User login
-
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
Chromosomal test may ID risk for sudden infant deaths
Researchers have identified pathogenic gene variations in 12% of cases of sudden unexplained death in children.
The new study, which involved 116 cases of sudden infant death syndrome or sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC), suggests that available methods of chromosome testing could be used to help screen for the conditions, which together account for roughly 1,800 fatalities a year in the United States.
“Even though the Back to Sleep campaign has been incredibly effective and safe sleep practices have been promoted for years, sudden unexplained death in pediatrics remains a leading cause of death for infants and children,” said Catherine Brownstein, MPH, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, lead author of the new study.
The findings suggest that chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), the method that the researchers used in the study, “should be considered in the genetic evaluation of SUDC,” Dr. Brownstein said. The approach is the first-line method of identifying conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, developmental disabilities, multiple congenital anomalies, and epilepsy, she noted.
In the study, published in Advanced Genetics, Dr. Brownstein and her colleagues used CMA to test genes from 116 deceased infants and toddlers up to age 28 months whose deaths were classified as SIDS or SUDC (the latter term applies to children older than 1 year).
The average age at the time of death was 5.7 months; 59% of the patients were boys. In 14 of the children (12%), the CMA test identified genetic variations in the form of deletions or duplications that were pathogenic (five cases) or uncertain but “favoring pathogenicity” (nine cases). Such deletions or duplications are known as copy number variants (CNVs).
CNVs are present in most people and are not necessarily associated with disease, according to the researchers. However, certain CNVs have been linked to ASD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, and various congenital abnormalities.
Dr. Brownstein’s group also compared pathogenicity in the SUDC group with that of a cohort of children with ASD and with healthy control persons. They found no significant difference in pathogenicity between SUDC and autism with regard to duplications. However, children in the SUDC group were significantly more likely to have higher pathogenicity scores for deletions, compared with control persons. Some of the CMVs did not appear connected to SIDS or SUDC; two cases in boys were undiagnosed cases of Klinefelter syndrome.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to conduct CMA analyses on parents or obtain family history, the researchers note. Other limitations were that phenotypic data were available only from autopsy material and medical records and that the study focused on younger children, the researchers add. They did not speculate about the causes of deaths in the other cases they examined.
In the current study, the other 88% of cases could involve nongenetic factors or genetic factors that aren’t measured by next-generation sequencing or chromosomal microarray, Dr. Brownstein said. “Undiagnosed disease programs looking for genetic causes for diseases in living patients identify a cause in about 1 in 4 cases,” she said. “While 12% is a modest percentage, the CNVs identified provide additional information. In the future, the goal would be to capture the full range of potential genetic changes.”
Previous research by Dr. Brownstein’s group at Robert’s Program, a clinical service for SUDC families at Boston Children’s Hospital, found genetic variants that might cause sudden death in children.
“We began this study with the simple question of whether, as a population, these children carry more copy number variation, which they do,” she said. “However, none of the CMA findings we identified are currently associated with SUDC, so much more investigation is necessary to find out if they are coincidental, risk factors, or causative.”
Looking ahead, she said, “Ideally, we would want every family affected by sudden unexplained death in pediatrics to have genetic testing, including a chromosomal microarray. Once we have more families enrolled and tested, we will be able to understand the risk factors for SIDS and SUDC much better.”
Benjamin Solomon, MD, clinical director at the National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., said the new research “may bring answers for individual situations as well as enable research to understand the overall biological underpinnings and causes of disease.”
The findings “help reinforce the heterogeneous nature of SUDC and related conditions,” Dr. Solomon said. “The results also highlight some of the challenges regarding how to interpret the possible clinical effects of genetic changes. That is, every person has genetic changes, and interpreting how certain genetic changes may or may not contribute to a disease or health care outcome can be challenging.”
Research is needed to understand not only the overall causes of SUDC but also how the different causes interact, Dr. Solomon said. “Eventually, better understanding of the causes could lead to knowledge that would enable interventions that could help prevent or reduce these devastating outcomes.”
The study was supported by the Robert’s Program on Sudden Unexplained Death in Pediatrics, the Jude Zayac Foundation, multiple grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Boston Children’s Hospital Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center Molecular Genetics Core Facility (supported by the NIH/NICHD), and by the NIH National Institute of Mental Health. The researchers and Dr. Solomon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have identified pathogenic gene variations in 12% of cases of sudden unexplained death in children.
The new study, which involved 116 cases of sudden infant death syndrome or sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC), suggests that available methods of chromosome testing could be used to help screen for the conditions, which together account for roughly 1,800 fatalities a year in the United States.
“Even though the Back to Sleep campaign has been incredibly effective and safe sleep practices have been promoted for years, sudden unexplained death in pediatrics remains a leading cause of death for infants and children,” said Catherine Brownstein, MPH, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, lead author of the new study.
The findings suggest that chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), the method that the researchers used in the study, “should be considered in the genetic evaluation of SUDC,” Dr. Brownstein said. The approach is the first-line method of identifying conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, developmental disabilities, multiple congenital anomalies, and epilepsy, she noted.
In the study, published in Advanced Genetics, Dr. Brownstein and her colleagues used CMA to test genes from 116 deceased infants and toddlers up to age 28 months whose deaths were classified as SIDS or SUDC (the latter term applies to children older than 1 year).
The average age at the time of death was 5.7 months; 59% of the patients were boys. In 14 of the children (12%), the CMA test identified genetic variations in the form of deletions or duplications that were pathogenic (five cases) or uncertain but “favoring pathogenicity” (nine cases). Such deletions or duplications are known as copy number variants (CNVs).
CNVs are present in most people and are not necessarily associated with disease, according to the researchers. However, certain CNVs have been linked to ASD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, and various congenital abnormalities.
Dr. Brownstein’s group also compared pathogenicity in the SUDC group with that of a cohort of children with ASD and with healthy control persons. They found no significant difference in pathogenicity between SUDC and autism with regard to duplications. However, children in the SUDC group were significantly more likely to have higher pathogenicity scores for deletions, compared with control persons. Some of the CMVs did not appear connected to SIDS or SUDC; two cases in boys were undiagnosed cases of Klinefelter syndrome.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to conduct CMA analyses on parents or obtain family history, the researchers note. Other limitations were that phenotypic data were available only from autopsy material and medical records and that the study focused on younger children, the researchers add. They did not speculate about the causes of deaths in the other cases they examined.
