Rheumatology News

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dramatic changes in the use of radiotherapy for cancer were seen during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Some radiotherapy regimens were shortened, but others were intensified, suggesting that they were being used as a replacement for surgery.

The findings come from an analysis of National Health Service data in England, which also indicated that overall there was a reduction in the amount of radiotherapy delivered.

“Radiotherapy is a very important treatment option for cancer, and our study shows that, across the English NHS, there was a rapid shift in how radiotherapy was used,” said lead author Katie Spencer, PhD, faculty of medicine and health, University of Leeds (England).

“It is impressive to see that the data closely follow the guidelines published at the start of the pandemic,” she said. For instance, for patients with breast and colorectal cancers, treatment regimens were shorter and more intensive, whereas for patients with prostate cancer, treatments were delayed to reduce exposure to COVID-19.

“In other cases, such as head and neck cancers and anal cancers, we saw that the number of radiotherapy treatments hardly changed during the first wave. This was really reassuring, as we know that it is vital that these treatments are not delayed,” Dr. Spencer added.

The study was published online in The Lancet Oncology on Jan. 22 (doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045[20]30743-9).

Researchers examined data from the National Radiotherapy Dataset on all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the NHS in England between Feb. 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020.

On interrupted time-series analysis, the introduction of lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a significant reduction in both radiotherapy courses and attendances (P < .0001).

Overall, the team estimated that there were 3,263 fewer radiotherapy treatment courses and 119,050 fewer attendances than would have taken place had the pandemic not occurred.

The largest reduction in treatment courses was seen for prostate cancer, with a 77% reduction in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019, and in nonmelanoma skin cancer, for which there was a decrease of 72.4% over the same period.

There were, however, marked increases in the number of radiotherapy courses given for some disorders in April 2020 in comparison with April 2019. Radiotherapy for bladder cancer increased by 64.2%; for esophageal cancer, it increased by 41.2%; and for rectal cancer, it increased by 36.3%.

This likely reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, “surgical capacity dropped dramatically,” Dr. Spencer said in an interview.

“To try to mitigate the consequences of that, working with their multidisciplinary teams, doctors increased the use of radiotherapy to provide a timely alternative curative treatment and help mitigate the consequences of not having access to surgery,” she said.

“This is a cohort of patients who would otherwise have had their treatment delayed, and we know that’s detrimental, so having an alternative strategy that, in specific cases, can offer similar outcomes is fantastic,” she added.

The analysis shows the “incredible speed with which radiotherapy services within the NHS were able to adapt their treatment patterns to help protect patients with cancer whilst coping with reduced surgical capacity due to the global pandemic,” coauthor Tom Roques, MD, medical director of professional practice for clinical oncology at the Royal College of Radiologists, commented in a statement.
 

Shorter radiotherapy regimen for breast cancer

In addition to the pandemic, two other events led to changes in the way that radiotherapy was delivered in the period analyzed.

One was the publication in April 2020 of the FAST-Forward trial of radiotherapy for breast cancer. This showed that radiotherapy with 26 Gy in 5 fractions administered over 1 week following primary surgery for early breast cancer was noninferior to the standard 40 Gy delivered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks.

These results led to immediate changes in practice, and quick implementation across the NHS “massively freed up capacity in terms of the number of fractions being delivered but also really helped to keep patients safe by ensuring they were only visiting the hospital on 5 occasions instead of the standard 15,” Spencer said.

Indeed, the analysis showed that the proportion of all breast radiotherapy courses given as the ultrahypofractionated regimen of 26 Gy in five fractions increased from 0.2% in April 2019 to 60.0% in April 2020 (P < .0001), which the authors noted “contributed to the substantial reduction” in radiotherapy attendances.

The other event occurred in March 2020, when NHS England “dramatically changed commissioning” from a tariff-based system in which radiotherapy was paid for every fraction delivered to a “payment that reflects the amount of money that was spent the previous year.

“That supported radiotherapy providers to do what was necessary to continue to deliver the best possible care to patients with cancer despite COVID,” Dr. Spencer added. “We saw this in our study, with doctors shortening radiotherapy courses to keep patients safe and departments running.”

The question now is whether the changes resulting from these two events will be maintained once the COVID-19 pandemic lifts.

