User login
COVID and schools: A pediatrician's case for a return to class
In a time when this country is struggling to find topics on which we can achieve broad consensus, the question of whether in-class learning is important stands as an outlier. Parents, teachers, students, and pediatricians all agree that having children learn in a social, face-to-face environment is critical to their education and mental health. Because school has become a de facto daycare source for many families, employers have joined in the chorus supporting a return to in-class education.
Of course, beyond that basic point of agreement the myriad of questions relating to when and how that return to the educational norm can be achieved we divide into groups with almost as many answers as there are questions. Part of the problem stems from the national leadership vacuum that fed the confusion. In this void the topic of school reopening has become politicized.
On Jan. 5, 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics released an updated interim COVID-19 Guidance for Safe Schools at services.aap.org. It is a thorough and well thought out document that should function as a roadmap for communities and pediatricians who serve as official and unofficial advisers to their local school departments. At the very outset it reminds us that “school transmission mirrors but does not drive community transmission.”
Unfortunately, timing is everything and while the document’s salient points received some media attention it was mostly buried by the tsunami of press coverage in the wake of the storming of the Capitol the next day and the postinauguration reshuffling of the federal government. Even if it had been released on one of those seldom seen quiet news days, I fear the document’s message encouraging the return to in-class learning would have still not received the attention it deserved.
The lack of a high-visibility celebrity spokesperson and a system of short-tenure presidencies puts the AAP at a disadvantage when it comes to getting its message across to a national audience. The advocacy role filters down to those of us in our own communities who must convince school boards that not only is in-class learning critical but there are safe ways to do it.
In some communities the timing of return to in-class learning may pit pediatricians against teachers. Usually, these two groups share an enthusiastic advocacy for children. However, facing what has up to this point been a poorly defined health risk, teachers are understandably resistant to return to the classroom although they acknowledge its importance.
Armed with the AAP’s guidance document, pediatricians should encourage school boards and state and local health departments to look closely at the epidemiologic evidence and consider creative ways to prioritize teachers for what currently are limited and erratic vaccine supplies. Strategies might include offering vaccines to teachers based strictly on their age and/or health status. However, teachers and in-class education are so critical to the educational process and the national economy that an open offer to all teachers makes more sense.
While some states have already prioritized teachers for vaccines, the AAP must continue to speak loudly that in-class education is critical and urge all states to do what is necessary to make teachers feel safe to return to the classroom.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In a time when this country is struggling to find topics on which we can achieve broad consensus, the question of whether in-class learning is important stands as an outlier. Parents, teachers, students, and pediatricians all agree that having children learn in a social, face-to-face environment is critical to their education and mental health. Because school has become a de facto daycare source for many families, employers have joined in the chorus supporting a return to in-class education.
Of course, beyond that basic point of agreement the myriad of questions relating to when and how that return to the educational norm can be achieved we divide into groups with almost as many answers as there are questions. Part of the problem stems from the national leadership vacuum that fed the confusion. In this void the topic of school reopening has become politicized.
On Jan. 5, 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics released an updated interim COVID-19 Guidance for Safe Schools at services.aap.org. It is a thorough and well thought out document that should function as a roadmap for communities and pediatricians who serve as official and unofficial advisers to their local school departments. At the very outset it reminds us that “school transmission mirrors but does not drive community transmission.”
Unfortunately, timing is everything and while the document’s salient points received some media attention it was mostly buried by the tsunami of press coverage in the wake of the storming of the Capitol the next day and the postinauguration reshuffling of the federal government. Even if it had been released on one of those seldom seen quiet news days, I fear the document’s message encouraging the return to in-class learning would have still not received the attention it deserved.
The lack of a high-visibility celebrity spokesperson and a system of short-tenure presidencies puts the AAP at a disadvantage when it comes to getting its message across to a national audience. The advocacy role filters down to those of us in our own communities who must convince school boards that not only is in-class learning critical but there are safe ways to do it.
In some communities the timing of return to in-class learning may pit pediatricians against teachers. Usually, these two groups share an enthusiastic advocacy for children. However, facing what has up to this point been a poorly defined health risk, teachers are understandably resistant to return to the classroom although they acknowledge its importance.
Armed with the AAP’s guidance document, pediatricians should encourage school boards and state and local health departments to look closely at the epidemiologic evidence and consider creative ways to prioritize teachers for what currently are limited and erratic vaccine supplies. Strategies might include offering vaccines to teachers based strictly on their age and/or health status. However, teachers and in-class education are so critical to the educational process and the national economy that an open offer to all teachers makes more sense.
While some states have already prioritized teachers for vaccines, the AAP must continue to speak loudly that in-class education is critical and urge all states to do what is necessary to make teachers feel safe to return to the classroom.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
In a time when this country is struggling to find topics on which we can achieve broad consensus, the question of whether in-class learning is important stands as an outlier. Parents, teachers, students, and pediatricians all agree that having children learn in a social, face-to-face environment is critical to their education and mental health. Because school has become a de facto daycare source for many families, employers have joined in the chorus supporting a return to in-class education.
Of course, beyond that basic point of agreement the myriad of questions relating to when and how that return to the educational norm can be achieved we divide into groups with almost as many answers as there are questions. Part of the problem stems from the national leadership vacuum that fed the confusion. In this void the topic of school reopening has become politicized.
On Jan. 5, 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics released an updated interim COVID-19 Guidance for Safe Schools at services.aap.org. It is a thorough and well thought out document that should function as a roadmap for communities and pediatricians who serve as official and unofficial advisers to their local school departments. At the very outset it reminds us that “school transmission mirrors but does not drive community transmission.”
Unfortunately, timing is everything and while the document’s salient points received some media attention it was mostly buried by the tsunami of press coverage in the wake of the storming of the Capitol the next day and the postinauguration reshuffling of the federal government. Even if it had been released on one of those seldom seen quiet news days, I fear the document’s message encouraging the return to in-class learning would have still not received the attention it deserved.
The lack of a high-visibility celebrity spokesperson and a system of short-tenure presidencies puts the AAP at a disadvantage when it comes to getting its message across to a national audience. The advocacy role filters down to those of us in our own communities who must convince school boards that not only is in-class learning critical but there are safe ways to do it.
In some communities the timing of return to in-class learning may pit pediatricians against teachers. Usually, these two groups share an enthusiastic advocacy for children. However, facing what has up to this point been a poorly defined health risk, teachers are understandably resistant to return to the classroom although they acknowledge its importance.
Armed with the AAP’s guidance document, pediatricians should encourage school boards and state and local health departments to look closely at the epidemiologic evidence and consider creative ways to prioritize teachers for what currently are limited and erratic vaccine supplies. Strategies might include offering vaccines to teachers based strictly on their age and/or health status. However, teachers and in-class education are so critical to the educational process and the national economy that an open offer to all teachers makes more sense.
While some states have already prioritized teachers for vaccines, the AAP must continue to speak loudly that in-class education is critical and urge all states to do what is necessary to make teachers feel safe to return to the classroom.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
COVID-19 vaccination recommended for rheumatology patients
People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.
“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”
The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.
“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.
So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
Some risks are real
The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.
Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.
It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.
Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.
Although it might be optimal to administer the vaccines when rheumatic diseases are quiescent, the urgency of getting vaccinated overrides that consideration, Dr. Curtis said. “By and large, there was a general consensus to not want to delay vaccination until somebody was stable and doing great, because you don’t know how long that’s going to be,” he said.
How well does it work?
One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.
The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.
For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”
The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.
It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.
For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.
For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.
None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.
“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”
The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.
“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.
So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
Some risks are real
The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.
Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.
It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.
Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.
Although it might be optimal to administer the vaccines when rheumatic diseases are quiescent, the urgency of getting vaccinated overrides that consideration, Dr. Curtis said. “By and large, there was a general consensus to not want to delay vaccination until somebody was stable and doing great, because you don’t know how long that’s going to be,” he said.