In the current study, the other 88% of cases could involve nongenetic factors or genetic factors that aren’t measured by next-generation sequencing or chromosomal microarray, Dr. Brownstein said. “Undiagnosed disease programs looking for genetic causes for diseases in living patients identify a cause in about 1 in 4 cases,” she said. “While 12% is a modest percentage, the CNVs identified provide additional information. In the future, the goal would be to capture the full range of potential genetic changes.”
Previous research by Dr. Brownstein’s group at Robert’s Program, a clinical service for SUDC families at Boston Children’s Hospital, found genetic variants that might cause sudden death in children.
“We began this study with the simple question of whether, as a population, these children carry more copy number variation, which they do,” she said. “However, none of the CMA findings we identified are currently associated with SUDC, so much more investigation is necessary to find out if they are coincidental, risk factors, or causative.”
Looking ahead, she said, “Ideally, we would want every family affected by sudden unexplained death in pediatrics to have genetic testing, including a chromosomal microarray. Once we have more families enrolled and tested, we will be able to understand the risk factors for SIDS and SUDC much better.”
Benjamin Solomon, MD, clinical director at the National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., said the new research “may bring answers for individual situations as well as enable research to understand the overall biological underpinnings and causes of disease.”
The findings “help reinforce the heterogeneous nature of SUDC and related conditions,” Dr. Solomon said. “The results also highlight some of the challenges regarding how to interpret the possible clinical effects of genetic changes. That is, every person has genetic changes, and interpreting how certain genetic changes may or may not contribute to a disease or health care outcome can be challenging.”
Research is needed to understand not only the overall causes of SUDC but also how the different causes interact, Dr. Solomon said. “Eventually, better understanding of the causes could lead to knowledge that would enable interventions that could help prevent or reduce these devastating outcomes.”
The study was supported by the Robert’s Program on Sudden Unexplained Death in Pediatrics, the Jude Zayac Foundation, multiple grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Boston Children’s Hospital Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center Molecular Genetics Core Facility (supported by the NIH/NICHD), and by the NIH National Institute of Mental Health. The researchers and Dr. Solomon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Researchers have identified pathogenic gene variations in 12% of cases of sudden unexplained death in children.
The new study, which involved 116 cases of sudden infant death syndrome or sudden unexplained deaths in children (SUDC), suggests that available methods of chromosome testing could be used to help screen for the conditions, which together account for roughly 1,800 fatalities a year in the United States.
“Even though the Back to Sleep campaign has been incredibly effective and safe sleep practices have been promoted for years, sudden unexplained death in pediatrics remains a leading cause of death for infants and children,” said Catherine Brownstein, MPH, PhD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, lead author of the new study.
The findings suggest that chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), the method that the researchers used in the study, “should be considered in the genetic evaluation of SUDC,” Dr. Brownstein said. The approach is the first-line method of identifying conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, developmental disabilities, multiple congenital anomalies, and epilepsy, she noted.
In the study, published in Advanced Genetics, Dr. Brownstein and her colleagues used CMA to test genes from 116 deceased infants and toddlers up to age 28 months whose deaths were classified as SIDS or SUDC (the latter term applies to children older than 1 year).
The average age at the time of death was 5.7 months; 59% of the patients were boys. In 14 of the children (12%), the CMA test identified genetic variations in the form of deletions or duplications that were pathogenic (five cases) or uncertain but “favoring pathogenicity” (nine cases). Such deletions or duplications are known as copy number variants (CNVs).
CNVs are present in most people and are not necessarily associated with disease, according to the researchers. However, certain CNVs have been linked to ASD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, and various congenital abnormalities.
Dr. Brownstein’s group also compared pathogenicity in the SUDC group with that of a cohort of children with ASD and with healthy control persons. They found no significant difference in pathogenicity between SUDC and autism with regard to duplications. However, children in the SUDC group were significantly more likely to have higher pathogenicity scores for deletions, compared with control persons. Some of the CMVs did not appear connected to SIDS or SUDC; two cases in boys were undiagnosed cases of Klinefelter syndrome.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the small sample size and the inability to conduct CMA analyses on parents or obtain family history, the researchers note. Other limitations were that phenotypic data were available only from autopsy material and medical records and that the study focused on younger children, the researchers add. They did not speculate about the causes of deaths in the other cases they examined.
In the current study, the other 88% of cases could involve nongenetic factors or genetic factors that aren’t measured by next-generation sequencing or chromosomal microarray, Dr. Brownstein said. “Undiagnosed disease programs looking for genetic causes for diseases in living patients identify a cause in about 1 in 4 cases,” she said. “While 12% is a modest percentage, the CNVs identified provide additional information. In the future, the goal would be to capture the full range of potential genetic changes.”
Previous research by Dr. Brownstein’s group at Robert’s Program, a clinical service for SUDC families at Boston Children’s Hospital, found genetic variants that might cause sudden death in children.
“We began this study with the simple question of whether, as a population, these children carry more copy number variation, which they do,” she said. “However, none of the CMA findings we identified are currently associated with SUDC, so much more investigation is necessary to find out if they are coincidental, risk factors, or causative.”
Looking ahead, she said, “Ideally, we would want every family affected by sudden unexplained death in pediatrics to have genetic testing, including a chromosomal microarray. Once we have more families enrolled and tested, we will be able to understand the risk factors for SIDS and SUDC much better.”
Benjamin Solomon, MD, clinical director at the National Human Genome Research Institute, Bethesda, Md., said the new research “may bring answers for individual situations as well as enable research to understand the overall biological underpinnings and causes of disease.”
The findings “help reinforce the heterogeneous nature of SUDC and related conditions,” Dr. Solomon said. “The results also highlight some of the challenges regarding how to interpret the possible clinical effects of genetic changes. That is, every person has genetic changes, and interpreting how certain genetic changes may or may not contribute to a disease or health care outcome can be challenging.”
Research is needed to understand not only the overall causes of SUDC but also how the different causes interact, Dr. Solomon said. “Eventually, better understanding of the causes could lead to knowledge that would enable interventions that could help prevent or reduce these devastating outcomes.”
The study was supported by the Robert’s Program on Sudden Unexplained Death in Pediatrics, the Jude Zayac Foundation, multiple grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Boston Children’s Hospital Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center Molecular Genetics Core Facility (supported by the NIH/NICHD), and by the NIH National Institute of Mental Health. The researchers and Dr. Solomon have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ADVANCED GENETICS
How a cheap liver drug may be the key to preventing COVID
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.
One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.
You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.
I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But
How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.
All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.
That is the doorway to infection. Vaccines and antibodies block the key to this door, the spike protein and its receptor binding domain. But what if you could get rid of the doors altogether?