What will happen to radiotherapy service commissioning beyond the end of the financial year is currently “unclear,” Dr. Spencer commented.

“There’s strong clinical support for continuing to use the shorter treatment courses in breast cancer, although it’s hard to know how any change in commissioning and reduction in COVID risk will influence their use over the next year and beyond,” she said.

“The data we used in this study, that Public Health England collect, will be really valuable in helping us to assess this in future,” Dr. Spencer said.
 

Radiotherapy remains reduced

Dr. Spencer taid that, “whilst in April and May 2020 we saw that the fall in radiotherapy was in cancers where it›s safe to delay treatment, in June we could see that radiotherapy activity was not back up to where it was previously, and that was across a wider range of cancers.

“This looks likely to be because of a fall in the number of people being diagnosed with cancer,” she said.

“The pandemic continues to cause severe disruption for cancer diagnosis and some national screening programs,” she commented. “This has meant that fewer patients were diagnosed with cancer during the first wave of the pandemic, and this is likely to have led to the persistent fall in treatments we are seeing.”

By November 2020, some referral pathways were back up to the volume of patients that was seen before the pandemic, but “it’s very variable across different diagnoses.”

The fear is that the resurgence of COVID-19 over the past month has made the situation worse, which is “very worrying,” Dr. Spencer said.

No funding for the study was declared. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More new evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More new evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More new evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

Daily treatment with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) led to more malignancies and adverse cardiovascular events in older rheumatoid arthritis patients compared with treatment with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor, according to the partial results of a safety study announced last week by Pfizer.

The postmarketing study known as ORAL Surveillance began in 2014 to evaluate the safety of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib compared to a TNF inhibitor in RA patients 50 years of age or older with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factor. Its 4,362 participants were randomized to either daily doses of 5 mg (n = 1,455) or 10 mg (n = 1,456) of tofacitinib or the TNFi (n = 1,451), which was adalimumab for patients in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, and etanercept elsewhere. During analysis, adverse events were pooled for all patients on tofacitinib.

Overall, 135 patients developed major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and 164 developed malignancies – excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer. The incidence of adjudicated malignancies was significantly higher in the tofacitinib group, compared with the TNFi group (1.13 vs. 0.77 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.09). The rate of MACE was also higher in the combined tofacitinib group (0.98 vs. 0.73 per 100 person-years; HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.91-1.94). Both rates for tofacitinib did not meet the trial’s noninferiority criteria.

Among the patients on tofacitinib, the most reported MACE was myocardial infarction and the most reported malignancy was lung cancer. Study participants with noted risk factors – including older age and smoking – were more likely to experience adverse events.

In February 2019, patients in the 10-mg tofacitinib group were switched to the 5-mg because of a safety signal indicating increased risk of pulmonary embolism and death.

Tofacitinib was approved for RA in November 2012, though concerns about serious side effects had been noted during clinical trials and a boxed warning was ultimately added to the drug’s label. Tofacitinib is also approved for adults with active psoriatic arthritis, adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis, and patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular course juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Other JAK inhibitors such as baricitinib and upadacitinib have been approved for RA in the interim as well, though the higher dose of baricitinib was rejected in committee because of safety concerns and both their boxes also warn against infections, thrombosis, and cancer.

A postmarketing safety study on baricitinib is expected to be completed in 2025.

The full results of the ORAL Surveillance study – which should address safety regarding pulmonary embolism and mortality, as well as efficacy data – have not yet been released. “Pfizer is working with the [FDA] and other regulatory agencies to review the full results and analyses as they become available,” the press release said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Genomic surveillance’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Genomic surveillance’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Genomic surveillance’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

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

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

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

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

Association is not causality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

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

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

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

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

Association is not causality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Studies need to explore mechanism of action

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

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

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

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

Association is not causality

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

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

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

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

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

The prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appears to be much lower than previously believed and may pose “a potential risk to research funding for the disease,” according to results of a meta-analysis involving a network of population-based registries.

“When we started this study, a widely cited lupus statistic was that approximately 1.5 million Americans were affected. Our meta-analysis found the actual prevalence to be slightly more than 200,000: a number that approaches the [Food and Drug Administration’s] definition of a rare disease,” Emily Somers, PhD, ScM, senior author and associate professor of rheumatology and environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a written statement.

