that the findings “urge caution” in regard to the wave of U.S. states legalizing cannabis. “Our data suggest that heavy cannabis use, but not lifetime cannabis use, represents a risk factor for severe COVID-19 presentations,” Dr. Hatoum said.

In an interview, Danielle Dick, PhD, who was not involved with the study, said it applies “cutting-edge methods to an important research question” and offers a “hint” of a genetic risk factor that makes some people more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, “the study does not tell us what those underlying genetically influenced processes might be,” added Dr. Dick, professor of psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. “And it’s an important caveat to point out that the results from this study are limited in that they are based on data from people from European descent – so they can’t necessarily be applied to address the harm experienced by so many people of color from the COVID pandemic. That’s an unfortunate limitation.”

As for the idea that the study findings should prompt caution about marijuana legalization, Dr. Dick said it’s true that increased acceptability of drug use “increases the likelihood that individuals who are genetically vulnerable will develop problems. There is robust evidence of this.”

However, Dr. Dick said, “the legalization of marijuana is a complex topic because the health consequences aren’t the only consideration when it comes to legalization. The other side of the coin is the huge harm that has been caused to communities of color through marijuana criminalization. Legalization will hopefully lead to decreased harm on that front. So it’s a double-edged sword.”

Dr. Hatoum, his colleagues, and Dr. Dick reported no relevant disclosures.

The same genetic variations may boost susceptibility to both severe COVID-19 and cannabis use disorder (CUD), a new study suggests. The research does not confirm a genetic link, but the lead author said the signs of an association are still “troubling.”

“Reducing cannabis use among heavy users may potentially provide protection against severe COVID-19 presentations,” Alexander S. Hatoum, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview. “Outside of individual risk, these data also have important implications for policy regarding vaccination as well as treatment prioritization in an overly taxed medical system.”

The study was published in the journal Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science.

Dr. Hatoum and colleagues launched the study to gain insight into whether CUD might be a risk factor for severe COVID-19 presentations.

As defined by the DSM-5, people with CUD suffer from impairment or distress because of their cannabis use and meet at least 2 of 11 criteria over a 12-month period, such as cravings, cannabis tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms. According to a 2020 study that examined 2008-2016 data, 2.72% of children aged 12-17 showed signs of CUD, as did 1.23% of those aged over 26.

The primary reasons for hospitalization and death related to COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms. “And we have observed that genetic vulnerability to CUD is shared with respiratory disease, even after tobacco use is considered,” Dr. Hatoum said.

He and his colleagues examined data from genomewide association studies and searched for genetic correlations between CUD (14,080 cases, 343,726 controls) and COVID-19 hospitalization (9,373 cases, 1,197,256 controls). “Genetic vulnerability to COVID-19 was correlated with genetic liability to CUD (P = 1.33e^–6),” the researchers wrote. “This association remained when accounting for genetic liability to related risk factors and covariates (P = .012-.049).”

According to Dr. Hatoum, the researchers found inconclusive evidence that CUD might worsen COVID-19 cases. “We applied statistical causal models, which found an effect consistent with causality, but it was nonsignificant,” he said.

Despite the absence of causality, the study findings could prove useful for clinicians and policy makers.

“Those struggling with CUD may be prioritized for vaccination and vaccination boosters to mitigate their higher likelihood of a severe COVID-19 presentation,” Dr. Hatoum said. “When testing positive for COVID-19, they may also be prioritized for earlier treatment.”

The study authors also added that the findings “urge caution” in regard to the wave of U.S. states legalizing cannabis. “Our data suggest that heavy cannabis use, but not lifetime cannabis use, represents a risk factor for severe COVID-19 presentations,” Dr. Hatoum said.

In an interview, Danielle Dick, PhD, who was not involved with the study, said it applies “cutting-edge methods to an important research question” and offers a “hint” of a genetic risk factor that makes some people more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, “the study does not tell us what those underlying genetically influenced processes might be,” added Dr. Dick, professor of psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. “And it’s an important caveat to point out that the results from this study are limited in that they are based on data from people from European descent – so they can’t necessarily be applied to address the harm experienced by so many people of color from the COVID pandemic. That’s an unfortunate limitation.”

As for the idea that the study findings should prompt caution about marijuana legalization, Dr. Dick said it’s true that increased acceptability of drug use “increases the likelihood that individuals who are genetically vulnerable will develop problems. There is robust evidence of this.”

However, Dr. Dick said, “the legalization of marijuana is a complex topic because the health consequences aren’t the only consideration when it comes to legalization. The other side of the coin is the huge harm that has been caused to communities of color through marijuana criminalization. Legalization will hopefully lead to decreased harm on that front. So it’s a double-edged sword.”

Dr. Hatoum, his colleagues, and Dr. Dick reported no relevant disclosures.

The same genetic variations may boost susceptibility to both severe COVID-19 and cannabis use disorder (CUD), a new study suggests. The research does not confirm a genetic link, but the lead author said the signs of an association are still “troubling.”

“Reducing cannabis use among heavy users may potentially provide protection against severe COVID-19 presentations,” Alexander S. Hatoum, PhD, a postdoctoral scholar at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview. “Outside of individual risk, these data also have important implications for policy regarding vaccination as well as treatment prioritization in an overly taxed medical system.”

The study was published in the journal Biological Psychiatry Global Open Science.

Dr. Hatoum and colleagues launched the study to gain insight into whether CUD might be a risk factor for severe COVID-19 presentations.

As defined by the DSM-5, people with CUD suffer from impairment or distress because of their cannabis use and meet at least 2 of 11 criteria over a 12-month period, such as cravings, cannabis tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms. According to a 2020 study that examined 2008-2016 data, 2.72% of children aged 12-17 showed signs of CUD, as did 1.23% of those aged over 26.

The primary reasons for hospitalization and death related to COVID-19 are respiratory symptoms. “And we have observed that genetic vulnerability to CUD is shared with respiratory disease, even after tobacco use is considered,” Dr. Hatoum said.

He and his colleagues examined data from genomewide association studies and searched for genetic correlations between CUD (14,080 cases, 343,726 controls) and COVID-19 hospitalization (9,373 cases, 1,197,256 controls). “Genetic vulnerability to COVID-19 was correlated with genetic liability to CUD (P = 1.33e^–6),” the researchers wrote. “This association remained when accounting for genetic liability to related risk factors and covariates (P = .012-.049).”

According to Dr. Hatoum, the researchers found inconclusive evidence that CUD might worsen COVID-19 cases. “We applied statistical causal models, which found an effect consistent with causality, but it was nonsignificant,” he said.

Despite the absence of causality, the study findings could prove useful for clinicians and policy makers.

“Those struggling with CUD may be prioritized for vaccination and vaccination boosters to mitigate their higher likelihood of a severe COVID-19 presentation,” Dr. Hatoum said. “When testing positive for COVID-19, they may also be prioritized for earlier treatment.”

The study authors also added that the findings “urge caution” in regard to the wave of U.S. states legalizing cannabis. “Our data suggest that heavy cannabis use, but not lifetime cannabis use, represents a risk factor for severe COVID-19 presentations,” Dr. Hatoum said.