The authors first showed that ACE2 expression is controlled by a certain transcription factor known as the farnesoid X receptor, or FXR. Reducing the binding of FXR should therefore reduce ACE2 expression.
As luck would have it, UDCA – Actigall – reduces the levels of FXR and thus the expression of ACE2 in cells.
Okay. So we have a drug that can reduce ACE2, and we know that ACE2 is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Would UDCA prevent viral infection?
They started with test tubes, showing that cells were less likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of UDCA at concentrations similar to what humans achieve in their blood after standard dosing. The red staining here is spike protein; you can see that it is markedly lower in the cells exposed to UDCA.
So far, so good. But test tubes aren’t people. So they moved up to mice and Syrian golden hamsters. These cute fellows are quite susceptible to human COVID and have been a model organism in countless studies
Mice and hamsters treated with UDCA in the presence of littermates with COVID infections were less likely to become infected themselves compared with mice not so treated. They also showed that mice and hamsters treated with UDCA had lower levels of ACE2 in their nasal passages.
Of course, mice aren’t humans either. So the researchers didn’t stop there.
To determine the effects of UDCA on human tissue, they utilized perfused human lungs that had been declined for transplantation. The lungs were perfused with a special fluid to keep them viable, and were mechanically ventilated. One lung was exposed to UDCA and the other served as a control. The authors were able to show that ACE2 levels went down in the exposed lung. And, importantly, when samples of tissue from both lungs were exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the lung tissue exposed to UDCA had lower levels of viral infection.
They didn’t stop there.
Eight human volunteers were recruited to take UDCA for 5 days. ACE2 levels in the nasal passages went down over the course of treatment. They confirmed those results from a proteomics dataset with several hundred people who had received UDCA for clinical reasons. Treated individuals had lower ACE2 levels.
Finally, they looked at the epidemiologic effect. They examined a dataset that contained information on over 1,000 patients with liver disease who had contracted COVID-19, 31 of whom had been receiving UDCA. Even after adjustment for baseline differences, those receiving UDCA were less likely to be hospitalized, require an ICU, or die.
Okay, we’ll stop there. Reading this study, all I could think was, Yes! This is how you generate evidence that you have a drug that might work – step by careful step.
But let’s be careful as well. Does this study show that taking Actigall will prevent COVID? Of course not. It doesn’t show that it will treat COVID either. But I bring it up because the rigor of this study stands in contrast to those that generated huge enthusiasm earlier in the pandemic only to let us down in randomized trials. If there has been a drug out there this whole time which will prevent or treat COVID, this is how we’ll find it. The next step? Test it in a randomized trial.
For Medscape, I’m Perry Wilson.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.
One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.
You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.
I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But
How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.
All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.
That is the doorway to infection. Vaccines and antibodies block the key to this door, the spike protein and its receptor binding domain. But what if you could get rid of the doors altogether?
The authors first showed that ACE2 expression is controlled by a certain transcription factor known as the farnesoid X receptor, or FXR. Reducing the binding of FXR should therefore reduce ACE2 expression.
As luck would have it, UDCA – Actigall – reduces the levels of FXR and thus the expression of ACE2 in cells.
Okay. So we have a drug that can reduce ACE2, and we know that ACE2 is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Would UDCA prevent viral infection?
They started with test tubes, showing that cells were less likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of UDCA at concentrations similar to what humans achieve in their blood after standard dosing. The red staining here is spike protein; you can see that it is markedly lower in the cells exposed to UDCA.
So far, so good. But test tubes aren’t people. So they moved up to mice and Syrian golden hamsters. These cute fellows are quite susceptible to human COVID and have been a model organism in countless studies
Mice and hamsters treated with UDCA in the presence of littermates with COVID infections were less likely to become infected themselves compared with mice not so treated. They also showed that mice and hamsters treated with UDCA had lower levels of ACE2 in their nasal passages.
Of course, mice aren’t humans either. So the researchers didn’t stop there.
To determine the effects of UDCA on human tissue, they utilized perfused human lungs that had been declined for transplantation. The lungs were perfused with a special fluid to keep them viable, and were mechanically ventilated. One lung was exposed to UDCA and the other served as a control. The authors were able to show that ACE2 levels went down in the exposed lung. And, importantly, when samples of tissue from both lungs were exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the lung tissue exposed to UDCA had lower levels of viral infection.
They didn’t stop there.
Eight human volunteers were recruited to take UDCA for 5 days. ACE2 levels in the nasal passages went down over the course of treatment. They confirmed those results from a proteomics dataset with several hundred people who had received UDCA for clinical reasons. Treated individuals had lower ACE2 levels.
Finally, they looked at the epidemiologic effect. They examined a dataset that contained information on over 1,000 patients with liver disease who had contracted COVID-19, 31 of whom had been receiving UDCA. Even after adjustment for baseline differences, those receiving UDCA were less likely to be hospitalized, require an ICU, or die.
Okay, we’ll stop there. Reading this study, all I could think was, Yes! This is how you generate evidence that you have a drug that might work – step by careful step.
But let’s be careful as well. Does this study show that taking Actigall will prevent COVID? Of course not. It doesn’t show that it will treat COVID either. But I bring it up because the rigor of this study stands in contrast to those that generated huge enthusiasm earlier in the pandemic only to let us down in randomized trials. If there has been a drug out there this whole time which will prevent or treat COVID, this is how we’ll find it. The next step? Test it in a randomized trial.
For Medscape, I’m Perry Wilson.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.
Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.
As soon as the pandemic started, the search was on for a medication that could stave off infection, or at least the worst consequences of infection.
One that would be cheap to make, safe, easy to distribute, and, ideally, was already available. The search had a quest-like quality, like something from a fairy tale. Society, poisoned by COVID, would find the antidote out there, somewhere, if we looked hard enough.
You know the story. There were some pretty dramatic failures: hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin. There were some successes, like dexamethasone.
I’m not here today to tell you that the antidote has been found – no, it takes large randomized trials to figure that out. But
How do you make a case that an existing drug – UDCA, in this case – might be useful to prevent or treat COVID? In contrast to prior basic-science studies, like the original ivermectin study, which essentially took a bunch of cells and virus in a tube filled with varying concentrations of the antiparasitic agent, the authors of this paper appearing in Nature give us multiple, complementary lines of evidence. Let me walk you through it.
All good science starts with a biologically plausible hypothesis. In this case, the authors recognized that SARS-CoV-2, in all its variants, requires the presence of the ACE2 receptor on the surface of cells to bind.
That is the doorway to infection. Vaccines and antibodies block the key to this door, the spike protein and its receptor binding domain. But what if you could get rid of the doors altogether?