How well does it work?
One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.
The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.
For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”
The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.
It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.
For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.
For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.
None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.
“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”
The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.
“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.
So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
Some risks are real
The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.
Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.
It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.
Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.
Although it might be optimal to administer the vaccines when rheumatic diseases are quiescent, the urgency of getting vaccinated overrides that consideration, Dr. Curtis said. “By and large, there was a general consensus to not want to delay vaccination until somebody was stable and doing great, because you don’t know how long that’s going to be,” he said.
How well does it work?
One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.
The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.
For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”
The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.
It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.
For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.
For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.
None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Loss of smell lingers post COVID-19
The findings illustrate that olfactory problems are common not only during the acute COVID-19 phase but also “in the long run” and that these problems should be “taken into consideration” when following up these patients, study investigator Johannes Frasnelli, MD, professor, department of anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, said in an interview.
Loss of the sense of smell can affect quality of life because it affects eating and drinking, and may even be dangerous, said Dr. Frasnelli. “If your sense of smell is impaired, you may unknowingly eat spoiled food, or you may not smell smoke or gas in your home,” he said. In addition, Dr. Frasnelli noted that an impaired sense of smell is associated with higher rates of depression. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.
‘Striking’ finding
Research shows that about 60% of patients with COVID-19 lose their sense of smell to some degree during the acute phase of the disease. “But we wanted to go further and look at the longer-term effects of loss of smell and taste,” said Dr. Frasnelli.
The analysis included 813 health care workers in the province of Quebec. For all the patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed through testing with a nasopharyngeal viral swab.
Participants completed a 64-item online questionnaire that asked about three senses: olfactory; gustatory, which includes tastes such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, savory and umami; and trigeminal, which includes sensations such as spiciness of hot peppers and “coolness” of mint.
They were asked to rate these on a scale of 0 (no perception) to 10 (very strong perception) before the infection, during the infection, and currently. They were also asked about other symptoms, including fatigue.
Most respondents had been infected in the first wave of the virus in March and April of 2020 and responded to the questionnaire an average of 5 months later.
The vast majority of respondents (84.1%) were women, which Dr. Frasnelli said was not surprising because women predominate in the health care field.
The analysis showed that average smell ratings were 8.98 before infection, 2.85 during the acute phase, and 7.41 when respondents answered the questionnaire. The sense of taste was less affected and recovered faster than did the sense of smell. Results for taste were 9.20 before infection, 3.59 during the acute phase, and 8.05 after COVID-19.
Among 580 respondents who indicated a compromised sense of smell during the acute phase, the average smell rating when answering the questionnaire was 6.89, compared to 9.03 before the infection. More than half (51.2%) reported not regaining full olfactory function.
The fact that the sense of smell had not returned to normal for half the participants so long after being infected is “novel and quite striking,” said Dr. Frasnelli.
However, he noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean all those with a compromised sense of smell “have huge problems.” In some cases, he said, the problem “is more subtle.”
Not a CNS problem?
Respondents also completed a chemosensory dysfunction home test (CD-HT). They were asked to prepare common household food items, such as peanut butter, sugar, salt, and vinegar, in a particular way – for example, to add sugar or salt to water – and provide feedback on how they smell and taste.
For this CD-HT analysis, 18.4% of respondents reported having persistent loss of smell. This, Dr. Frasnelli said, adds to evidence from self-reported responses and suggests that in some cases, the problem is more than senses not returning to normal.
“From the questionnaires, roughly 50% said their sense of smell is still not back to normal, and when we look at the CD home test, we see that almost 20% of subjects indeed have pretty strong impairment of their sense of smell,” he said.
The results showed no sex differences, although Dr. Frasnelli noted that most of the sample were women. “It’s tricky to look at the data with regard to sex because it’s a bit skewed,” he said.
Male respondents were older than female participants, but there was no difference in impairment between age groups. Dr. Frasnelli said this was “quite interesting,” inasmuch as older people usually lose some sense of smell.
The researchers have not yet examined whether the results differ by type of health care worker.
They also have not examined in detail whether infection severity affects the risk for extended olfactory impairment. Although some research suggests that the problem with smell is more common in less severe cases, Dr. Frasnelli noted this could be because loss of smell is not a huge problem for patients battling grave health problems.
As for other symptoms, many respondents reported lingering fatigue; some reported debilitating fatigue, said Dr. Frasnelli. However, he cautioned that this is difficult to interpret, because the participants were health care workers, many of whom returned to work during the pandemic and perhaps had not fully rested.
He also noted that he and his colleagues have not “made the link” between impaired smell and the degree of fatigue.
The COVID-19 virus appears to attack supporting sustentacular cells in the olfactory epithelium, not nerve cells.
“Right now, it seems that the smell problem is not a central nervous system problem but a peripheral problem,” said Dr. Frasnelli. “But we don’t know for sure; it may be that the virus somehow gets into the brain and some symptoms are caused by the effects of the infection on the brain.”
The researchers will extend their research with another questionnaire to assess senses 10-12 months after COVID-19.
Limitations of the study include the subjective nature of the smell and taste ratings and the single time point at which data were collected.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the research in an interview, Thomas Hummel, MD, professor, smell and taste clinic, department of otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany), said the new results regarding loss of smell after COVID-19 are “very congruent” with what he and his colleagues have observed.
Research shows that up to one in five of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience olfactory loss. “While the numbers may vary a bit from study to study or lab to lab, I think 5% to 20% of post–COVID-19 patients exhibit long-term olfactory loss,” Dr. Hummel said.
His group has observed that “many more are not back to normal,” which conforms with what Dr. Frasnelli’s study reveals, said Dr. Hummel.
Also commenting on the research, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, professor of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said the study was relatively large and the results “interesting.”
Although it “provides more evidence there’s a subset of patients with symptoms even well past the acute phase” of COVID-19, the results are “mostly confirmatory” and include “nothing super surprising,” Dr. Tyler said in an interview.
However, the investigators did attempt to make the study “a little more quantitative” and “to confirm the self-reporting with their validated CD home test,” he said.
Dr. Tyler wondered how representative the sample was and whether the study drew more participants with impaired senses. “If I had a loss of smell or taste, maybe I would be more likely to respond to such a survey,” he said.
He also noted the difficulty of separating loss of smell from loss of taste.
“If you lose your sense of smell, things don’t taste right, so it can be confounding as to how to separate out those two,” he noted.
The study was supported by the Foundation of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Province of Quebec. Dr. Frasnelli has received royalties from Styriabooks in Austria for a book on olfaction published in 2019 and has received honoraria for speaking engagements. Dr. Hummel and Dr. Tyler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings illustrate that olfactory problems are common not only during the acute COVID-19 phase but also “in the long run” and that these problems should be “taken into consideration” when following up these patients, study investigator Johannes Frasnelli, MD, professor, department of anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, said in an interview.
Loss of the sense of smell can affect quality of life because it affects eating and drinking, and may even be dangerous, said Dr. Frasnelli. “If your sense of smell is impaired, you may unknowingly eat spoiled food, or you may not smell smoke or gas in your home,” he said. In addition, Dr. Frasnelli noted that an impaired sense of smell is associated with higher rates of depression. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.
‘Striking’ finding
Research shows that about 60% of patients with COVID-19 lose their sense of smell to some degree during the acute phase of the disease. “But we wanted to go further and look at the longer-term effects of loss of smell and taste,” said Dr. Frasnelli.
The analysis included 813 health care workers in the province of Quebec. For all the patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed through testing with a nasopharyngeal viral swab.
Participants completed a 64-item online questionnaire that asked about three senses: olfactory; gustatory, which includes tastes such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, savory and umami; and trigeminal, which includes sensations such as spiciness of hot peppers and “coolness” of mint.