In an interview, Danielle Dick, PhD, who was not involved with the study, said it applies “cutting-edge methods to an important research question” and offers a “hint” of a genetic risk factor that makes some people more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19. However, “the study does not tell us what those underlying genetically influenced processes might be,” added Dr. Dick, professor of psychology, and human and molecular genetics at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. “And it’s an important caveat to point out that the results from this study are limited in that they are based on data from people from European descent – so they can’t necessarily be applied to address the harm experienced by so many people of color from the COVID pandemic. That’s an unfortunate limitation.”

As for the idea that the study findings should prompt caution about marijuana legalization, Dr. Dick said it’s true that increased acceptability of drug use “increases the likelihood that individuals who are genetically vulnerable will develop problems. There is robust evidence of this.”

However, Dr. Dick said, “the legalization of marijuana is a complex topic because the health consequences aren’t the only consideration when it comes to legalization. The other side of the coin is the huge harm that has been caused to communities of color through marijuana criminalization. Legalization will hopefully lead to decreased harm on that front. So it’s a double-edged sword.”

Dr. Hatoum, his colleagues, and Dr. Dick reported no relevant disclosures.

This story is a collaboration between KHN and “Science Friday.” 

Rafiah Maxie has been a licensed clinical social worker in the Chicago area for a decade. Throughout that time, she’d viewed suicide as a problem most prevalent among middle-aged white men.

Until May 27, 2020.

That day, Maxie’s 19-year-old son, Jamal Clay – who loved playing the trumpet and participating in theater, who would help her unload groceries from the car and raise funds for the March of the Dimes – killed himself in their garage.

“Now I cannot blink without seeing my son hanging,” said Maxie, who is Black.

Clay’s death, along with the suicides of more than 100 other Black residents in Illinois last year, has led locals to call for new prevention efforts focused on Black communities. In 2020, during the pandemic’s first year, suicides among White residents decreased compared with previous years, while they increased among Black residents, according to state data.

But this is not a local problem. Nor is it limited to the pandemic.

Interviews with a dozen suicide researchers, data collected from states across the country, and a review of decades of research revealed that suicide is a growing crisis for communities of color – one that plagued them well before the pandemic and has only been exacerbated since.

Overall suicide rates in the U.S. decreased in 2019 and 2020. National and local studies attribute the trend to a drop among White Americans, who make up the majority of suicide deaths. Meanwhile, rates for Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans – though lower than those of their white peers – continued to climb in many states. (Suicide rates have been consistently high for Native Americans.)

“COVID created more transparency regarding what we already knew was happening,” said Sonyia Richardson, a licensed clinical social worker who focuses on serving people of color, and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina–Charlotte, where she researches suicide. When you put the suicide rates of all communities in one bucket, “that bucket says it’s getting better and what we’re doing is working,” she said. “But that’s not the case for communities of color.”
 

Losing generations

Although the suicide rate is highest among middle-aged White men, young people of color are emerging as particularly at risk.

Research shows Black kids younger than 13 die by suicide at nearly twice the rate of White kids and, over time, their suicide rates have grown even as rates have decreased for White children. Among teenagers and young adults, suicide deaths have increased more than 45% for Black Americans and about 40% for Asian Americans in the 7 years ending in 2019. Other concerning trends in suicide attempts date to the ’90s.

“We’re losing generations,” said Sean Joe, a national expert on Black suicide and a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “We have to pay attention now because if you’re out of the first decade of life and think life is not worth pursuing, that’s a signal to say something is going really wrong.”

These statistics also refute traditional ideas that suicide doesn’t happen in certain ethnic or minority populations because they’re “protected” and “resilient” or the “model minority,” said Kiara Alvarez, a researcher and psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital who focuses on suicide among Hispanic and immigrant populations.

Although these groups may have had low suicide rates historically, that’s changing, she said.

Paul Chin lost his 17-year-old brother, Chris, to suicide in 2009. A poem Chris wrote in high school about his heritage has left Chin, 8 years his senior, wondering if his brother struggled to feel accepted in the U.S., despite being born and raised in New York.

Growing up, Asian Americans weren’t represented in lessons at school or in pop culture, said Chin, now 37. Even in clinical research on suicide as well as other health topics, kids like Chris are underrepresented, with less than 1% of federal research funding focused on Asian Americans.

It wasn’t until the pandemic, and the concurrent rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans, that Chin saw national attention on the community’s mental health. He hopes the interest is not short-lived.

Suicide is the leading cause of death for Asian Americans ages 15 to 24, yet “that doesn’t get enough attention,” Chin said. “It’s important to continue to share these stories.”

Kathy Williams, who is Black, has been on a similar mission since her 15-year-old son, Torian Graves, died by suicide in 1996. People didn’t talk about suicide in the Black community then, she said. So she started raising the topic at her church in Durham, N.C., and in local schools. She wanted Black families to know the warning signs and society at large to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

The pandemic may have highlighted this, Williams said, but “it has always happened. Always.”
 

Pandemic sheds light on the triggers

Pinpointing the root causes of rising suicide within communities of color has proved difficult. How much stems from mental illness? How much from socioeconomic changes like job losses or social isolation? Now, COVID-19 may offer some clues.

Recent decades have been marked by growing economic instability, a widening racial wealth gap, and more public attention on police killings of unarmed Black and Brown people, said Michael Lindsey, executive director of the New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research.

With social media, youths face racism on more fronts than their parents did, said Leslie Adams, assistant professor in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Each of these factors has been shown to affect suicide risk. For example, experiencing racism and sexism together is linked to a threefold increase in suicidal thoughts for Asian American women, said Brian Keum, assistant professor at UCLA, based on preliminary research findings.

COVID-19 intensified these hardships among communities of color, with disproportionate numbers of lost loved ones, lost jobs, and lost housing. The murder of George Floyd prompted widespread racial unrest, and Asian Americans saw an increase in hate crimes.

At the same time, studies in Connecticut and Maryland found that suicide rates rose within these populations and dropped for their White counterparts.

“It’s not just a problem within the person, but societal issues that need to be addressed,” said Shari Jager-Hyman, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania.
 

Lessons from Texas

In Texas, COVID-19 hit Hispanics especially hard. As of July 2021, they accounted for 45% of all COVID-19 deaths and disproportionately lost jobs. Individuals living in the U.S. without authorization were generally not eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks.

During this time, suicide deaths among Hispanic Texans climbed from 847 deaths in 2019 to 962 deaths in 2020, according to preliminary state data. Suicide deaths rose for Black Texans and residents classified as “other” races or ethnicities, but decreased for White Texans.

The numbers didn’t surprise Marc Mendiola. The 20-year-old grew up in a majority-Hispanic community on the south side of San Antonio. Even before the pandemic, he often heard classmates say they were suicidal. Many faced dire finances at home, sometimes living without electricity, food, or water. Those who sought mental health treatment often found services prohibitively expensive or inaccessible because they weren’t offered in Spanish.

“These are conditions the community has always been in,” Mendiola said. “But with the pandemic, it’s even worse.”

Four years ago, Mendiola and his classmates at South San High School began advocating for mental health services. In late 2019, just months before COVID-19 struck, their vision became reality. Six community agencies partnered to offer free services to students and their families across three school districts.

Richard Davidson, chief operating officer of Family Service, one of the groups in the collaborative, said the number of students discussing economic stressors has been on the rise since April 2020. More than 90% of the students who received services in the first half of 2021 were Hispanic, and nearly 10% reported thoughts of suicide or self-harm, program data show. None died by suicide.

Many students are so worried about what’s for dinner the next day that they’re not able to see a future beyond that, Davidson said. That’s when suicide can feel like a viable option.