The authors first showed that ACE2 expression is controlled by a certain transcription factor known as the farnesoid X receptor, or FXR. Reducing the binding of FXR should therefore reduce ACE2 expression.
As luck would have it, UDCA – Actigall – reduces the levels of FXR and thus the expression of ACE2 in cells.
Okay. So we have a drug that can reduce ACE2, and we know that ACE2 is necessary for the virus to infect cells. Would UDCA prevent viral infection?
They started with test tubes, showing that cells were less likely to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 in the presence of UDCA at concentrations similar to what humans achieve in their blood after standard dosing. The red staining here is spike protein; you can see that it is markedly lower in the cells exposed to UDCA.
So far, so good. But test tubes aren’t people. So they moved up to mice and Syrian golden hamsters. These cute fellows are quite susceptible to human COVID and have been a model organism in countless studies
Mice and hamsters treated with UDCA in the presence of littermates with COVID infections were less likely to become infected themselves compared with mice not so treated. They also showed that mice and hamsters treated with UDCA had lower levels of ACE2 in their nasal passages.
Of course, mice aren’t humans either. So the researchers didn’t stop there.
To determine the effects of UDCA on human tissue, they utilized perfused human lungs that had been declined for transplantation. The lungs were perfused with a special fluid to keep them viable, and were mechanically ventilated. One lung was exposed to UDCA and the other served as a control. The authors were able to show that ACE2 levels went down in the exposed lung. And, importantly, when samples of tissue from both lungs were exposed to SARS-CoV-2, the lung tissue exposed to UDCA had lower levels of viral infection.
They didn’t stop there.
Eight human volunteers were recruited to take UDCA for 5 days. ACE2 levels in the nasal passages went down over the course of treatment. They confirmed those results from a proteomics dataset with several hundred people who had received UDCA for clinical reasons. Treated individuals had lower ACE2 levels.
Finally, they looked at the epidemiologic effect. They examined a dataset that contained information on over 1,000 patients with liver disease who had contracted COVID-19, 31 of whom had been receiving UDCA. Even after adjustment for baseline differences, those receiving UDCA were less likely to be hospitalized, require an ICU, or die.
Okay, we’ll stop there. Reading this study, all I could think was, Yes! This is how you generate evidence that you have a drug that might work – step by careful step.
But let’s be careful as well. Does this study show that taking Actigall will prevent COVID? Of course not. It doesn’t show that it will treat COVID either. But I bring it up because the rigor of this study stands in contrast to those that generated huge enthusiasm earlier in the pandemic only to let us down in randomized trials. If there has been a drug out there this whole time which will prevent or treat COVID, this is how we’ll find it. The next step? Test it in a randomized trial.
For Medscape, I’m Perry Wilson.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.
Know the right resuscitation for right-sided heart failure
Amado Alejandro Baez, MD, said in a presentation at the 2022 scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
The patient arrived on day 20 after a radical cystoprostatectomy. He had driven 4 hours from another city for a urology follow-up visit. On arrival, he developed respiratory distress symptoms and presented to the emergency department, said Dr. Baez, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the Medical College of Georgia/Augusta University and triple-board certified in EMS, emergency medicine, and critical care.
The patient developed a massive pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure). An electrocardiogram showed an S1Q3T3, demonstrating the distinctive nature of right ventricular failure, said Dr. Baez.
Research has demonstrated the differences in physiology between the right and left ventricles, he said.
Dr. Baez highlighted some of the features of right ventricle (RV) failure and how to manage it. Notably, the RV is thinner and less resilient. “RV failure patients may fall off the Starling curve,” in contrast to patients with isolated left ventricle (LV) failure.
RV pressure overload is associated with a range of conditions, such as pericardial disease, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. When combined with RV overload, patients may develop intracardiac shunting or coronary heart disease, Dr. Baez said. Decreased contractility associated with RV failure can result from sepsis, right ventricular myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrhythmia.
Dr. Baez cited the 2018 scientific statement from the American Heart Association on the evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure. The authors of the statement noted that the complicated geometry of the right heart makes functional assessment a challenge. They wrote that various hemodynamic and biochemical markers can help guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision-making.
Increased RV afterload drives multiple factors that can ultimately lead to cardiogenic shock and death, said Dr. Baez. These factors include decreased RV oxygen delivery, decreased RV coronary perfusion, decreased systemic blood pressure, and low carbon monoxide levels. RV afterload also leads to decreased RV contractility, an increase in RV oxygen demand, and tension in the RV wall, and it may contribute to tricuspid valve insufficiency, neurohormonal activation, and RV ischemia.
Treatment strategies involve improving symptoms and stopping disease progression, said Baez. In its scientific statement, the AHA recommends steps for assessing RV and LV function so as to identify RV failure as soon as possible, he said. After excluding pericardial disease, the AHA advises diagnosis and treatment of etiology-specific causes, such as right ventricular MI, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. For arrhythmias, it recommends maintaining sinus rhythm when possible and considering a pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and to avoid excessive bradycardia.
In its statement, the AHA also recommends optimizing preload with right arterial pressure/central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, said Dr. Baez. Preload optimization combined with afterload reduction and improved contractility are hallmarks of care for patients with RV failure.
Avoiding systemic hypotension can prevent sequelae, such as myocardial ischemia and further hypotension, he said.
Optimization of fluid status is another key to managing RV failure, said Dr. Baez. Right heart coronary perfusion pressure can be protected by maintaining mean arterial pressure, and consideration should be given to reducing the RV afterload. Other strategies include inotropic medications and rhythm stabilization.
In general, for RV failure patients, “correct hypoxia, hypercarbia, and acidosis and avoid intubation when possible,” he said. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option, depending on how many mechanical ventilator settings need to be adjusted.
In a study by Dr. Baez and colleagues published in Critical Care Medicine, the authors presented a Bayesian probability model for plasma lactate and severity of illness in cases of acute pulmonary embolism. “This Bayesian model demonstrated that the combination of shock index and lactate yield superior diagnostic gains than those compare to the sPESI and lactate,” Dr. Baez said.
The care model needs to be specific to the etiology, he added. Volume management in congested pulmonary hypertension involves a “squeeze and diurese” strategy.
According to the Internet Book of Critical Care, for patients with mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 60 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) of 25 mm Hg, renal perfusion pressure of 25 mm Hg, and no urine output, a vasopressor should be added to treatment, Dr. Baez said. In cases in which the MAP 75 mm Hg, the CVP is 25 mm Hg, the renal perfusion pressure is 50 mm Hg, and the patient has good urine output, vasopressors should be continued and fluid should be removed through use of a diuretic. For patients with a MAP of 75 mm Hg, a CVP of 12 mm Hg, and renal perfusion pressure of 63 mm Hg who have good urine output, the diuretic and the vasopressor should be discontinued.