They were asked to rate these on a scale of 0 (no perception) to 10 (very strong perception) before the infection, during the infection, and currently. They were also asked about other symptoms, including fatigue.
Most respondents had been infected in the first wave of the virus in March and April of 2020 and responded to the questionnaire an average of 5 months later.
The vast majority of respondents (84.1%) were women, which Dr. Frasnelli said was not surprising because women predominate in the health care field.
The analysis showed that average smell ratings were 8.98 before infection, 2.85 during the acute phase, and 7.41 when respondents answered the questionnaire. The sense of taste was less affected and recovered faster than did the sense of smell. Results for taste were 9.20 before infection, 3.59 during the acute phase, and 8.05 after COVID-19.
Among 580 respondents who indicated a compromised sense of smell during the acute phase, the average smell rating when answering the questionnaire was 6.89, compared to 9.03 before the infection. More than half (51.2%) reported not regaining full olfactory function.
The fact that the sense of smell had not returned to normal for half the participants so long after being infected is “novel and quite striking,” said Dr. Frasnelli.
However, he noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean all those with a compromised sense of smell “have huge problems.” In some cases, he said, the problem “is more subtle.”
Not a CNS problem?
Respondents also completed a chemosensory dysfunction home test (CD-HT). They were asked to prepare common household food items, such as peanut butter, sugar, salt, and vinegar, in a particular way – for example, to add sugar or salt to water – and provide feedback on how they smell and taste.
For this CD-HT analysis, 18.4% of respondents reported having persistent loss of smell. This, Dr. Frasnelli said, adds to evidence from self-reported responses and suggests that in some cases, the problem is more than senses not returning to normal.
“From the questionnaires, roughly 50% said their sense of smell is still not back to normal, and when we look at the CD home test, we see that almost 20% of subjects indeed have pretty strong impairment of their sense of smell,” he said.
The results showed no sex differences, although Dr. Frasnelli noted that most of the sample were women. “It’s tricky to look at the data with regard to sex because it’s a bit skewed,” he said.
Male respondents were older than female participants, but there was no difference in impairment between age groups. Dr. Frasnelli said this was “quite interesting,” inasmuch as older people usually lose some sense of smell.
The researchers have not yet examined whether the results differ by type of health care worker.
They also have not examined in detail whether infection severity affects the risk for extended olfactory impairment. Although some research suggests that the problem with smell is more common in less severe cases, Dr. Frasnelli noted this could be because loss of smell is not a huge problem for patients battling grave health problems.
As for other symptoms, many respondents reported lingering fatigue; some reported debilitating fatigue, said Dr. Frasnelli. However, he cautioned that this is difficult to interpret, because the participants were health care workers, many of whom returned to work during the pandemic and perhaps had not fully rested.
He also noted that he and his colleagues have not “made the link” between impaired smell and the degree of fatigue.
The COVID-19 virus appears to attack supporting sustentacular cells in the olfactory epithelium, not nerve cells.
“Right now, it seems that the smell problem is not a central nervous system problem but a peripheral problem,” said Dr. Frasnelli. “But we don’t know for sure; it may be that the virus somehow gets into the brain and some symptoms are caused by the effects of the infection on the brain.”
The researchers will extend their research with another questionnaire to assess senses 10-12 months after COVID-19.
Limitations of the study include the subjective nature of the smell and taste ratings and the single time point at which data were collected.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the research in an interview, Thomas Hummel, MD, professor, smell and taste clinic, department of otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany), said the new results regarding loss of smell after COVID-19 are “very congruent” with what he and his colleagues have observed.
Research shows that up to one in five of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience olfactory loss. “While the numbers may vary a bit from study to study or lab to lab, I think 5% to 20% of post–COVID-19 patients exhibit long-term olfactory loss,” Dr. Hummel said.
His group has observed that “many more are not back to normal,” which conforms with what Dr. Frasnelli’s study reveals, said Dr. Hummel.
Also commenting on the research, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, professor of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said the study was relatively large and the results “interesting.”
Although it “provides more evidence there’s a subset of patients with symptoms even well past the acute phase” of COVID-19, the results are “mostly confirmatory” and include “nothing super surprising,” Dr. Tyler said in an interview.
However, the investigators did attempt to make the study “a little more quantitative” and “to confirm the self-reporting with their validated CD home test,” he said.
Dr. Tyler wondered how representative the sample was and whether the study drew more participants with impaired senses. “If I had a loss of smell or taste, maybe I would be more likely to respond to such a survey,” he said.
He also noted the difficulty of separating loss of smell from loss of taste.
“If you lose your sense of smell, things don’t taste right, so it can be confounding as to how to separate out those two,” he noted.
The study was supported by the Foundation of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Province of Quebec. Dr. Frasnelli has received royalties from Styriabooks in Austria for a book on olfaction published in 2019 and has received honoraria for speaking engagements. Dr. Hummel and Dr. Tyler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings illustrate that olfactory problems are common not only during the acute COVID-19 phase but also “in the long run” and that these problems should be “taken into consideration” when following up these patients, study investigator Johannes Frasnelli, MD, professor, department of anatomy, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, said in an interview.
Loss of the sense of smell can affect quality of life because it affects eating and drinking, and may even be dangerous, said Dr. Frasnelli. “If your sense of smell is impaired, you may unknowingly eat spoiled food, or you may not smell smoke or gas in your home,” he said. In addition, Dr. Frasnelli noted that an impaired sense of smell is associated with higher rates of depression. The findings will be presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology in April.
‘Striking’ finding
Research shows that about 60% of patients with COVID-19 lose their sense of smell to some degree during the acute phase of the disease. “But we wanted to go further and look at the longer-term effects of loss of smell and taste,” said Dr. Frasnelli.
The analysis included 813 health care workers in the province of Quebec. For all the patients, SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed through testing with a nasopharyngeal viral swab.
Participants completed a 64-item online questionnaire that asked about three senses: olfactory; gustatory, which includes tastes such as sweet, sour, bitter, salty, savory and umami; and trigeminal, which includes sensations such as spiciness of hot peppers and “coolness” of mint.
They were asked to rate these on a scale of 0 (no perception) to 10 (very strong perception) before the infection, during the infection, and currently. They were also asked about other symptoms, including fatigue.
Most respondents had been infected in the first wave of the virus in March and April of 2020 and responded to the questionnaire an average of 5 months later.
The vast majority of respondents (84.1%) were women, which Dr. Frasnelli said was not surprising because women predominate in the health care field.
The analysis showed that average smell ratings were 8.98 before infection, 2.85 during the acute phase, and 7.41 when respondents answered the questionnaire. The sense of taste was less affected and recovered faster than did the sense of smell. Results for taste were 9.20 before infection, 3.59 during the acute phase, and 8.05 after COVID-19.
Among 580 respondents who indicated a compromised sense of smell during the acute phase, the average smell rating when answering the questionnaire was 6.89, compared to 9.03 before the infection. More than half (51.2%) reported not regaining full olfactory function.
The fact that the sense of smell had not returned to normal for half the participants so long after being infected is “novel and quite striking,” said Dr. Frasnelli.
However, he noted, this doesn’t necessarily mean all those with a compromised sense of smell “have huge problems.” In some cases, he said, the problem “is more subtle.”
Not a CNS problem?
Respondents also completed a chemosensory dysfunction home test (CD-HT). They were asked to prepare common household food items, such as peanut butter, sugar, salt, and vinegar, in a particular way – for example, to add sugar or salt to water – and provide feedback on how they smell and taste.
For this CD-HT analysis, 18.4% of respondents reported having persistent loss of smell. This, Dr. Frasnelli said, adds to evidence from self-reported responses and suggests that in some cases, the problem is more than senses not returning to normal.