“One of the things we do is help them see … that despite this situation now, you can create a vision for your future,” Davidson said.
 

A good future

Researchers say the promise of a good future is often overlooked in suicide prevention, perhaps because achieving it is so challenging. It requires economic and social growth and breaking systemic barriers.

Tevis Simon works to address all those fronts. As a child in West Baltimore, Simon, who is Black, faced poverty and trauma. As an adult, she attempted suicide three times. But now she shares her story with youths across the city to inspire them to overcome challenges. She also talks to politicians, law enforcement agencies, and public policy officials about their responsibilities.

“We can’t not talk about race,” said Simon, 43. “We can’t not talk about systematic oppression. We cannot not talk about these conditions that affect our mental well-being and our feeling and desire to live.”

For Jamal Clay in Illinois, the systemic barriers started early. Before his suicide last year, he had tried to harm himself when he was 12 and the victim of bullies. At that time, he was hospitalized for a few days and told to follow up with outpatient therapy, said his mother, Maxie.

But it was difficult to find therapists who accepted Medicaid, she said. When Maxie finally found one, there was a 60-day wait. Other therapists canceled appointments, she said.

“So we worked on our own,” Maxie said, relying on church and community. Her son seemed to improve. “We thought we closed that chapter in our lives.”

But when the pandemic hit, everything got worse, she said. Clay came home from college and worked at an Amazon warehouse. On drives to and from work, he was frequently pulled over by police. He stopped wearing hats so officers would consider him less intimidating, Maxie said.

“He felt uncomfortable being out in the street,” she said.

Maxie is still trying to make sense of what happened the day Clay died. But she’s found meaning in starting a nonprofit called Soul Survivors of Chicago. Through the organization, she provides education, scholarships and shoes – including Jamal’s old ones – to those impacted by violence, suicide, and trauma.

“My son won’t be able to have a first interview in [those] shoes. He won’t be able to have a nice jump shot or go to church or even meet his wife,” Maxie said.

But she hopes his shoes will carry someone else to a good future.

[Editor’s note: For the purposes of this story, “people of color” or “communities of color” refers to any racial or ethnic populations whose members do not identify as White, including those who are multiracial. Hispanics can be of any race or combination of races.]

KHN senior correspondent JoNel Aleccia contributed to this report. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

This story is a collaboration between KHN and “Science Friday.” 

Rafiah Maxie has been a licensed clinical social worker in the Chicago area for a decade. Throughout that time, she’d viewed suicide as a problem most prevalent among middle-aged white men.

Until May 27, 2020.

That day, Maxie’s 19-year-old son, Jamal Clay – who loved playing the trumpet and participating in theater, who would help her unload groceries from the car and raise funds for the March of the Dimes – killed himself in their garage.

“Now I cannot blink without seeing my son hanging,” said Maxie, who is Black.

Clay’s death, along with the suicides of more than 100 other Black residents in Illinois last year, has led locals to call for new prevention efforts focused on Black communities. In 2020, during the pandemic’s first year, suicides among White residents decreased compared with previous years, while they increased among Black residents, according to state data.

But this is not a local problem. Nor is it limited to the pandemic.

Interviews with a dozen suicide researchers, data collected from states across the country, and a review of decades of research revealed that suicide is a growing crisis for communities of color – one that plagued them well before the pandemic and has only been exacerbated since.

Overall suicide rates in the U.S. decreased in 2019 and 2020. National and local studies attribute the trend to a drop among White Americans, who make up the majority of suicide deaths. Meanwhile, rates for Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans – though lower than those of their white peers – continued to climb in many states. (Suicide rates have been consistently high for Native Americans.)

“COVID created more transparency regarding what we already knew was happening,” said Sonyia Richardson, a licensed clinical social worker who focuses on serving people of color, and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina–Charlotte, where she researches suicide. When you put the suicide rates of all communities in one bucket, “that bucket says it’s getting better and what we’re doing is working,” she said. “But that’s not the case for communities of color.”
 

Losing generations

Although the suicide rate is highest among middle-aged White men, young people of color are emerging as particularly at risk.

Research shows Black kids younger than 13 die by suicide at nearly twice the rate of White kids and, over time, their suicide rates have grown even as rates have decreased for White children. Among teenagers and young adults, suicide deaths have increased more than 45% for Black Americans and about 40% for Asian Americans in the 7 years ending in 2019. Other concerning trends in suicide attempts date to the ’90s.

“We’re losing generations,” said Sean Joe, a national expert on Black suicide and a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “We have to pay attention now because if you’re out of the first decade of life and think life is not worth pursuing, that’s a signal to say something is going really wrong.”

These statistics also refute traditional ideas that suicide doesn’t happen in certain ethnic or minority populations because they’re “protected” and “resilient” or the “model minority,” said Kiara Alvarez, a researcher and psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital who focuses on suicide among Hispanic and immigrant populations.

Although these groups may have had low suicide rates historically, that’s changing, she said.

Paul Chin lost his 17-year-old brother, Chris, to suicide in 2009. A poem Chris wrote in high school about his heritage has left Chin, 8 years his senior, wondering if his brother struggled to feel accepted in the U.S., despite being born and raised in New York.

Growing up, Asian Americans weren’t represented in lessons at school or in pop culture, said Chin, now 37. Even in clinical research on suicide as well as other health topics, kids like Chris are underrepresented, with less than 1% of federal research funding focused on Asian Americans.

It wasn’t until the pandemic, and the concurrent rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans, that Chin saw national attention on the community’s mental health. He hopes the interest is not short-lived.

Suicide is the leading cause of death for Asian Americans ages 15 to 24, yet “that doesn’t get enough attention,” Chin said. “It’s important to continue to share these stories.”

Kathy Williams, who is Black, has been on a similar mission since her 15-year-old son, Torian Graves, died by suicide in 1996. People didn’t talk about suicide in the Black community then, she said. So she started raising the topic at her church in Durham, N.C., and in local schools. She wanted Black families to know the warning signs and society at large to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

The pandemic may have highlighted this, Williams said, but “it has always happened. Always.”
 

Pandemic sheds light on the triggers

Pinpointing the root causes of rising suicide within communities of color has proved difficult. How much stems from mental illness? How much from socioeconomic changes like job losses or social isolation? Now, COVID-19 may offer some clues.

Recent decades have been marked by growing economic instability, a widening racial wealth gap, and more public attention on police killings of unarmed Black and Brown people, said Michael Lindsey, executive director of the New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research.

With social media, youths face racism on more fronts than their parents did, said Leslie Adams, assistant professor in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Each of these factors has been shown to affect suicide risk. For example, experiencing racism and sexism together is linked to a threefold increase in suicidal thoughts for Asian American women, said Brian Keum, assistant professor at UCLA, based on preliminary research findings.

COVID-19 intensified these hardships among communities of color, with disproportionate numbers of lost loved ones, lost jobs, and lost housing. The murder of George Floyd prompted widespread racial unrest, and Asian Americans saw an increase in hate crimes.

At the same time, studies in Connecticut and Maryland found that suicide rates rose within these populations and dropped for their White counterparts.

“It’s not just a problem within the person, but societal issues that need to be addressed,” said Shari Jager-Hyman, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania.
 