Dr. Baez also reviewed several clinical studies of the utility of acute mechanical circulatory support systems for RV failure.
In two small studies involving a heart pump and a right ventricular assistive device, the 30-day survival rate was approximately 72%-73%. A study of 179 patients involving ECMO showed an in-hospital mortality rate of 38.6%, he said.
Overall, “prompt diagnosis, hemodynamic support, and initiation of specific treatment” are the foundations of managing RV failure, he concluded.
Dr. Baez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Amado Alejandro Baez, MD, said in a presentation at the 2022 scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
The patient arrived on day 20 after a radical cystoprostatectomy. He had driven 4 hours from another city for a urology follow-up visit. On arrival, he developed respiratory distress symptoms and presented to the emergency department, said Dr. Baez, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the Medical College of Georgia/Augusta University and triple-board certified in EMS, emergency medicine, and critical care.
The patient developed a massive pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure). An electrocardiogram showed an S1Q3T3, demonstrating the distinctive nature of right ventricular failure, said Dr. Baez.
Research has demonstrated the differences in physiology between the right and left ventricles, he said.
Dr. Baez highlighted some of the features of right ventricle (RV) failure and how to manage it. Notably, the RV is thinner and less resilient. “RV failure patients may fall off the Starling curve,” in contrast to patients with isolated left ventricle (LV) failure.
RV pressure overload is associated with a range of conditions, such as pericardial disease, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. When combined with RV overload, patients may develop intracardiac shunting or coronary heart disease, Dr. Baez said. Decreased contractility associated with RV failure can result from sepsis, right ventricular myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrhythmia.
Dr. Baez cited the 2018 scientific statement from the American Heart Association on the evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure. The authors of the statement noted that the complicated geometry of the right heart makes functional assessment a challenge. They wrote that various hemodynamic and biochemical markers can help guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision-making.
Increased RV afterload drives multiple factors that can ultimately lead to cardiogenic shock and death, said Dr. Baez. These factors include decreased RV oxygen delivery, decreased RV coronary perfusion, decreased systemic blood pressure, and low carbon monoxide levels. RV afterload also leads to decreased RV contractility, an increase in RV oxygen demand, and tension in the RV wall, and it may contribute to tricuspid valve insufficiency, neurohormonal activation, and RV ischemia.
Treatment strategies involve improving symptoms and stopping disease progression, said Baez. In its scientific statement, the AHA recommends steps for assessing RV and LV function so as to identify RV failure as soon as possible, he said. After excluding pericardial disease, the AHA advises diagnosis and treatment of etiology-specific causes, such as right ventricular MI, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. For arrhythmias, it recommends maintaining sinus rhythm when possible and considering a pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and to avoid excessive bradycardia.
In its statement, the AHA also recommends optimizing preload with right arterial pressure/central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, said Dr. Baez. Preload optimization combined with afterload reduction and improved contractility are hallmarks of care for patients with RV failure.
Avoiding systemic hypotension can prevent sequelae, such as myocardial ischemia and further hypotension, he said.
Optimization of fluid status is another key to managing RV failure, said Dr. Baez. Right heart coronary perfusion pressure can be protected by maintaining mean arterial pressure, and consideration should be given to reducing the RV afterload. Other strategies include inotropic medications and rhythm stabilization.
In general, for RV failure patients, “correct hypoxia, hypercarbia, and acidosis and avoid intubation when possible,” he said. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option, depending on how many mechanical ventilator settings need to be adjusted.
In a study by Dr. Baez and colleagues published in Critical Care Medicine, the authors presented a Bayesian probability model for plasma lactate and severity of illness in cases of acute pulmonary embolism. “This Bayesian model demonstrated that the combination of shock index and lactate yield superior diagnostic gains than those compare to the sPESI and lactate,” Dr. Baez said.
The care model needs to be specific to the etiology, he added. Volume management in congested pulmonary hypertension involves a “squeeze and diurese” strategy.
According to the Internet Book of Critical Care, for patients with mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 60 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) of 25 mm Hg, renal perfusion pressure of 25 mm Hg, and no urine output, a vasopressor should be added to treatment, Dr. Baez said. In cases in which the MAP 75 mm Hg, the CVP is 25 mm Hg, the renal perfusion pressure is 50 mm Hg, and the patient has good urine output, vasopressors should be continued and fluid should be removed through use of a diuretic. For patients with a MAP of 75 mm Hg, a CVP of 12 mm Hg, and renal perfusion pressure of 63 mm Hg who have good urine output, the diuretic and the vasopressor should be discontinued.
Dr. Baez also reviewed several clinical studies of the utility of acute mechanical circulatory support systems for RV failure.
In two small studies involving a heart pump and a right ventricular assistive device, the 30-day survival rate was approximately 72%-73%. A study of 179 patients involving ECMO showed an in-hospital mortality rate of 38.6%, he said.
Overall, “prompt diagnosis, hemodynamic support, and initiation of specific treatment” are the foundations of managing RV failure, he concluded.
Dr. Baez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Amado Alejandro Baez, MD, said in a presentation at the 2022 scientific assembly of the American College of Emergency Physicians.
The patient arrived on day 20 after a radical cystoprostatectomy. He had driven 4 hours from another city for a urology follow-up visit. On arrival, he developed respiratory distress symptoms and presented to the emergency department, said Dr. Baez, professor of emergency medicine and epidemiology at the Medical College of Georgia/Augusta University and triple-board certified in EMS, emergency medicine, and critical care.
The patient developed a massive pulmonary embolism with acute cor pulmonale (right-sided heart failure). An electrocardiogram showed an S1Q3T3, demonstrating the distinctive nature of right ventricular failure, said Dr. Baez.
Research has demonstrated the differences in physiology between the right and left ventricles, he said.
Dr. Baez highlighted some of the features of right ventricle (RV) failure and how to manage it. Notably, the RV is thinner and less resilient. “RV failure patients may fall off the Starling curve,” in contrast to patients with isolated left ventricle (LV) failure.
RV pressure overload is associated with a range of conditions, such as pericardial disease, pulmonary embolism, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary arterial hypertension. When combined with RV overload, patients may develop intracardiac shunting or coronary heart disease, Dr. Baez said. Decreased contractility associated with RV failure can result from sepsis, right ventricular myocardial infarction, myocarditis, and arrhythmia.