“From the questionnaires, roughly 50% said their sense of smell is still not back to normal, and when we look at the CD home test, we see that almost 20% of subjects indeed have pretty strong impairment of their sense of smell,” he said.
The results showed no sex differences, although Dr. Frasnelli noted that most of the sample were women. “It’s tricky to look at the data with regard to sex because it’s a bit skewed,” he said.
Male respondents were older than female participants, but there was no difference in impairment between age groups. Dr. Frasnelli said this was “quite interesting,” inasmuch as older people usually lose some sense of smell.
The researchers have not yet examined whether the results differ by type of health care worker.
They also have not examined in detail whether infection severity affects the risk for extended olfactory impairment. Although some research suggests that the problem with smell is more common in less severe cases, Dr. Frasnelli noted this could be because loss of smell is not a huge problem for patients battling grave health problems.
As for other symptoms, many respondents reported lingering fatigue; some reported debilitating fatigue, said Dr. Frasnelli. However, he cautioned that this is difficult to interpret, because the participants were health care workers, many of whom returned to work during the pandemic and perhaps had not fully rested.
He also noted that he and his colleagues have not “made the link” between impaired smell and the degree of fatigue.
The COVID-19 virus appears to attack supporting sustentacular cells in the olfactory epithelium, not nerve cells.
“Right now, it seems that the smell problem is not a central nervous system problem but a peripheral problem,” said Dr. Frasnelli. “But we don’t know for sure; it may be that the virus somehow gets into the brain and some symptoms are caused by the effects of the infection on the brain.”
The researchers will extend their research with another questionnaire to assess senses 10-12 months after COVID-19.
Limitations of the study include the subjective nature of the smell and taste ratings and the single time point at which data were collected.
Confirmatory findings
Commenting on the research in an interview, Thomas Hummel, MD, professor, smell and taste clinic, department of otorhinolaryngology, Technische Universität Dresden (Germany), said the new results regarding loss of smell after COVID-19 are “very congruent” with what he and his colleagues have observed.
Research shows that up to one in five of those infected with SARS-CoV-2 experience olfactory loss. “While the numbers may vary a bit from study to study or lab to lab, I think 5% to 20% of post–COVID-19 patients exhibit long-term olfactory loss,” Dr. Hummel said.
His group has observed that “many more are not back to normal,” which conforms with what Dr. Frasnelli’s study reveals, said Dr. Hummel.
Also commenting on the research, Kenneth L. Tyler, MD, professor of neurology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a fellow of the American Academy of Neurology, said the study was relatively large and the results “interesting.”
Although it “provides more evidence there’s a subset of patients with symptoms even well past the acute phase” of COVID-19, the results are “mostly confirmatory” and include “nothing super surprising,” Dr. Tyler said in an interview.
However, the investigators did attempt to make the study “a little more quantitative” and “to confirm the self-reporting with their validated CD home test,” he said.
Dr. Tyler wondered how representative the sample was and whether the study drew more participants with impaired senses. “If I had a loss of smell or taste, maybe I would be more likely to respond to such a survey,” he said.
He also noted the difficulty of separating loss of smell from loss of taste.
“If you lose your sense of smell, things don’t taste right, so it can be confounding as to how to separate out those two,” he noted.
The study was supported by the Foundation of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières and the Province of Quebec. Dr. Frasnelli has received royalties from Styriabooks in Austria for a book on olfaction published in 2019 and has received honoraria for speaking engagements. Dr. Hummel and Dr. Tyler have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Psychiatrists’ happiness, well-being hit hard by COVID-19
Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.
The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.
Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
Anxiety, depression, burnout
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.
This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.
The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.
in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).
Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.
Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.
Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.
Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
Striving for work-life balance
Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.
Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.
About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.
About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.
About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.
Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).
Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.
It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.
Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.
The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.
Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
Anxiety, depression, burnout
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.
This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.
The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.
in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).
Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.
Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.
Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.
Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
Striving for work-life balance
Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.
Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.
About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.
About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.
About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.
Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).
Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.
It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.
Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Events of the past year have taken a huge toll on the happiness, wellness, and lifestyles of many, but especially those in the health care field, including psychiatrists.
The newly released Medscape Psychiatrist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2021 reveals how psychiatrists are coping with burnout and trying to maintain personal wellness, and how they view their workplaces and their futures amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the pandemic hit in March 2020, 84% of psychiatrists who responded to the survey reported being happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (82%) of physicians overall.
But as the pandemic has worn on, feelings have shifted, and there are clear signs of strain on those in the health care field. Now, just over half (55%) of psychiatrists say they are happy outside of work, similar to the percentage (58%) of physicians overall.
Perhaps not surprising given the specific challenges of COVID-19, infectious disease physicians, pulmonologists, rheumatologists, and intensivists currently rank lowest in happiness outside of work.
Anxiety, depression, burnout
With the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, more than three quarters (77%) of psychiatrists surveyed report experiencing some degree of anxiety about their future, the same percentage as for physicians overall.
This year, more psychiatrists reported being either burned out or burned out and depressed (41% vs. 35% last year). About two-thirds of psychiatrists said burnout has had at least a moderate impact on their lives; 5% consider the impact so severe that they are thinking of leaving medicine altogether.
The majority of burned-out psychiatrists (63%) said they felt that way even before the pandemic began; for about one-third (37%), burnout set in after the pandemic began.
in the workplace (39%) and spending too many hours at work (37%).
Psychiatrists’ top tactic to cope with burnout is talking with family or friends (53%), followed by isolating themselves from others (51%), sleeping (45%), and exercising (43%); 42% said they eat junk food to cope; 35% play music; and 25% drink alcohol.
Most psychiatrists (63%) suffering burnout and/or depression don’t plan on seeking professional help. About one-third are currently seeking help or plan to do so, the highest proportion among all specialties.
Considering their symptoms not severe enough (57%) and feeling that they could deal with the problem on their own (41%) are the top reasons for not seeking professional help; 36% said they were too busy to get help, and 17% said they didn’t want to risk disclosing a problem.
Fifteen percent of psychiatrists who are burned out, depressed, or both have contemplated suicide, and 2% have attempted suicide.
Striving for work-life balance
Work-life balance is the most pressing workplace issue for 45% of psychiatrists, and 44% would sacrifice some of their salary for better work-life balance. These figures are about the same for physicians overall.
Forty-seven percent of psychiatrists take 3-4 weeks of vacation each year; 16% take 5 or more weeks. In this there was no change from last year’s report.
About one-third (35%) of psychiatrists generally make time to focus on their own well-being, the same proportion as physicians overall.
About two-thirds (68%) of psychiatrists exercise two or more times per week. Half of psychiatrists said they are currently trying to lose weight; about one-quarter are trying to maintain their current weight.
About one-quarter (26%) of psychiatrists said they do not drink alcohol at all; 17% have five or more drinks per week.
Most psychiatrists are currently in a committed relationship, with 81% either married or living with a partner. Among psychiatrists who are married or living with a partner, 43% are with someone who also works in medicine. About 81% of psychiatrists say their marriages are very good or good. These percentages are similar to those of physicians overall (85%).
Most psychiatrists (58%) spend up to 10 hours per week online for personal reasons; 82% spend this amount of time online each week for work.
It’s likely that the amount of time spent online for work will increase, given the pandemic-fueled surge in telemedicine. Yet even when their personal and professional Internet use are combined, psychiatrists, on average, spend far less time online than the nearly 7 hours per day of the average Internet user, according to recent data.
Findings from the latest happiness, wellness, and lifestyle survey are based on 12,339 Medscape member physicians practicing in the United States who completed an online survey conducted between Aug. 30 and Nov. 5, 2020.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New cases of child COVID-19 drop for fifth straight week
The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.
Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.
Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.
The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.
Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.
Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.