Lessons from Texas

In Texas, COVID-19 hit Hispanics especially hard. As of July 2021, they accounted for 45% of all COVID-19 deaths and disproportionately lost jobs. Individuals living in the U.S. without authorization were generally not eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks.

During this time, suicide deaths among Hispanic Texans climbed from 847 deaths in 2019 to 962 deaths in 2020, according to preliminary state data. Suicide deaths rose for Black Texans and residents classified as “other” races or ethnicities, but decreased for White Texans.

The numbers didn’t surprise Marc Mendiola. The 20-year-old grew up in a majority-Hispanic community on the south side of San Antonio. Even before the pandemic, he often heard classmates say they were suicidal. Many faced dire finances at home, sometimes living without electricity, food, or water. Those who sought mental health treatment often found services prohibitively expensive or inaccessible because they weren’t offered in Spanish.

“These are conditions the community has always been in,” Mendiola said. “But with the pandemic, it’s even worse.”

Four years ago, Mendiola and his classmates at South San High School began advocating for mental health services. In late 2019, just months before COVID-19 struck, their vision became reality. Six community agencies partnered to offer free services to students and their families across three school districts.

Richard Davidson, chief operating officer of Family Service, one of the groups in the collaborative, said the number of students discussing economic stressors has been on the rise since April 2020. More than 90% of the students who received services in the first half of 2021 were Hispanic, and nearly 10% reported thoughts of suicide or self-harm, program data show. None died by suicide.

Many students are so worried about what’s for dinner the next day that they’re not able to see a future beyond that, Davidson said. That’s when suicide can feel like a viable option.

“One of the things we do is help them see … that despite this situation now, you can create a vision for your future,” Davidson said.
 

A good future

Researchers say the promise of a good future is often overlooked in suicide prevention, perhaps because achieving it is so challenging. It requires economic and social growth and breaking systemic barriers.

Tevis Simon works to address all those fronts. As a child in West Baltimore, Simon, who is Black, faced poverty and trauma. As an adult, she attempted suicide three times. But now she shares her story with youths across the city to inspire them to overcome challenges. She also talks to politicians, law enforcement agencies, and public policy officials about their responsibilities.

“We can’t not talk about race,” said Simon, 43. “We can’t not talk about systematic oppression. We cannot not talk about these conditions that affect our mental well-being and our feeling and desire to live.”

For Jamal Clay in Illinois, the systemic barriers started early. Before his suicide last year, he had tried to harm himself when he was 12 and the victim of bullies. At that time, he was hospitalized for a few days and told to follow up with outpatient therapy, said his mother, Maxie.

But it was difficult to find therapists who accepted Medicaid, she said. When Maxie finally found one, there was a 60-day wait. Other therapists canceled appointments, she said.

“So we worked on our own,” Maxie said, relying on church and community. Her son seemed to improve. “We thought we closed that chapter in our lives.”

But when the pandemic hit, everything got worse, she said. Clay came home from college and worked at an Amazon warehouse. On drives to and from work, he was frequently pulled over by police. He stopped wearing hats so officers would consider him less intimidating, Maxie said.

“He felt uncomfortable being out in the street,” she said.

Maxie is still trying to make sense of what happened the day Clay died. But she’s found meaning in starting a nonprofit called Soul Survivors of Chicago. Through the organization, she provides education, scholarships and shoes – including Jamal’s old ones – to those impacted by violence, suicide, and trauma.

“My son won’t be able to have a first interview in [those] shoes. He won’t be able to have a nice jump shot or go to church or even meet his wife,” Maxie said.

But she hopes his shoes will carry someone else to a good future.

[Editor’s note: For the purposes of this story, “people of color” or “communities of color” refers to any racial or ethnic populations whose members do not identify as White, including those who are multiracial. Hispanics can be of any race or combination of races.]

KHN senior correspondent JoNel Aleccia contributed to this report. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

This story is a collaboration between KHN and “Science Friday.” 

Rafiah Maxie has been a licensed clinical social worker in the Chicago area for a decade. Throughout that time, she’d viewed suicide as a problem most prevalent among middle-aged white men.

Until May 27, 2020.

That day, Maxie’s 19-year-old son, Jamal Clay – who loved playing the trumpet and participating in theater, who would help her unload groceries from the car and raise funds for the March of the Dimes – killed himself in their garage.

“Now I cannot blink without seeing my son hanging,” said Maxie, who is Black.

Clay’s death, along with the suicides of more than 100 other Black residents in Illinois last year, has led locals to call for new prevention efforts focused on Black communities. In 2020, during the pandemic’s first year, suicides among White residents decreased compared with previous years, while they increased among Black residents, according to state data.

But this is not a local problem. Nor is it limited to the pandemic.

Interviews with a dozen suicide researchers, data collected from states across the country, and a review of decades of research revealed that suicide is a growing crisis for communities of color – one that plagued them well before the pandemic and has only been exacerbated since.

Overall suicide rates in the U.S. decreased in 2019 and 2020. National and local studies attribute the trend to a drop among White Americans, who make up the majority of suicide deaths. Meanwhile, rates for Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans – though lower than those of their white peers – continued to climb in many states. (Suicide rates have been consistently high for Native Americans.)

“COVID created more transparency regarding what we already knew was happening,” said Sonyia Richardson, a licensed clinical social worker who focuses on serving people of color, and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina–Charlotte, where she researches suicide. When you put the suicide rates of all communities in one bucket, “that bucket says it’s getting better and what we’re doing is working,” she said. “But that’s not the case for communities of color.”
 

Losing generations

Although the suicide rate is highest among middle-aged White men, young people of color are emerging as particularly at risk.

Research shows Black kids younger than 13 die by suicide at nearly twice the rate of White kids and, over time, their suicide rates have grown even as rates have decreased for White children. Among teenagers and young adults, suicide deaths have increased more than 45% for Black Americans and about 40% for Asian Americans in the 7 years ending in 2019. Other concerning trends in suicide attempts date to the ’90s.

“We’re losing generations,” said Sean Joe, a national expert on Black suicide and a professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “We have to pay attention now because if you’re out of the first decade of life and think life is not worth pursuing, that’s a signal to say something is going really wrong.”

These statistics also refute traditional ideas that suicide doesn’t happen in certain ethnic or minority populations because they’re “protected” and “resilient” or the “model minority,” said Kiara Alvarez, a researcher and psychologist at Massachusetts General Hospital who focuses on suicide among Hispanic and immigrant populations.

Although these groups may have had low suicide rates historically, that’s changing, she said.

Paul Chin lost his 17-year-old brother, Chris, to suicide in 2009. A poem Chris wrote in high school about his heritage has left Chin, 8 years his senior, wondering if his brother struggled to feel accepted in the U.S., despite being born and raised in New York.

Growing up, Asian Americans weren’t represented in lessons at school or in pop culture, said Chin, now 37. Even in clinical research on suicide as well as other health topics, kids like Chris are underrepresented, with less than 1% of federal research funding focused on Asian Americans.

It wasn’t until the pandemic, and the concurrent rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans, that Chin saw national attention on the community’s mental health. He hopes the interest is not short-lived.

Suicide is the leading cause of death for Asian Americans ages 15 to 24, yet “that doesn’t get enough attention,” Chin said. “It’s important to continue to share these stories.”

Kathy Williams, who is Black, has been on a similar mission since her 15-year-old son, Torian Graves, died by suicide in 1996. People didn’t talk about suicide in the Black community then, she said. So she started raising the topic at her church in Durham, N.C., and in local schools. She wanted Black families to know the warning signs and society at large to recognize the seriousness of the problem.