Dr. Baez cited the 2018 scientific statement from the American Heart Association on the evaluation and management of right-sided heart failure. The authors of the statement noted that the complicated geometry of the right heart makes functional assessment a challenge. They wrote that various hemodynamic and biochemical markers can help guide clinical assessment and therapeutic decision-making.
Increased RV afterload drives multiple factors that can ultimately lead to cardiogenic shock and death, said Dr. Baez. These factors include decreased RV oxygen delivery, decreased RV coronary perfusion, decreased systemic blood pressure, and low carbon monoxide levels. RV afterload also leads to decreased RV contractility, an increase in RV oxygen demand, and tension in the RV wall, and it may contribute to tricuspid valve insufficiency, neurohormonal activation, and RV ischemia.
Treatment strategies involve improving symptoms and stopping disease progression, said Baez. In its scientific statement, the AHA recommends steps for assessing RV and LV function so as to identify RV failure as soon as possible, he said. After excluding pericardial disease, the AHA advises diagnosis and treatment of etiology-specific causes, such as right ventricular MI, pulmonary embolism, and sepsis. For arrhythmias, it recommends maintaining sinus rhythm when possible and considering a pacemaker to maintain atrioventricular synchrony and to avoid excessive bradycardia.
In its statement, the AHA also recommends optimizing preload with right arterial pressure/central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, said Dr. Baez. Preload optimization combined with afterload reduction and improved contractility are hallmarks of care for patients with RV failure.
Avoiding systemic hypotension can prevent sequelae, such as myocardial ischemia and further hypotension, he said.
Optimization of fluid status is another key to managing RV failure, said Dr. Baez. Right heart coronary perfusion pressure can be protected by maintaining mean arterial pressure, and consideration should be given to reducing the RV afterload. Other strategies include inotropic medications and rhythm stabilization.
In general, for RV failure patients, “correct hypoxia, hypercarbia, and acidosis and avoid intubation when possible,” he said. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may be an option, depending on how many mechanical ventilator settings need to be adjusted.
In a study by Dr. Baez and colleagues published in Critical Care Medicine, the authors presented a Bayesian probability model for plasma lactate and severity of illness in cases of acute pulmonary embolism. “This Bayesian model demonstrated that the combination of shock index and lactate yield superior diagnostic gains than those compare to the sPESI and lactate,” Dr. Baez said.
The care model needs to be specific to the etiology, he added. Volume management in congested pulmonary hypertension involves a “squeeze and diurese” strategy.
According to the Internet Book of Critical Care, for patients with mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 60 mm Hg, central venous pressure (CVP) of 25 mm Hg, renal perfusion pressure of 25 mm Hg, and no urine output, a vasopressor should be added to treatment, Dr. Baez said. In cases in which the MAP 75 mm Hg, the CVP is 25 mm Hg, the renal perfusion pressure is 50 mm Hg, and the patient has good urine output, vasopressors should be continued and fluid should be removed through use of a diuretic. For patients with a MAP of 75 mm Hg, a CVP of 12 mm Hg, and renal perfusion pressure of 63 mm Hg who have good urine output, the diuretic and the vasopressor should be discontinued.
Dr. Baez also reviewed several clinical studies of the utility of acute mechanical circulatory support systems for RV failure.
In two small studies involving a heart pump and a right ventricular assistive device, the 30-day survival rate was approximately 72%-73%. A study of 179 patients involving ECMO showed an in-hospital mortality rate of 38.6%, he said.
Overall, “prompt diagnosis, hemodynamic support, and initiation of specific treatment” are the foundations of managing RV failure, he concluded.
Dr. Baez disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACEP 2022
Paxlovid has been free so far. Next year, sticker shock awaits
Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID.
And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.
“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.
In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.
But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.
The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.
Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”
Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.
Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.
Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.
“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.
In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.
Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.
People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.
About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.
States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.
“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.
People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.
Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.
And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.
One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.
HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.
Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.
HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.
The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.
Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.
“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID.
And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.
“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.
In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.
But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.
The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.
Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”
Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.
Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.
Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.
“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.
In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.
Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.
People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.
About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.
States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.
“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.
People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.
Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.
And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.
One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.
HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.
Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.
HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.
The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.
Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.
“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Nearly 6 million Americans have taken Paxlovid for free, courtesy of the federal government. The Pfizer pill has helped prevent many people infected with COVID-19 from being hospitalized or dying, and it may even reduce the risk of developing long COVID.
And that means fewer people will get the potentially lifesaving treatments, experts said.
“I think the numbers will go way down,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank. A bill for several hundred dollars or more would lead many people to decide the medication isn’t worth the price, she said.
In response to the unprecedented public health crisis caused by COVID, the federal government spent billions of dollars on developing new vaccines and treatments, to swift success: Less than a year after the pandemic was declared, medical workers got their first vaccines. But as many people have refused the shots and stopped wearing masks, the virus still rages and mutates. In 2022 alone, 250,000 Americans have died from COVID, more than from strokes or diabetes.
But soon the Department of Health & Human Services will stop supplying COVID treatments, and pharmacies will purchase and bill for them the same way they do for antibiotic pills or asthma inhalers. Paxlovid is expected to hit the private market in mid-2023, according to HHS plans shared in an October meeting with state health officials and clinicians. Merck’s Lagevrio, a less-effective COVID treatment pill, and AstraZeneca’s Evusheld, a preventive therapy for the immunocompromised, are on track to be commercialized sooner, sometime in the winter.
The U.S. government has so far purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid, priced at about $530 each, a discount for buying in bulk that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla called “really very attractive” to the federal government in a July earnings call. The drug will cost far more on the private market, although in a statement to Kaiser Health News, Pfizer declined to share the planned price. The government will also stop paying for the company’s COVID vaccine next year – those shots will quadruple in price, from the discount rate the government pays of $30 to about $120.
Mr. Bourla told investors in November that he expects the move will make Paxlovid and its COVID vaccine “a multibillion-dollars franchise.”
Nearly 9 in 10 people dying from the virus now are 65 or older. Yet federal law restricts Medicare Part D – the prescription drug program that covers nearly 50 million seniors – from covering the COVID treatment pills. The medications are meant for those most at risk of serious illness, including seniors.
Paxlovid and the other treatments are currently available under an emergency use authorization from the FDA, a fast-track review used in extraordinary situations. Although Pfizer applied for full approval in June, the process can take anywhere from several months to years. And Medicare Part D can’t cover any medications without that full stamp of approval.
Paying out-of-pocket would be “a substantial barrier” for seniors on Medicare – the very people who would benefit most from the drug, wrote federal health experts.