The fifth consecutive week with a decline has the number of new COVID-19 cases in children at its lowest level since late October, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
, when 61,000 cases were reported, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
The cumulative number of COVID-19 cases in children is now just over 3.1 million, which represents 13.1% of cases among all ages in the United States, based on data gathered from the health departments of 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.
More children in California (439,000) have been infected than in any other state, while Illinois (176,000), Florida (145,000), Tennessee (137,000), Arizona (127,000), Ohio (121,000), and Pennsylvania (111,000) are the only other states with more than 100,000 cases, the AAP/CHA report shows.
Proportionally, the children of Wyoming have been hardest hit: Pediatric cases represent 19.4% of all cases in the state. The other four states with proportions of 18% or more are Alaska, Vermont, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Cumulative rates, however, tell a somewhat different story, as North Dakota leads with just over 8,500 cases per 100,000 children, followed by Tennessee (7,700 per 100,000) and Rhode Island (7,000 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA said.
Deaths in children, which had not been following the trend of fewer new cases over the last few weeks, dropped below double digits for the first time in a month. The six deaths that occurred during the week of Feb. 12-18 bring the total to 247 since the start of the pandemic in the 43 states, along with New York City and Guam, that are reporting such data, according to the report.
Variants spur new FDA guidance on COVID vaccines, tests, drugs
The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.
Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
Tailoring may be necessary
Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.
In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.
Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.
Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
Variants and testing
The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.
The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.
However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
Updated guidance for therapeutics
The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.
“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”
While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.
The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”
Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.
Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
Tailoring may be necessary
Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.
In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.
Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.
Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
Variants and testing
The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.
The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.
However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
Updated guidance for therapeutics
The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.
“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”
While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.
The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”
Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The United States is currently facing three main variant threats, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: B.1.1.7, which originated in the United Kingdom; B.1.351 from South Africa; and the P.1 variant, which originated in Brazil.
Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said on a telephone press briefing call Feb. 22 that the FDA has already been communicating with individual manufacturers as they assess the variants’ effect on their products, but these guidelines are issued for the sake of transparency and to welcome scientific input.
Tailoring may be necessary
Dr. Woodcock emphasized that, “at this time, available data suggest the FDA-authorized vaccines are effective in protecting circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2.” However, in the event the strains start to show resistance, it may be necessary to tailor the vaccine to the variant.
In that case, effectiveness of a modified vaccine should be determined by data from clinical immunogenicity studies, which would compare a recipient’s immune response with virus variants induced by the modified vaccine against the immune response to the authorized vaccine, the guidance states.
Manufacturers should also study the vaccine in both nonvaccinated people and people fully vaccinated with the authorized vaccine, according to the guidance.
Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said on the call that the clinical immunogenicity data is needed to understand, for instance, whether a new vaccine strain is able to cover the new and old strain or whether it just covers the new strain. Information is also needed to understand whether the modified vaccine, when given to someone fully vaccinated, will still promote a positive response without introducing safety concerns.
Further discussions will be necessary to decide whether future modified vaccines may be authorized without the need for clinical studies.
Variants and testing
The FDA’s updated guidance for test developers, Policy for Evaluating Impact of Viral Mutations on COVID-19 Tests, includes information that test performance can be influenced by the sequence of the variant, prevalence of the variant in the population, or design of the test. For example, molecular tests designed to detect multiple SARS-CoV-2 genetic targets are less susceptible to genetic variants than tests designed to detect a single genetic target.
The FDA already issued a safety alert on Jan. 8 to caution that genetic mutations to the virus in a patient sample can potentially change the performance of a diagnostic test. The FDA identified three tests that had been granted emergency-use authorization (EUA) that are known to be affected.
However, Dr. Woodcock said on the call, “at this time the impact does not appear to be significant.”
Updated guidance for therapeutics
The FDA has issued new guidance on the effect of variants on monoclonal antibody treatments.
“The FDA is aware that some of the monoclonal antibodies that have been authorized are less active against some of the SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged,” the FDA noted in its press release. “This guidance provides recommendations on efficient approaches to the generation of ... manufacturing and controls data that could potentially support an EUA for monoclonal antibody products that may be effective against emerging variants.”
While the FDA is monitoring the effects of variants, manufacturers bear a lot of the responsibility as well.
The FDA added: “With these guidances, the FDA is encouraging developers of drugs or biological products targeting SARS-CoV-2 to continuously monitor genomic databases for emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants and evaluate phenotypically any specific variants in the product target that are becoming prevalent or could potentially impact its activity.”
Dr.Woodcock added that “we urge all Americans to continue to get tested, get their vaccines when available, and follow important heath measures such as handwashing, masking, and social distancing.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Pandemic puts patients with psoriatic disease off seeking medical help
More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.
Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.
The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.
“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.
“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.
“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.
“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.
Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.
To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.
Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.
Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.
“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.
Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.
Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.
During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).
“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.
Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”
The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.
More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.
Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.
The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.
“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.
“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.
“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.
“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.
Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.
To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.
Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.
Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.
“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.
Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.
Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.
During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).
“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.
Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”
The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.
More than half of respondents to a recent survey looking at how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) said that they had avoided seeking medical care in person with a doctor or at a hospital.
Moreover, around a quarter had their appointment with a rheumatologist canceled, rescheduled, or conducted virtually. Another 1 in 10 had their treatment plan disrupted, and 6% had to change or stop treatment entirely.
The mental health impact of living with these conditions during the pandemic was also notable, said Rachael Manion, the executive director of the Canadian Association of Psoriasis Patients (CAPP), which conducted the survey in collaboration with the Canadian Psoriasis Network (CPN) and Unmasking Psoriasis.
“It’s important to know that there have been a lot of different impacts of the pandemic on people living with psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Mental health in particular has had a really big hit as a result,” she said at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact.
“About half of the people who responded to our survey noted that their mental health was ‘worse’ or ‘much worse’ during the pandemic,” she said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Anxiety and feelings of isolation were reported by a respective 57% and 58% of respondents, and 40% reported depression.
“We can compare that to our earlier information around depression,” Ms. Manion said, which showed that, prior to the pandemic, 24% of people with psoriasis and 23% of those with PsA had said they experienced depression.
“What I found alarming looking at these results was that about a third of people were experiencing despair. Now that’s a really big, scary, overwhelming emotion that has a lot of burden on your mental health,” Ms. Manion said.
Despite the substantial effects on mental health, only 29% of respondents said they had been able to access mental health services during the pandemic.
To look at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psoriasis and PsA community in Canada, three patient advocacy groups – CAPP, CPN, and Unmasking Psoriasis – codeveloped a survey to look at the disease experience before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was performed once, with 830 respondents providing information on their lives with psoriasis or PsA in the months before the start of the pandemic and at the time they were surveyed in September and October 2020.
Most of the survey respondents lived in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, or Alberta, although other provinces or territories were represented. Almost all respondents (96%) had psoriasis, and 60% also had PsA.
Pre-COVID, nearly half (49%) of patients said that they had not been seen by a rheumatologist, and 39% had not seen a dermatologist for treatment. Asked why, 56% and 27%, respectively, had not been referred, 9% and 15% said they had no specialist located nearby, and 7% and 10% stated that the wait list was too long.
“This tells us that there’s a lot more work that can be done and a lot more education of general practitioners and family medicine professionals about the benefits and the value of specialized care for psoriatic arthritis,” Ms. Manion suggested.
Before the pandemic, joint pain was occurring in 88% of patients, stiffness in 71%, and joint swelling in 67%. Disease flares or sudden periods of worsening occurred on a daily basis for 17%, and around one in five (21%) experienced multiple flares every month.
Prepandemic data also highlighted the negative impact that living with psoriasis or PsA has on people’s ability to sleep, interactions and intimacy with others, and on their school or work lives.
During the pandemic, around a quarter (26%) of respondents said they had worse or much worse access to employment, as well as its benefits such as a stable income (24%). A minority of respondent also described worse access to prescription medication (15%) and over-the-counter medication (13%).