The pandemic may have highlighted this, Williams said, but “it has always happened. Always.”
 

Pandemic sheds light on the triggers

Pinpointing the root causes of rising suicide within communities of color has proved difficult. How much stems from mental illness? How much from socioeconomic changes like job losses or social isolation? Now, COVID-19 may offer some clues.

Recent decades have been marked by growing economic instability, a widening racial wealth gap, and more public attention on police killings of unarmed Black and Brown people, said Michael Lindsey, executive director of the New York University McSilver Institute for Poverty Policy and Research.

With social media, youths face racism on more fronts than their parents did, said Leslie Adams, assistant professor in the department of mental health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Each of these factors has been shown to affect suicide risk. For example, experiencing racism and sexism together is linked to a threefold increase in suicidal thoughts for Asian American women, said Brian Keum, assistant professor at UCLA, based on preliminary research findings.

COVID-19 intensified these hardships among communities of color, with disproportionate numbers of lost loved ones, lost jobs, and lost housing. The murder of George Floyd prompted widespread racial unrest, and Asian Americans saw an increase in hate crimes.

At the same time, studies in Connecticut and Maryland found that suicide rates rose within these populations and dropped for their White counterparts.

“It’s not just a problem within the person, but societal issues that need to be addressed,” said Shari Jager-Hyman, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania.
 

Lessons from Texas

In Texas, COVID-19 hit Hispanics especially hard. As of July 2021, they accounted for 45% of all COVID-19 deaths and disproportionately lost jobs. Individuals living in the U.S. without authorization were generally not eligible for unemployment benefits or federal stimulus checks.

During this time, suicide deaths among Hispanic Texans climbed from 847 deaths in 2019 to 962 deaths in 2020, according to preliminary state data. Suicide deaths rose for Black Texans and residents classified as “other” races or ethnicities, but decreased for White Texans.

The numbers didn’t surprise Marc Mendiola. The 20-year-old grew up in a majority-Hispanic community on the south side of San Antonio. Even before the pandemic, he often heard classmates say they were suicidal. Many faced dire finances at home, sometimes living without electricity, food, or water. Those who sought mental health treatment often found services prohibitively expensive or inaccessible because they weren’t offered in Spanish.

“These are conditions the community has always been in,” Mendiola said. “But with the pandemic, it’s even worse.”

Four years ago, Mendiola and his classmates at South San High School began advocating for mental health services. In late 2019, just months before COVID-19 struck, their vision became reality. Six community agencies partnered to offer free services to students and their families across three school districts.

Richard Davidson, chief operating officer of Family Service, one of the groups in the collaborative, said the number of students discussing economic stressors has been on the rise since April 2020. More than 90% of the students who received services in the first half of 2021 were Hispanic, and nearly 10% reported thoughts of suicide or self-harm, program data show. None died by suicide.

Many students are so worried about what’s for dinner the next day that they’re not able to see a future beyond that, Davidson said. That’s when suicide can feel like a viable option.

“One of the things we do is help them see … that despite this situation now, you can create a vision for your future,” Davidson said.
 

A good future

Researchers say the promise of a good future is often overlooked in suicide prevention, perhaps because achieving it is so challenging. It requires economic and social growth and breaking systemic barriers.

Tevis Simon works to address all those fronts. As a child in West Baltimore, Simon, who is Black, faced poverty and trauma. As an adult, she attempted suicide three times. But now she shares her story with youths across the city to inspire them to overcome challenges. She also talks to politicians, law enforcement agencies, and public policy officials about their responsibilities.

“We can’t not talk about race,” said Simon, 43. “We can’t not talk about systematic oppression. We cannot not talk about these conditions that affect our mental well-being and our feeling and desire to live.”

For Jamal Clay in Illinois, the systemic barriers started early. Before his suicide last year, he had tried to harm himself when he was 12 and the victim of bullies. At that time, he was hospitalized for a few days and told to follow up with outpatient therapy, said his mother, Maxie.

But it was difficult to find therapists who accepted Medicaid, she said. When Maxie finally found one, there was a 60-day wait. Other therapists canceled appointments, she said.

“So we worked on our own,” Maxie said, relying on church and community. Her son seemed to improve. “We thought we closed that chapter in our lives.”

But when the pandemic hit, everything got worse, she said. Clay came home from college and worked at an Amazon warehouse. On drives to and from work, he was frequently pulled over by police. He stopped wearing hats so officers would consider him less intimidating, Maxie said.

“He felt uncomfortable being out in the street,” she said.

Maxie is still trying to make sense of what happened the day Clay died. But she’s found meaning in starting a nonprofit called Soul Survivors of Chicago. Through the organization, she provides education, scholarships and shoes – including Jamal’s old ones – to those impacted by violence, suicide, and trauma.

“My son won’t be able to have a first interview in [those] shoes. He won’t be able to have a nice jump shot or go to church or even meet his wife,” Maxie said.

But she hopes his shoes will carry someone else to a good future.

[Editor’s note: For the purposes of this story, “people of color” or “communities of color” refers to any racial or ethnic populations whose members do not identify as White, including those who are multiracial. Hispanics can be of any race or combination of races.]

KHN senior correspondent JoNel Aleccia contributed to this report. KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

A recent analysis of 142 peanut-allergic children treated for 1.5 to 2 years with a licensed oral immunotherapy (OIT) product confirms what various smaller studies have shown: Maintaining treatment for longer periods improves protection and reduces adverse effects. The findings offer some reassurance regarding the controversial approach, which has become available at a small number of clinics yet faces an uncertain future.

The new study, published July 28 in Allergy, included a subset of patients who chose to complete an extension of the phase 3 PALISADE trial of Palforzia, a proprietary set of premeasured peanut flour capsules developed by Aimmune Therapeutics.

Palforzia was approved last year for children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy – one of the most common food allergies, affecting around 2% of children in the United States and Europe. The treatment is not a cure – patients must still watch what they eat and carry epinephrine for emergency reactions – but it helps build protection through daily ingestion of gradually increasing amounts of the allergen over a period of months.

In the 1-year PALISADE trial, which enrolled 496 peanut-allergic children at 66 sites in North America and Europe, participants received daily doses of study drug or placebo. The dose of the drug was escalated from 3 mg to 300 mg over 6 months; the 300-mg dose was then maintained for another 6 months. By the end of the study, about two-thirds of the children who underwent treatment could safely consume at least 600 mg of peanut protein, about the equivalent of two peanuts.

Could protection be increased with further treatment, and what would be required to sustain it? To address these questions, PALISADE patients who successfully reached the 600-mg threshold, along with those from the placebo group, were invited to participate in Aimmune’s open-label follow-on study. The extension study also explored whether protection could be maintained with less frequent dosing.

Among the 358 eligible participants who opted into the 1-year extension study, 256 came from the PALISADE treatment arm. These children were assigned to five cohorts to continue for 6 months or 12 months with daily or less frequent doses. Within the 6-month group, all started with the 300-mg daily dose. A subset received two doses a week. Within the 12-month group, some patients maintained daily dosing throughout; others received doses every other day, twice weekly, or once every 2 weeks.