“From a public health perspective, and even from a health care capacity and cost perspective, it would just defy reason to not continue to make these drugs readily available,” said Dr. Larry Madoff, medical director of Massachusetts’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences. He’s hopeful that the federal health agency will find a way to set aside unused doses for seniors and people without insurance.
In mid-November, the White House requested that Congress approve an additional $2.5 billion for COVID therapeutics and vaccines to make sure people can afford the medications when they’re no longer free. But there’s little hope it will be approved – the Senate voted that same day to end the public health emergency and denied similar requests in recent months.
Many Americans have already faced hurdles just getting a prescription for COVID treatment. Although the federal government doesn’t track who’s gotten the drug, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study using data from 30 medical centers found that Black and Hispanic patients with COVID were much less likely to receive Paxlovid than White patients. (Hispanic people can be of any race or combination of races.) And when the government is no longer picking up the tab, experts predict that these gaps by race, income, and geography will widen.
People in Northeastern states used the drug far more often than those in the rest of the country, according to a KHN analysis of Paxlovid use in September and October. But it wasn’t because people in the region were getting sick from COVID at much higher rates – instead, many of those states offered better access to health care to begin with and created special programs to get Paxlovid to their residents.
About 10 mostly Democratic states and several large counties in the Northeast and elsewhere created free “test-to-treat” programs that allow their residents to get an immediate doctor visit and prescription for treatment after testing positive for COVID. In Massachusetts, more than 20,000 residents have used the state’s video and phone hotline, which is available 7 days a week in 13 languages. Massachusetts, which has the highest insurance rate in the country and relatively low travel times to pharmacies, had the second-highest Paxlovid usage rate among states this fall.
States with higher COVID death rates, like Florida and Kentucky, where residents must travel farther for health care and are more likely to be uninsured, used the drug less often. Without no-cost test-to-treat options, residents have struggled to get prescriptions even though the drug itself is still free.
“If you look at access to medications for people who are uninsured, I think that there’s no question that will widen those disparities,” Ms. Rosenthal said.
People who get insurance through their jobs could face high copays at the register, too, just as they do for insulin and other expensive or brand-name drugs.
Most private insurance companies will end up covering COVID therapeutics to some extent, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. After all, the pills are cheaper than a hospital stay. But for most people who get insurance through their jobs, there are “really no rules at all,” she said. Some insurers could take months to add the drugs to their plans or decide not to pay for them.
And the additional cost means many people will go without the medication. “We know from lots of research that when people face cost sharing for these drugs that they need to take, they will often forgo or cut back,” Ms. Corlette said.
One group doesn’t need to worry about sticker shock. Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income adults and children, will cover the treatments in full until at least early 2024.
HHS officials could set aside any leftover taxpayer-funded medication for people who can’t afford to pay the full cost, but they haven’t shared any concrete plans to do so. The government purchased 20 million courses of Paxlovid and 3 million of Lagevrio. Fewer than a third have been used, and usage has fallen in recent months, according to KHN’s analysis of the data from HHS.
Sixty percent of the government’s supply of Evusheld is also still available, although the COVID prevention therapy is less effective against new strains of the virus. The health department in one state, New Mexico, has recommended against using it.
HHS did not make officials available for an interview or answer written questions about the commercialization plans.
The government created a potential workaround when they moved bebtelovimab, another COVID treatment, to the private market this summer. It now retails for $2,100 per patient. The agency set aside the remaining 60,000 government-purchased doses that hospitals could use to treat uninsured patients in a convoluted dose-replacement process. But it’s hard to tell how well that setup would work for Paxlovid: Bebtelovimab was already much less popular, and the FDA halted its use on Nov. 30 because it’s less effective against current strains of the virus.
Federal officials and insurance companies would have good reason to make sure patients can continue to afford COVID drugs: They’re far cheaper than if patients land in the emergency room.
“The medications are so worthwhile,” said Dr. Madoff, the Massachusetts health official. “They’re not expensive in the grand scheme of health care costs.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Advanced practice providers – an evolving role in pulmonary medicine
The integration of advanced practice providers (APPs) into pulmonology practice is in flux and deepening across numerous settings, from outpatient clinics to intensive care and inpatient pulmonary consult services – and as it evolves, so are issues of training.
Some institutions are developing pulmonary fellowship programs for APPs. This is a good indication that team-based pulmonology may be moving toward a time in the future when nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) join pulmonologists in practice after having undergone formal education in the subspecialty, rather than learning solely on the job from dedicated mentors.
Neither NPs nor PAs, who comprise almost all of the APP workforce in pulmonology, currently have a pulmonary tract for training. “Weight falls on the employer’s shoulders to train and educate their APPs,” said Corinne R. Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of APP and clinical services at Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and founder and president of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers, which launched in 2018.
The role that an APP plays and their scope of practice is determined not only by state policies and regulations – and by their prior experience, knowledge and motivation – but by “how much work a practice puts into [education and training],” she said.
An estimated 3,000-8,000 APPs are working in pulmonology, according to an analysis done by a marketing agency that has worked for the American College of Chest Physicians, Ms. Young said.
A 2021 APAPP survey of its several hundred members at the time showed them working in hospital systems (41%), private practice (28%), university systems (10%), and other health care systems (21%). They indicated practicing in pulmonary medicine, sleep medicine, or critical care – or some combination of these areas – and the vast majority (82%) indicated they were seeing both new and established patients in their roles.
“Nobody knows exactly how many of us are out there,” Ms. Young said. “But CHEST and APAPP are making great efforts to be beacons to APPs working in this realm and to bring them together to have a voice.”
The APAPP also wants to “close the education gap” and to “eventually develop a certification program to vet our knowledge in this area,” she said. “Right now, the closest we can get to vetting our knowledge is to become an FCCP through CHEST.”
Earning trust, seeking training
Omar Hussain, DO, has been practicing with an NP for over a decade in his role as an intensivist and knows what it’s like to train, supervise, and grow together. He and his private practice colleagues have a contract with Advocate Condell Hospital in Libertyville, Ill., to cover its ICU, and they hired their NP primarily to help care for shorter-stay, non–critically ill patients in the ICU (for example, patients receiving postoperative monitoring).
The NP has been invaluable. “We literally sit next to each other and in the mornings we make a game plan of which patients she will tackle first and which ones I’ll see first,” Dr. Hussain said. “When we’re called by the nurse for an ICU evaluation [on the floor], we’ll decide in real time who goes.”