Their estimates, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology, put the overall SLE prevalence in the United States at 72.8 per 100,000 person-years in 2018, with nearly nine times more females affected (128.7 cases per 100,000) than males (14.6 per 100,000). Race and ethnicity also play a role, as prevalence was highest among American Indian/Alaska Native and Black females, with Hispanic females lower but still higher than White and Asian/Pacific Islander females, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, MSc, of New York University, the lead author, and associates said.

SLE prevalence was distributed similarly in men, although there was a greater relative margin between American Indians/Alaska Natives (53.8 cases per 100,000 person-years) and Blacks (26.7 per 100,000), and Asians/Pacific Islanders were higher than Whites (11.2 vs. 8.9), the investigators reported.

The meta-analysis leveraged data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national lupus registries, which include four state-specific SLE registries and a fifth in the Indian Health Service. All cases of SLE occurred in 2002-2009, and the data were age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. population and separately extrapolated to the 2018 U.S. Census population, they explained.

The analysis was funded by cooperative agreements between the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and New York University, and the CDC and National Institute of Health.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appears to be much lower than previously believed and may pose “a potential risk to research funding for the disease,” according to results of a meta-analysis involving a network of population-based registries.

“When we started this study, a widely cited lupus statistic was that approximately 1.5 million Americans were affected. Our meta-analysis found the actual prevalence to be slightly more than 200,000: a number that approaches the [Food and Drug Administration’s] definition of a rare disease,” Emily Somers, PhD, ScM, senior author and associate professor of rheumatology and environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a written statement.

Their estimates, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology, put the overall SLE prevalence in the United States at 72.8 per 100,000 person-years in 2018, with nearly nine times more females affected (128.7 cases per 100,000) than males (14.6 per 100,000). Race and ethnicity also play a role, as prevalence was highest among American Indian/Alaska Native and Black females, with Hispanic females lower but still higher than White and Asian/Pacific Islander females, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, MSc, of New York University, the lead author, and associates said.

SLE prevalence was distributed similarly in men, although there was a greater relative margin between American Indians/Alaska Natives (53.8 cases per 100,000 person-years) and Blacks (26.7 per 100,000), and Asians/Pacific Islanders were higher than Whites (11.2 vs. 8.9), the investigators reported.

The meta-analysis leveraged data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national lupus registries, which include four state-specific SLE registries and a fifth in the Indian Health Service. All cases of SLE occurred in 2002-2009, and the data were age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. population and separately extrapolated to the 2018 U.S. Census population, they explained.

The analysis was funded by cooperative agreements between the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and New York University, and the CDC and National Institute of Health.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) appears to be much lower than previously believed and may pose “a potential risk to research funding for the disease,” according to results of a meta-analysis involving a network of population-based registries.

“When we started this study, a widely cited lupus statistic was that approximately 1.5 million Americans were affected. Our meta-analysis found the actual prevalence to be slightly more than 200,000: a number that approaches the [Food and Drug Administration’s] definition of a rare disease,” Emily Somers, PhD, ScM, senior author and associate professor of rheumatology and environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a written statement.

Their estimates, published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology, put the overall SLE prevalence in the United States at 72.8 per 100,000 person-years in 2018, with nearly nine times more females affected (128.7 cases per 100,000) than males (14.6 per 100,000). Race and ethnicity also play a role, as prevalence was highest among American Indian/Alaska Native and Black females, with Hispanic females lower but still higher than White and Asian/Pacific Islander females, Peter M. Izmirly, MD, MSc, of New York University, the lead author, and associates said.

SLE prevalence was distributed similarly in men, although there was a greater relative margin between American Indians/Alaska Natives (53.8 cases per 100,000 person-years) and Blacks (26.7 per 100,000), and Asians/Pacific Islanders were higher than Whites (11.2 vs. 8.9), the investigators reported.

The meta-analysis leveraged data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s national lupus registries, which include four state-specific SLE registries and a fifth in the Indian Health Service. All cases of SLE occurred in 2002-2009, and the data were age adjusted to the 2000 U.S. population and separately extrapolated to the 2018 U.S. Census population, they explained.

The analysis was funded by cooperative agreements between the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and New York University, and the CDC and National Institute of Health.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.