The children who continued daily maintenance dosing the longest gained the most protection. Those in less-frequent dosing groups experienced more adverse events than those who received doses every day, the company reported last December in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

More than a quarter (97 of 358, or 27.1%) of participants failed to complete the extension. Families could withdraw any time for any reason. Participating in an OIT trial is demanding – it requires office visits for dosing adjustments and blood tests, rest periods, keeping symptom logs in which daily doses are recorded, and possible allergic reactions from the treatment itself. “A common reason for ‘withdrawal of consent’ in clinical studies is the inconvenience of remaining in a long-term study,” Mohamed Yassine, MD, Aimmune’s senior vice present of medical affairs, said via email.

Attrition was concentrated within certain subgroups. Most participants in (88.7%; 102 of 115) PALISADE who received placebo elected to enter the open-label extension; nearly half did not finish. Dropout rates were also high (29.2%) for non-daily dosing participants who had come from the PALISADE treatment arm.

The authors did not report on those high-dropout groups. Instead, they focused their analysis on the 142 treated PALISADE participants who continued daily dosing through the extension – 110 patients for a total of about 1.5 years and 32 patients for about 2 years. In a subgroup analysis, 48.1% of children in the 1.5-year group upped their tolerance to 2,000 mg peanut protein, and even more (80.8%) in the 2-year group reached that threshold – all while taking a 300-mg maintenance dose.

Those who remained on treatment longer also had fewer adverse events. At the exit food challenge, 24% of the 1.5-year participants had reactions that required epinephrine, but among 2-year participants, only 3.8% needed the rescue medication.

Continuing therapy past the first year seemed to have additional benefits, Sandra Hong, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center of Excellence, said in an interview. Dr. Hong was not involved in the new research and has no financial ties with Aimmune or other food allergy companies. “Not only can you ingest more, but your reaction when you do react is going to be less,” she says.

Palforzia is only available through a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program, which educates patients, health care professionals, and pharmacies about immunotherapy risks and precautionary measures. As of last summer, before Aimmune was acquired by Nestlé Health Science, about 100 allergists in the United States had enrolled patients in the REMS program. Families can find allergists who are certified to prescribe Palforzia using the website’s Certified Participant Locator.

Although the field at large remains apprehensive about OIT and other forms of immunotherapy, an estimated 200 or more U.S. clinics are administering home-grown OIT using commercial food products, says Richard Wasserman, an OIT pioneer whose clinic in Dallas has treated allergies to about 20 foods since the practice started offering the therapy in 2008. OIT practitioners have treated more than 15,000 food allergy patients nationwide, Dr. Wasserman said via email, yet they make up just a tiny fraction of the more than 6,000 board-certified allergists in the United States.

Whether using Palforzia or nonproprietary food products, oral immunotherapy requires a lot of time and effort – not just for patients but also practitioners. “You need more space. You need more staffing. Patients doing oral challenges stay in your office for 4 to 5 hours, and we have one-to-one nursing care for them,” said Dr. Hong. “So it’s a lot of resources.”

Her team has treated about 20 children with Palforzia since the Cleveland Clinic began offering the therapy last summer. Dr. Hong and coworkers have administered OIT using commercial peanut flour and peanut butter to some 80 peanut-allergic toddlers younger than 4 years who are too young to receive for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment. Their early data, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology in February, suggest that toddlers get complete OIT more quickly with fewer side effects than older children, Dr. Hong says. A recent study of preschoolers in Canada also found that nonproprietary OIT is very safe and effective in this younger set and could be cost-saving in the long run.

By comparison, Palforzia, which has a list price of $890 per month, was judged to be less cost-effective in analyses by academic allergists and by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. But through a copay savings program, depending on their insurance coverage, some eligible families can pay as little as $20 per month for the FDA-approved treatment.

Because the therapy is time consuming for families and is resource intensive for practices, questions remain as to how long and how frequently patients need to remain on treatment to sustain protection. Do they need to keep taking Palforzia, or “can we switch them to an equivalent amount of food and not bother with the study drug?” said Edwin Kim, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and study investigator for several Palforzia trials, in an interview.

The Food Allergy Support Team, a nonprofit group started by Dr. Wasserman and colleagues, publishes best practices and meets annually to discuss research and protocols. However, the best maintenance dose, the best dosing frequency, and the duration of daily dosing that yields the best outcomes are not known, Dr. Wasserman says.

“We think the best way to answer that question is with a regulated, pharmaceutical-grade form of peanut protein,” Dr. Yassine said.

The field’s experience with Palforzia raises a dilemma: Does its approval legitimize oral immunotherapy in general, or will rigorous, multi-million dollar trials be needed to approve products for each food or combination of foods? About 32 million people in the United States have food allergies – about 1 in 10 adults and 1 in 13 children.

“I think the field has always grappled with that, honestly,” said Stacie Jones, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, in an interview. Home-grown OIT is “easier to do when you have high control of your small patient volumes or you’re in a clinical trial,” said Dr. Jones, who has served as an investigator on Palforzia trials and last year received more than $30,000 in consulting fees from Aimmune. “It becomes a very different situation when it becomes a national or an international recommended therapy.”

The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has published clinical practice guidelines and provides practical information on its website on how to implement OIT – including protocols for dozens of foods and diary sheets for patients to log doses and symptoms.

However, U.S. professional societies still consider OIT investigational and suggest that it will not be approved by the FDA. “As a field, are we willing to wait 4 to 5 more years for an egg product? Should we? Are we willing?” said Dr. Kim. “These are tough questions.”

Stacie M. Jones reports advisory board fees, Aimmune Therapeutics, FARE; personal fees, DBV Technologies; clinical trials grants, Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astellas, Sanofi, Regeneron, FARE, Genentech, and NIH-NIAID. Edwin Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; grant support from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Immune Tolerance Network; Food Allergy Research and Education, and the Wallace Research Foundation. Richard Wasserman receives consulting fees from Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies. Mohamed Yassine is employed by Aimmune Therapeutics. Sandra Hong has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent analysis of 142 peanut-allergic children treated for 1.5 to 2 years with a licensed oral immunotherapy (OIT) product confirms what various smaller studies have shown: Maintaining treatment for longer periods improves protection and reduces adverse effects. The findings offer some reassurance regarding the controversial approach, which has become available at a small number of clinics yet faces an uncertain future.

The new study, published July 28 in Allergy, included a subset of patients who chose to complete an extension of the phase 3 PALISADE trial of Palforzia, a proprietary set of premeasured peanut flour capsules developed by Aimmune Therapeutics.

Palforzia was approved last year for children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy – one of the most common food allergies, affecting around 2% of children in the United States and Europe. The treatment is not a cure – patients must still watch what they eat and carry epinephrine for emergency reactions – but it helps build protection through daily ingestion of gradually increasing amounts of the allergen over a period of months.

In the 1-year PALISADE trial, which enrolled 496 peanut-allergic children at 66 sites in North America and Europe, participants received daily doses of study drug or placebo. The dose of the drug was escalated from 3 mg to 300 mg over 6 months; the 300-mg dose was then maintained for another 6 months. By the end of the study, about two-thirds of the children who underwent treatment could safely consume at least 600 mg of peanut protein, about the equivalent of two peanuts.

Could protection be increased with further treatment, and what would be required to sustain it? To address these questions, PALISADE patients who successfully reached the 600-mg threshold, along with those from the placebo group, were invited to participate in Aimmune’s open-label follow-on study. The extension study also explored whether protection could be maintained with less frequent dosing.