“There are all kinds of things going on for patients in our community: changes to their work, changes to their drug coverage, their ability to sleep and sleep well, their mental health, and their ability to access care and treatments as part of their disease management,” Ms. Manion said.
Her final message to health care professionals was: “I just want to encourage you to continue to check in with your patients about what their experiences have been during the pandemic, and to really consider those impacts as you’re working with them to manage their disease.”
The survey received funding support from AbbVie, Bausch Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, LEO Pharma, and Novartis.
FROM CARC 2021
Another COVID-19 Adverse Effect: Routine Vaccinations Declined Steeply
COVID-19 upended everything last year, including routine health care such as older people receiving their pneumonia, pertussis, and shingles shots. Weekly vaccinations for Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years dropped in the first half of 2020 by up to 89% when compared with the first half of 2019. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied weekly receipt of 4 vaccines: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and recombinant zoster vaccine.
Before the national emergency was declared in March 2020, vaccination rates were consistently higher among Medicare beneficiaries than in the corresponding weeks in 2019. After the declaration, vaccination rates began dropping precipitously. In the first week alone, the rates were 25 to 62% lower than during the corresponding week in 2019.
Vaccination rates declined for all the vaccines studied, overall, and across all racial and ethnic groups. They began to recover gradually between late April and July, but were still lower in the last study week compared with 2019, except for PPSV23.
The emphasis naturally has been largely on COVID-19, but the other infections still present risks for older people. And now that states are beginning to lift restrictions, the researchers say, the likelihood of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is increasing. They urge health care providers to continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine vaccinations, and to emphasize the safety of the vaccines.
Importantly, practitioners also need to explain to patients about expected reactions to some vaccines, and help them understand the potential overlap between vaccination reactions and symptoms of COVID-19.
COVID-19 upended everything last year, including routine health care such as older people receiving their pneumonia, pertussis, and shingles shots. Weekly vaccinations for Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years dropped in the first half of 2020 by up to 89% when compared with the first half of 2019. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied weekly receipt of 4 vaccines: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and recombinant zoster vaccine.
Before the national emergency was declared in March 2020, vaccination rates were consistently higher among Medicare beneficiaries than in the corresponding weeks in 2019. After the declaration, vaccination rates began dropping precipitously. In the first week alone, the rates were 25 to 62% lower than during the corresponding week in 2019.
Vaccination rates declined for all the vaccines studied, overall, and across all racial and ethnic groups. They began to recover gradually between late April and July, but were still lower in the last study week compared with 2019, except for PPSV23.
The emphasis naturally has been largely on COVID-19, but the other infections still present risks for older people. And now that states are beginning to lift restrictions, the researchers say, the likelihood of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is increasing. They urge health care providers to continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine vaccinations, and to emphasize the safety of the vaccines.
Importantly, practitioners also need to explain to patients about expected reactions to some vaccines, and help them understand the potential overlap between vaccination reactions and symptoms of COVID-19.
COVID-19 upended everything last year, including routine health care such as older people receiving their pneumonia, pertussis, and shingles shots. Weekly vaccinations for Medicare beneficiaries aged > 65 years dropped in the first half of 2020 by up to 89% when compared with the first half of 2019. Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studied weekly receipt of 4 vaccines: 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, tetanus-diphtheria or tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis vaccine, and recombinant zoster vaccine.
Before the national emergency was declared in March 2020, vaccination rates were consistently higher among Medicare beneficiaries than in the corresponding weeks in 2019. After the declaration, vaccination rates began dropping precipitously. In the first week alone, the rates were 25 to 62% lower than during the corresponding week in 2019.
Vaccination rates declined for all the vaccines studied, overall, and across all racial and ethnic groups. They began to recover gradually between late April and July, but were still lower in the last study week compared with 2019, except for PPSV23.
The emphasis naturally has been largely on COVID-19, but the other infections still present risks for older people. And now that states are beginning to lift restrictions, the researchers say, the likelihood of exposure to vaccine-preventable diseases is increasing. They urge health care providers to continue efforts to resolve disruptions in routine vaccinations, and to emphasize the safety of the vaccines.
Importantly, practitioners also need to explain to patients about expected reactions to some vaccines, and help them understand the potential overlap between vaccination reactions and symptoms of COVID-19.
Native Americans Embrace the COVID-19 Vaccines ‘to Protect the Community and Preserve the Culture’
A large portion of the general American public is still feeling wary of the COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent Pew Research survey, about 40% of respondents said they “would not get the vaccine” (although about half of that group allowed for flexibility and said they might when more information becomes available). In the Native American community, however, it’s a different story.
According to the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers in the US, 75% of the 1,435 American Indian/Alaska Native participants in its National COVID-19 Vaccination Survey were willing to receive the vaccine. A big reason is that the emphasis in Native American communities has been on “we,” rather than “me.” Even though the respondents might feel reluctant due to “historical and current abuse from healthcare and government institutions,” the UIHI says, they ultimately felt the heavy cost of COVID-19 for them, their friends, families, and community outweighed potential risks.
Where there is hesitancy, it’s often due to concern about the exceptional speed of the clinical trials assessing the vaccines. Of those who were willing to get vaccinated, two-thirds were confident that the vaccines had been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness among Native people, in contrast to 31% of the “unwilling.” Seventy-five percent of the unwilling perceive the vaccine as dangerous to their health.
The willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine varied by Indian Health Services (IHS) region, with California Area having the lowest proportion (64%) and Albuquerque Area the highest (86%). The survey also asked about perceptions of COVID-19: 75% of those unwilling to get vaccinated felt they were at risk of being infected with COVID-19, compared with 85% of those willing to get a vaccine. Interestingly, though, the majority in the “unwilling” group takes the infection seriously and acknowledges the spread of COVID-19 in the state where they live.
The primary motivation for getting vaccinated, UIHI says, is a “strong sense of responsibility to protect the Native community and preserve cultural ways”—74% of all participants supported this concept. That’s a unique difference when compared with other communities of color, UIHI says. By comparison, only 36% of black communities and 53% of Latinx communities have been found to perceive vaccination as a community responsibility. The finding illustrates the importance of community in Native American culture—although that also differs within the 2 groups surveyed: Of those willing to get vaccinated, 87% believe it’s their communal responsibility, whereas 66% of the unwilling believe it’s an individual choice.
Tribal campaigns that emphasize the good individuals can do for the tribe appear to appeal. In an interview with NBC News, Abigail Echo-Hawk, director of UIHI, said the Seattle Indian Health Board, for example, went from about 7,000 calls a month about the vaccine to nearly 5,000 on 1 day.
But it isn’t just the appeal to communal feeling that spurs participation—it’s also the knowledge that protecting people protects the culture. The Cherokee Tribe, for instance, has been mobilizing to get as many people vaccinated as possible, starting with some of the “most endangered members of the tribe”: those who still speak Cherokee. “We put Cherokee-fluent speakers, most of whom are elders, at the front of the line,” Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., leader of the Cherokee Nation, told NBC News. The tribe was able to put its roughly 22,000 Cherokee speakers at the top of the list because it answers to the IHS, not the state of Oklahoma, which has people aged < 65 years in Phase 4 of its vaccine rollout.
Appealing to the reverence for Native American culture and tradition is a wise move. Not only because it protects people, but also because vaccinating elders and fluent speakers may reassure others. “When fluent speakers got the vaccine, I think that helped people’s anxiety subside,” Hoskins said. “And I think people felt sort of a renewed obligation to try and protect the culture by being vaccinated.”
Many of the survey respondents viewed getting vaccinated as an act of love, protecting others. One participant planned to get the vaccine to “protect the knowledge keepers; ensuring knowledge is passed to our future generations.”