Among the 358 eligible participants who opted into the 1-year extension study, 256 came from the PALISADE treatment arm. These children were assigned to five cohorts to continue for 6 months or 12 months with daily or less frequent doses. Within the 6-month group, all started with the 300-mg daily dose. A subset received two doses a week. Within the 12-month group, some patients maintained daily dosing throughout; others received doses every other day, twice weekly, or once every 2 weeks.

The children who continued daily maintenance dosing the longest gained the most protection. Those in less-frequent dosing groups experienced more adverse events than those who received doses every day, the company reported last December in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

More than a quarter (97 of 358, or 27.1%) of participants failed to complete the extension. Families could withdraw any time for any reason. Participating in an OIT trial is demanding – it requires office visits for dosing adjustments and blood tests, rest periods, keeping symptom logs in which daily doses are recorded, and possible allergic reactions from the treatment itself. “A common reason for ‘withdrawal of consent’ in clinical studies is the inconvenience of remaining in a long-term study,” Mohamed Yassine, MD, Aimmune’s senior vice present of medical affairs, said via email.

Attrition was concentrated within certain subgroups. Most participants in (88.7%; 102 of 115) PALISADE who received placebo elected to enter the open-label extension; nearly half did not finish. Dropout rates were also high (29.2%) for non-daily dosing participants who had come from the PALISADE treatment arm.

The authors did not report on those high-dropout groups. Instead, they focused their analysis on the 142 treated PALISADE participants who continued daily dosing through the extension – 110 patients for a total of about 1.5 years and 32 patients for about 2 years. In a subgroup analysis, 48.1% of children in the 1.5-year group upped their tolerance to 2,000 mg peanut protein, and even more (80.8%) in the 2-year group reached that threshold – all while taking a 300-mg maintenance dose.

Those who remained on treatment longer also had fewer adverse events. At the exit food challenge, 24% of the 1.5-year participants had reactions that required epinephrine, but among 2-year participants, only 3.8% needed the rescue medication.

Continuing therapy past the first year seemed to have additional benefits, Sandra Hong, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center of Excellence, said in an interview. Dr. Hong was not involved in the new research and has no financial ties with Aimmune or other food allergy companies. “Not only can you ingest more, but your reaction when you do react is going to be less,” she says.

Palforzia is only available through a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program, which educates patients, health care professionals, and pharmacies about immunotherapy risks and precautionary measures. As of last summer, before Aimmune was acquired by Nestlé Health Science, about 100 allergists in the United States had enrolled patients in the REMS program. Families can find allergists who are certified to prescribe Palforzia using the website’s Certified Participant Locator.

Although the field at large remains apprehensive about OIT and other forms of immunotherapy, an estimated 200 or more U.S. clinics are administering home-grown OIT using commercial food products, says Richard Wasserman, an OIT pioneer whose clinic in Dallas has treated allergies to about 20 foods since the practice started offering the therapy in 2008. OIT practitioners have treated more than 15,000 food allergy patients nationwide, Dr. Wasserman said via email, yet they make up just a tiny fraction of the more than 6,000 board-certified allergists in the United States.

Whether using Palforzia or nonproprietary food products, oral immunotherapy requires a lot of time and effort – not just for patients but also practitioners. “You need more space. You need more staffing. Patients doing oral challenges stay in your office for 4 to 5 hours, and we have one-to-one nursing care for them,” said Dr. Hong. “So it’s a lot of resources.”

Her team has treated about 20 children with Palforzia since the Cleveland Clinic began offering the therapy last summer. Dr. Hong and coworkers have administered OIT using commercial peanut flour and peanut butter to some 80 peanut-allergic toddlers younger than 4 years who are too young to receive for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment. Their early data, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology in February, suggest that toddlers get complete OIT more quickly with fewer side effects than older children, Dr. Hong says. A recent study of preschoolers in Canada also found that nonproprietary OIT is very safe and effective in this younger set and could be cost-saving in the long run.

By comparison, Palforzia, which has a list price of $890 per month, was judged to be less cost-effective in analyses by academic allergists and by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. But through a copay savings program, depending on their insurance coverage, some eligible families can pay as little as $20 per month for the FDA-approved treatment.

Because the therapy is time consuming for families and is resource intensive for practices, questions remain as to how long and how frequently patients need to remain on treatment to sustain protection. Do they need to keep taking Palforzia, or “can we switch them to an equivalent amount of food and not bother with the study drug?” said Edwin Kim, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and study investigator for several Palforzia trials, in an interview.

The Food Allergy Support Team, a nonprofit group started by Dr. Wasserman and colleagues, publishes best practices and meets annually to discuss research and protocols. However, the best maintenance dose, the best dosing frequency, and the duration of daily dosing that yields the best outcomes are not known, Dr. Wasserman says.

“We think the best way to answer that question is with a regulated, pharmaceutical-grade form of peanut protein,” Dr. Yassine said.

The field’s experience with Palforzia raises a dilemma: Does its approval legitimize oral immunotherapy in general, or will rigorous, multi-million dollar trials be needed to approve products for each food or combination of foods? About 32 million people in the United States have food allergies – about 1 in 10 adults and 1 in 13 children.

“I think the field has always grappled with that, honestly,” said Stacie Jones, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, in an interview. Home-grown OIT is “easier to do when you have high control of your small patient volumes or you’re in a clinical trial,” said Dr. Jones, who has served as an investigator on Palforzia trials and last year received more than $30,000 in consulting fees from Aimmune. “It becomes a very different situation when it becomes a national or an international recommended therapy.”

The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has published clinical practice guidelines and provides practical information on its website on how to implement OIT – including protocols for dozens of foods and diary sheets for patients to log doses and symptoms.

However, U.S. professional societies still consider OIT investigational and suggest that it will not be approved by the FDA. “As a field, are we willing to wait 4 to 5 more years for an egg product? Should we? Are we willing?” said Dr. Kim. “These are tough questions.”

Stacie M. Jones reports advisory board fees, Aimmune Therapeutics, FARE; personal fees, DBV Technologies; clinical trials grants, Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astellas, Sanofi, Regeneron, FARE, Genentech, and NIH-NIAID. Edwin Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; grant support from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Immune Tolerance Network; Food Allergy Research and Education, and the Wallace Research Foundation. Richard Wasserman receives consulting fees from Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies. Mohamed Yassine is employed by Aimmune Therapeutics. Sandra Hong has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent analysis of 142 peanut-allergic children treated for 1.5 to 2 years with a licensed oral immunotherapy (OIT) product confirms what various smaller studies have shown: Maintaining treatment for longer periods improves protection and reduces adverse effects. The findings offer some reassurance regarding the controversial approach, which has become available at a small number of clinics yet faces an uncertain future.

The new study, published July 28 in Allergy, included a subset of patients who chose to complete an extension of the phase 3 PALISADE trial of Palforzia, a proprietary set of premeasured peanut flour capsules developed by Aimmune Therapeutics.

Palforzia was approved last year for children aged 4 to 17 years with peanut allergy – one of the most common food allergies, affecting around 2% of children in the United States and Europe. The treatment is not a cure – patients must still watch what they eat and carry epinephrine for emergency reactions – but it helps build protection through daily ingestion of gradually increasing amounts of the allergen over a period of months.