A majority of UIHI survey respondents who were unwilling to get vaccinated indicated they would be willing at some point in the future—often at least one year from now. This, UIHI says, “may suggest with proper messaging and education on the efficacy and safety of vaccine, hesitancy can be addressed.”
That could depend on who’s delivering the message. The greatest difference between the 2 groups, the UIHI says, was that those who were willing to take vaccines trusted government organizations (ie,Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) and their regular doctor. Those unwilling to get vaccinated had the highest trust in Urban Indian health clinics, their regular doctor, and Tribal clinics, respectively. The biggest divide? Almost all of the willing group “mostly” or “completely” trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci and the scientists working on the vaccines. Most of the unwilling group does not.
Factors such as convenience, cost, and advice all entered into the respondents’ decision making. But one of the UIHI’s key recommendations is to continue to draw connections between getting vaccinated and the preservation of Native traditions, cultural pride, and love and respect for family, elders, and the broader Native community. Elders, Native community leaders, and Tribal leaders were among the top ambassadors for getting the message out, the UIHI survey found.
Ultimately, each individual decides who to trust. One of the survey respondents said, “Although the US government should have and could have done so much more for all people living here, if we turn down the vaccine, we not only risk our lives and the lives of others…we undermine all the struggles our tribes have gone through to keep our people safe. Even when the US government has directly worked against our tribal checkpoints and safety efforts. To not get vaccinated, is to say the US government’s failure to protect the people is right, and our tribal efforts, wisdom, and courage is wrong.”
A large portion of the general American public is still feeling wary of the COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent Pew Research survey, about 40% of respondents said they “would not get the vaccine” (although about half of that group allowed for flexibility and said they might when more information becomes available). In the Native American community, however, it’s a different story.
According to the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers in the US, 75% of the 1,435 American Indian/Alaska Native participants in its National COVID-19 Vaccination Survey were willing to receive the vaccine. A big reason is that the emphasis in Native American communities has been on “we,” rather than “me.” Even though the respondents might feel reluctant due to “historical and current abuse from healthcare and government institutions,” the UIHI says, they ultimately felt the heavy cost of COVID-19 for them, their friends, families, and community outweighed potential risks.
Where there is hesitancy, it’s often due to concern about the exceptional speed of the clinical trials assessing the vaccines. Of those who were willing to get vaccinated, two-thirds were confident that the vaccines had been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness among Native people, in contrast to 31% of the “unwilling.” Seventy-five percent of the unwilling perceive the vaccine as dangerous to their health.
The willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine varied by Indian Health Services (IHS) region, with California Area having the lowest proportion (64%) and Albuquerque Area the highest (86%). The survey also asked about perceptions of COVID-19: 75% of those unwilling to get vaccinated felt they were at risk of being infected with COVID-19, compared with 85% of those willing to get a vaccine. Interestingly, though, the majority in the “unwilling” group takes the infection seriously and acknowledges the spread of COVID-19 in the state where they live.
The primary motivation for getting vaccinated, UIHI says, is a “strong sense of responsibility to protect the Native community and preserve cultural ways”—74% of all participants supported this concept. That’s a unique difference when compared with other communities of color, UIHI says. By comparison, only 36% of black communities and 53% of Latinx communities have been found to perceive vaccination as a community responsibility. The finding illustrates the importance of community in Native American culture—although that also differs within the 2 groups surveyed: Of those willing to get vaccinated, 87% believe it’s their communal responsibility, whereas 66% of the unwilling believe it’s an individual choice.
Tribal campaigns that emphasize the good individuals can do for the tribe appear to appeal. In an interview with NBC News, Abigail Echo-Hawk, director of UIHI, said the Seattle Indian Health Board, for example, went from about 7,000 calls a month about the vaccine to nearly 5,000 on 1 day.
But it isn’t just the appeal to communal feeling that spurs participation—it’s also the knowledge that protecting people protects the culture. The Cherokee Tribe, for instance, has been mobilizing to get as many people vaccinated as possible, starting with some of the “most endangered members of the tribe”: those who still speak Cherokee. “We put Cherokee-fluent speakers, most of whom are elders, at the front of the line,” Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., leader of the Cherokee Nation, told NBC News. The tribe was able to put its roughly 22,000 Cherokee speakers at the top of the list because it answers to the IHS, not the state of Oklahoma, which has people aged < 65 years in Phase 4 of its vaccine rollout.
Appealing to the reverence for Native American culture and tradition is a wise move. Not only because it protects people, but also because vaccinating elders and fluent speakers may reassure others. “When fluent speakers got the vaccine, I think that helped people’s anxiety subside,” Hoskins said. “And I think people felt sort of a renewed obligation to try and protect the culture by being vaccinated.”
Many of the survey respondents viewed getting vaccinated as an act of love, protecting others. One participant planned to get the vaccine to “protect the knowledge keepers; ensuring knowledge is passed to our future generations.”
A majority of UIHI survey respondents who were unwilling to get vaccinated indicated they would be willing at some point in the future—often at least one year from now. This, UIHI says, “may suggest with proper messaging and education on the efficacy and safety of vaccine, hesitancy can be addressed.”
That could depend on who’s delivering the message. The greatest difference between the 2 groups, the UIHI says, was that those who were willing to take vaccines trusted government organizations (ie,Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) and their regular doctor. Those unwilling to get vaccinated had the highest trust in Urban Indian health clinics, their regular doctor, and Tribal clinics, respectively. The biggest divide? Almost all of the willing group “mostly” or “completely” trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci and the scientists working on the vaccines. Most of the unwilling group does not.
Factors such as convenience, cost, and advice all entered into the respondents’ decision making. But one of the UIHI’s key recommendations is to continue to draw connections between getting vaccinated and the preservation of Native traditions, cultural pride, and love and respect for family, elders, and the broader Native community. Elders, Native community leaders, and Tribal leaders were among the top ambassadors for getting the message out, the UIHI survey found.
Ultimately, each individual decides who to trust. One of the survey respondents said, “Although the US government should have and could have done so much more for all people living here, if we turn down the vaccine, we not only risk our lives and the lives of others…we undermine all the struggles our tribes have gone through to keep our people safe. Even when the US government has directly worked against our tribal checkpoints and safety efforts. To not get vaccinated, is to say the US government’s failure to protect the people is right, and our tribal efforts, wisdom, and courage is wrong.”
A large portion of the general American public is still feeling wary of the COVID-19 vaccines. In a recent Pew Research survey, about 40% of respondents said they “would not get the vaccine” (although about half of that group allowed for flexibility and said they might when more information becomes available). In the Native American community, however, it’s a different story.
According to the Seattle-based Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), one of 12 Tribal Epidemiology Centers in the US, 75% of the 1,435 American Indian/Alaska Native participants in its National COVID-19 Vaccination Survey were willing to receive the vaccine. A big reason is that the emphasis in Native American communities has been on “we,” rather than “me.” Even though the respondents might feel reluctant due to “historical and current abuse from healthcare and government institutions,” the UIHI says, they ultimately felt the heavy cost of COVID-19 for them, their friends, families, and community outweighed potential risks.
Where there is hesitancy, it’s often due to concern about the exceptional speed of the clinical trials assessing the vaccines. Of those who were willing to get vaccinated, two-thirds were confident that the vaccines had been adequately tested for safety and effectiveness among Native people, in contrast to 31% of the “unwilling.” Seventy-five percent of the unwilling perceive the vaccine as dangerous to their health.
The willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine varied by Indian Health Services (IHS) region, with California Area having the lowest proportion (64%) and Albuquerque Area the highest (86%). The survey also asked about perceptions of COVID-19: 75% of those unwilling to get vaccinated felt they were at risk of being infected with COVID-19, compared with 85% of those willing to get a vaccine. Interestingly, though, the majority in the “unwilling” group takes the infection seriously and acknowledges the spread of COVID-19 in the state where they live.
The primary motivation for getting vaccinated, UIHI says, is a “strong sense of responsibility to protect the Native community and preserve cultural ways”—74% of all participants supported this concept. That’s a unique difference when compared with other communities of color, UIHI says. By comparison, only 36% of black communities and 53% of Latinx communities have been found to perceive vaccination as a community responsibility. The finding illustrates the importance of community in Native American culture—although that also differs within the 2 groups surveyed: Of those willing to get vaccinated, 87% believe it’s their communal responsibility, whereas 66% of the unwilling believe it’s an individual choice.
Tribal campaigns that emphasize the good individuals can do for the tribe appear to appeal. In an interview with NBC News, Abigail Echo-Hawk, director of UIHI, said the Seattle Indian Health Board, for example, went from about 7,000 calls a month about the vaccine to nearly 5,000 on 1 day.
But it isn’t just the appeal to communal feeling that spurs participation—it’s also the knowledge that protecting people protects the culture. The Cherokee Tribe, for instance, has been mobilizing to get as many people vaccinated as possible, starting with some of the “most endangered members of the tribe”: those who still speak Cherokee. “We put Cherokee-fluent speakers, most of whom are elders, at the front of the line,” Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr., leader of the Cherokee Nation, told NBC News. The tribe was able to put its roughly 22,000 Cherokee speakers at the top of the list because it answers to the IHS, not the state of Oklahoma, which has people aged < 65 years in Phase 4 of its vaccine rollout.
Appealing to the reverence for Native American culture and tradition is a wise move. Not only because it protects people, but also because vaccinating elders and fluent speakers may reassure others. “When fluent speakers got the vaccine, I think that helped people’s anxiety subside,” Hoskins said. “And I think people felt sort of a renewed obligation to try and protect the culture by being vaccinated.”
Many of the survey respondents viewed getting vaccinated as an act of love, protecting others. One participant planned to get the vaccine to “protect the knowledge keepers; ensuring knowledge is passed to our future generations.”
A majority of UIHI survey respondents who were unwilling to get vaccinated indicated they would be willing at some point in the future—often at least one year from now. This, UIHI says, “may suggest with proper messaging and education on the efficacy and safety of vaccine, hesitancy can be addressed.”
That could depend on who’s delivering the message. The greatest difference between the 2 groups, the UIHI says, was that those who were willing to take vaccines trusted government organizations (ie,Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Institutes of Health) and their regular doctor. Those unwilling to get vaccinated had the highest trust in Urban Indian health clinics, their regular doctor, and Tribal clinics, respectively. The biggest divide? Almost all of the willing group “mostly” or “completely” trusts Dr. Anthony Fauci and the scientists working on the vaccines. Most of the unwilling group does not.
Factors such as convenience, cost, and advice all entered into the respondents’ decision making. But one of the UIHI’s key recommendations is to continue to draw connections between getting vaccinated and the preservation of Native traditions, cultural pride, and love and respect for family, elders, and the broader Native community. Elders, Native community leaders, and Tribal leaders were among the top ambassadors for getting the message out, the UIHI survey found.
Ultimately, each individual decides who to trust. One of the survey respondents said, “Although the US government should have and could have done so much more for all people living here, if we turn down the vaccine, we not only risk our lives and the lives of others…we undermine all the struggles our tribes have gone through to keep our people safe. Even when the US government has directly worked against our tribal checkpoints and safety efforts. To not get vaccinated, is to say the US government’s failure to protect the people is right, and our tribal efforts, wisdom, and courage is wrong.”
Oxford launches COVID-19 vaccine study in children
Oxford University is starting a COVID-19 vaccine study with children and young adults aged between 6 and 17 years.
At Oxford and three partner sites in London, Southampton, and Bristol, the phase 2 clinical trial will test whether kids and teens have a good immune response to the AstraZeneca vaccine. Previous trials have shown that the shot is safe in children.
“While most children are relatively unaffected by coronavirus and are unlikely to become unwell with the infection, it is important to establish the safety and immune response to the vaccine in children and young people as some children may benefit from vaccination,” Andrew Pollard, PhD, the chief investigator for the trial and a professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford, said in a statement.
The new trial will enroll 300 volunteers, with up to 240 receiving the vaccine. The control group will receive a meningitis vaccine, which is safe in children and produces similar side effects to the COVID-19 vaccine, such as a sore arm.
COVID-19 vaccine trials have included children over age 12, so this marks the youngest group to be tested so far. Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen have announced plans to start trials in younger children this spring, according to the Washington Post. Widespread vaccination in children likely won’t occur until 2022, the newspaper reported.
The trial launched on Feb. 12, and the first vaccinations are expected by the end of the month. Parents can visit Oxford’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trial website to sign their children up for the study.
“This study will play an important role in helping to protect children in the future,” Grace Li, a pediatric clinical research fellow for the Oxford Vaccine Group, said in the statement.
“We’ve already seen that the vaccine is safe and effective in adults, and our understanding of how children are affected by the coronavirus continues to evolve,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Oxford University is starting a COVID-19 vaccine study with children and young adults aged between 6 and 17 years.
At Oxford and three partner sites in London, Southampton, and Bristol, the phase 2 clinical trial will test whether kids and teens have a good immune response to the AstraZeneca vaccine. Previous trials have shown that the shot is safe in children.
“While most children are relatively unaffected by coronavirus and are unlikely to become unwell with the infection, it is important to establish the safety and immune response to the vaccine in children and young people as some children may benefit from vaccination,” Andrew Pollard, PhD, the chief investigator for the trial and a professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford, said in a statement.
The new trial will enroll 300 volunteers, with up to 240 receiving the vaccine. The control group will receive a meningitis vaccine, which is safe in children and produces similar side effects to the COVID-19 vaccine, such as a sore arm.
COVID-19 vaccine trials have included children over age 12, so this marks the youngest group to be tested so far. Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen have announced plans to start trials in younger children this spring, according to the Washington Post. Widespread vaccination in children likely won’t occur until 2022, the newspaper reported.
The trial launched on Feb. 12, and the first vaccinations are expected by the end of the month. Parents can visit Oxford’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trial website to sign their children up for the study.
“This study will play an important role in helping to protect children in the future,” Grace Li, a pediatric clinical research fellow for the Oxford Vaccine Group, said in the statement.
“We’ve already seen that the vaccine is safe and effective in adults, and our understanding of how children are affected by the coronavirus continues to evolve,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Oxford University is starting a COVID-19 vaccine study with children and young adults aged between 6 and 17 years.
At Oxford and three partner sites in London, Southampton, and Bristol, the phase 2 clinical trial will test whether kids and teens have a good immune response to the AstraZeneca vaccine. Previous trials have shown that the shot is safe in children.
“While most children are relatively unaffected by coronavirus and are unlikely to become unwell with the infection, it is important to establish the safety and immune response to the vaccine in children and young people as some children may benefit from vaccination,” Andrew Pollard, PhD, the chief investigator for the trial and a professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford, said in a statement.
The new trial will enroll 300 volunteers, with up to 240 receiving the vaccine. The control group will receive a meningitis vaccine, which is safe in children and produces similar side effects to the COVID-19 vaccine, such as a sore arm.
COVID-19 vaccine trials have included children over age 12, so this marks the youngest group to be tested so far. Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen have announced plans to start trials in younger children this spring, according to the Washington Post. Widespread vaccination in children likely won’t occur until 2022, the newspaper reported.
The trial launched on Feb. 12, and the first vaccinations are expected by the end of the month. Parents can visit Oxford’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trial website to sign their children up for the study.
“This study will play an important role in helping to protect children in the future,” Grace Li, a pediatric clinical research fellow for the Oxford Vaccine Group, said in the statement.
“We’ve already seen that the vaccine is safe and effective in adults, and our understanding of how children are affected by the coronavirus continues to evolve,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.