In the 1-year PALISADE trial, which enrolled 496 peanut-allergic children at 66 sites in North America and Europe, participants received daily doses of study drug or placebo. The dose of the drug was escalated from 3 mg to 300 mg over 6 months; the 300-mg dose was then maintained for another 6 months. By the end of the study, about two-thirds of the children who underwent treatment could safely consume at least 600 mg of peanut protein, about the equivalent of two peanuts.

Could protection be increased with further treatment, and what would be required to sustain it? To address these questions, PALISADE patients who successfully reached the 600-mg threshold, along with those from the placebo group, were invited to participate in Aimmune’s open-label follow-on study. The extension study also explored whether protection could be maintained with less frequent dosing.

Among the 358 eligible participants who opted into the 1-year extension study, 256 came from the PALISADE treatment arm. These children were assigned to five cohorts to continue for 6 months or 12 months with daily or less frequent doses. Within the 6-month group, all started with the 300-mg daily dose. A subset received two doses a week. Within the 12-month group, some patients maintained daily dosing throughout; others received doses every other day, twice weekly, or once every 2 weeks.

The children who continued daily maintenance dosing the longest gained the most protection. Those in less-frequent dosing groups experienced more adverse events than those who received doses every day, the company reported last December in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

More than a quarter (97 of 358, or 27.1%) of participants failed to complete the extension. Families could withdraw any time for any reason. Participating in an OIT trial is demanding – it requires office visits for dosing adjustments and blood tests, rest periods, keeping symptom logs in which daily doses are recorded, and possible allergic reactions from the treatment itself. “A common reason for ‘withdrawal of consent’ in clinical studies is the inconvenience of remaining in a long-term study,” Mohamed Yassine, MD, Aimmune’s senior vice present of medical affairs, said via email.

Attrition was concentrated within certain subgroups. Most participants in (88.7%; 102 of 115) PALISADE who received placebo elected to enter the open-label extension; nearly half did not finish. Dropout rates were also high (29.2%) for non-daily dosing participants who had come from the PALISADE treatment arm.

The authors did not report on those high-dropout groups. Instead, they focused their analysis on the 142 treated PALISADE participants who continued daily dosing through the extension – 110 patients for a total of about 1.5 years and 32 patients for about 2 years. In a subgroup analysis, 48.1% of children in the 1.5-year group upped their tolerance to 2,000 mg peanut protein, and even more (80.8%) in the 2-year group reached that threshold – all while taking a 300-mg maintenance dose.

Those who remained on treatment longer also had fewer adverse events. At the exit food challenge, 24% of the 1.5-year participants had reactions that required epinephrine, but among 2-year participants, only 3.8% needed the rescue medication.

Continuing therapy past the first year seemed to have additional benefits, Sandra Hong, MD, director of the Cleveland Clinic Food Allergy Center of Excellence, said in an interview. Dr. Hong was not involved in the new research and has no financial ties with Aimmune or other food allergy companies. “Not only can you ingest more, but your reaction when you do react is going to be less,” she says.

Palforzia is only available through a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program, which educates patients, health care professionals, and pharmacies about immunotherapy risks and precautionary measures. As of last summer, before Aimmune was acquired by Nestlé Health Science, about 100 allergists in the United States had enrolled patients in the REMS program. Families can find allergists who are certified to prescribe Palforzia using the website’s Certified Participant Locator.

Although the field at large remains apprehensive about OIT and other forms of immunotherapy, an estimated 200 or more U.S. clinics are administering home-grown OIT using commercial food products, says Richard Wasserman, an OIT pioneer whose clinic in Dallas has treated allergies to about 20 foods since the practice started offering the therapy in 2008. OIT practitioners have treated more than 15,000 food allergy patients nationwide, Dr. Wasserman said via email, yet they make up just a tiny fraction of the more than 6,000 board-certified allergists in the United States.

Whether using Palforzia or nonproprietary food products, oral immunotherapy requires a lot of time and effort – not just for patients but also practitioners. “You need more space. You need more staffing. Patients doing oral challenges stay in your office for 4 to 5 hours, and we have one-to-one nursing care for them,” said Dr. Hong. “So it’s a lot of resources.”

Her team has treated about 20 children with Palforzia since the Cleveland Clinic began offering the therapy last summer. Dr. Hong and coworkers have administered OIT using commercial peanut flour and peanut butter to some 80 peanut-allergic toddlers younger than 4 years who are too young to receive for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment. Their early data, which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology in February, suggest that toddlers get complete OIT more quickly with fewer side effects than older children, Dr. Hong says. A recent study of preschoolers in Canada also found that nonproprietary OIT is very safe and effective in this younger set and could be cost-saving in the long run.

By comparison, Palforzia, which has a list price of $890 per month, was judged to be less cost-effective in analyses by academic allergists and by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. But through a copay savings program, depending on their insurance coverage, some eligible families can pay as little as $20 per month for the FDA-approved treatment.

Because the therapy is time consuming for families and is resource intensive for practices, questions remain as to how long and how frequently patients need to remain on treatment to sustain protection. Do they need to keep taking Palforzia, or “can we switch them to an equivalent amount of food and not bother with the study drug?” said Edwin Kim, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and study investigator for several Palforzia trials, in an interview.

The Food Allergy Support Team, a nonprofit group started by Dr. Wasserman and colleagues, publishes best practices and meets annually to discuss research and protocols. However, the best maintenance dose, the best dosing frequency, and the duration of daily dosing that yields the best outcomes are not known, Dr. Wasserman says.

“We think the best way to answer that question is with a regulated, pharmaceutical-grade form of peanut protein,” Dr. Yassine said.

The field’s experience with Palforzia raises a dilemma: Does its approval legitimize oral immunotherapy in general, or will rigorous, multi-million dollar trials be needed to approve products for each food or combination of foods? About 32 million people in the United States have food allergies – about 1 in 10 adults and 1 in 13 children.

“I think the field has always grappled with that, honestly,” said Stacie Jones, MD, professor of pediatrics and chief of allergy and immunology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital, Little Rock, in an interview. Home-grown OIT is “easier to do when you have high control of your small patient volumes or you’re in a clinical trial,” said Dr. Jones, who has served as an investigator on Palforzia trials and last year received more than $30,000 in consulting fees from Aimmune. “It becomes a very different situation when it becomes a national or an international recommended therapy.”

The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has published clinical practice guidelines and provides practical information on its website on how to implement OIT – including protocols for dozens of foods and diary sheets for patients to log doses and symptoms.

However, U.S. professional societies still consider OIT investigational and suggest that it will not be approved by the FDA. “As a field, are we willing to wait 4 to 5 more years for an egg product? Should we? Are we willing?” said Dr. Kim. “These are tough questions.”

Stacie M. Jones reports advisory board fees, Aimmune Therapeutics, FARE; personal fees, DBV Technologies; clinical trials grants, Aimmune Therapeutics, DBV Technologies, Astellas, Sanofi, Regeneron, FARE, Genentech, and NIH-NIAID. Edwin Kim reports consultancy with Aimmune Therapeutics, Allako, AllerGenis, Belhaven Pharma, DBV Technologies, Duke Clinical Research Institute, and Nutricia; advisory board membership with ALK, DBV Technologies, Kenota Health, and Ukko; grant support from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and Immune Tolerance Network; Food Allergy Research and Education, and the Wallace Research Foundation. Richard Wasserman receives consulting fees from Aimmune Therapeutics and DBV Technologies. Mohamed Yassine is employed by Aimmune Therapeutics. Sandra Hong has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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