The NP ensures that all guidelines and quality measures are followed in the ICU and, with a Monday-Friday schedule, she provides valuable continuity when there are handoffs from one intensivist to another, said Dr. Hussain, who serves as cochair of the joint CHEST/American Thoracic Society clinical practice committee, which deals with issues of physician-APP collaboration.
After working collaboratively for some time, Dr. Hussain and his partners decided to teach the NP how to intubate. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process, and “we used the same kind of mindset we’d used when we’ve supervised residents at other institutions,” he said.
Dr. Hussain and his partners have been fortunate in having such a long-term relationship with an APP. Their NP had worked as a nurse in the ICU before training as an adult gerontology–acute care NP and joining Dr. Hussain’s practice, so she was also “well known to us,” he added.
Rachel Adney, CPNP-PC, a certified pediatric NP in the division of pediatric pulmonology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health, is an APP who actively sought advanced training. She joined Stanford in 2011 to provide ambulatory care, primarily, and having years of prior experience in asthma management and education, she fast became known as “the asthma person.”
After a physician colleague one day objected to her caring for a patient without asthma, Ms. Adney, the first APP in the division, approached John D. Mark, MD, program director of the pediatric fellowship program at Stanford, and inquired about training “so I could have more breadth and depth across the whole pulmonary milieu.”
Together they designed a “mini pediatric pulmonary fellowship” for Ms. Adney, incorporating elements of the first year of Stanford’s pediatric fellowship program as well as training materials from the University of Arizona’s Pediatric Pulmonary Center, Tucson, one of six federally funded PCCs that train various health care providers to care for pediatric patients with chronic pulmonary conditions. (Dr. Mark had previously been an educator at the center while serving on the University of Arizona faculty.)
Her curriculum consisted of 1,000 total hours of training, including 125 hours of didactic learning and 400 hours of both inpatient and outpatient clinical training in areas such as cystic fibrosis, sleep medicine, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), neuromuscular disorders, and general pulmonary medicine. “Rachel rotated through clinics, first as an observer, then as a trainee ... and she attended lectures that my fellows attended,” said Dr. Mark, who has long been a preceptor for APPs. “She became like a 1-year fellow in my division.”
Today, Ms. Adney sees patients independently in four outreach clinics along California’s central coast. “She sees very complicated pediatric pulmonary patients now” overall, and has become integral to Stanford’s interdisciplinary CRIB program (cardiac and respiratory care for infants with BPD), Dr. Mark said. “She follows these patients at Stanford along with the whole CRIB group, then sees them on her own for follow-up.”
As a result of her training, Ms. Adney said, “knowing that I have the knowledge and experience to take on more complex patients, my colleagues now trust me and are confident in my skills. They feel comfortable sending [patients] to me much earlier. ... And they know that if there’s something I need help with I will go to them instantly.”
Pulmonology “really spoke to my heart,” she said, recalling her pre-Stanford journey as an in-hospital medical-surgical nurse, and then, after her NP training, as a outpatient primary care PNP. “For the most part, it’s like putting a puzzle together, and being able to really impact the quality of life these patients have,” said Ms. Adney, who serves on the APAPP’s pediatric subcommittee.
It’s clear, Dr. Mark said, that “things are changing around the country” with increasing institutional interest in developing formal APP specialty training programs. “There’s no way [for an APP] to walk into a specialty and play an active role without additional training,” and institutions are frustrated with turnover and the loss of APPs who decide after 6-9 months of on-the-job training that they’re not interested in the field.
Stanford Medicine Children’s Health, in fact, has launched an internal Pediatric APP Fellowship Program that is training its first cohort of six newly graduated NPs and PAs in two clinical tracks, including a medical/surgical track that incorporates rotations in pulmonary medicine, said Raji Koppolu, CPNP-PC/AC, manager of advanced practice professional development for Stanford Medicine Children’s Health.
APP fellowship programs have been in existence since 2007 in a variety of clinical settings, she said, but more institutions are developing them as a way of recruiting and retaining APPs in areas of high need and of equipping them for successful transitions to their APP roles. Various national bodies accredit APP fellowship programs.
Most pulmonary fellowship programs, Ms. Young said, are also internal programs providing postgraduate education to their own newly hired APPs or recent NP/PA graduates. This limits their reach, but “it’s a step in the right direction toward standardizing education for pulmonary APPs.”
Defining APP competencies
In interventional pulmonology, training may soon be guided by newly defined “core clinical competencies” for APPs. The soon-to-be published and distributed competencies – the first such national APP competencies in pulmonology – were developed by an APP Leadership Council within the American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology and cover the most common disease processes and practices in IP, from COPD and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction to pleural effusion and lung cancer screening.
Rebecca Priebe, ACNP-BC, who cochairs the AABIP’s APP chapter, organized the effort several years ago, bringing together a group of APPs and physician experts in advanced bronchoscopy and IP (some but not all of whom have worked with APPs), after fielding questions from pulmonologists at AABIP meetings about what to look for in an AAP and how to train them.
Physicians and institutions who are hiring and training APPs for IP can use any or all of the 11 core competencies to personalize and evaluate the training process for each APP’s needs, she said. “Someone looking to hire an APP for pleural disease, for instance, can pull up the content on plural effusion.”
APP interest in interventional pulmonology is growing rapidly, Ms. Priebe said, noting growth in the AABIP’s APP chapter from about 7-8 APPs 5 years ago to at least 60 currently.
Ms. Priebe was hired by Henry Ford Health in Detroit about 5 years ago to help establish and run an inpatient IP consult service, and more recently, she helped establish their inpatient pleural disease service and a bronchoscopic lung volume reduction program.
For the inpatient IP service, after several months of side-by-side training with an IP fellow and attending physicians, she began independently evaluating new patients, writing notes, and making recommendations.
For patients with pleural disease, she performs ultrasound examinations, chest tube insertions, and bedside thoracentesis independently. And for the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction program, she evaluates patients for candidate status, participates in valve placement, and sees patients independently through a year of follow-up.
“Physician colleagues often aren’t sure what an APP’s education and scope of practice is,” said Ms. Priebe, who was an ICU nurse before training as an acute care NP and then worked first with a private practice inpatient service and then with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where she established and grew an APP-run program managing lung transplant patients and a step-down ICU unit.
“It’s a matter of knowing [your state’s policies], treating them like a fellow you would train, and then using them to the fullest extent of their education and training. If they’re given an opportunity to learn a subspecialty skill set, they can be an asset to any pulmonary program.”
‘We’re here to support,’ not replace
In her own practice, Ms. Young is one of seven APPs who work with nine physicians on a full range of inpatient care, outpatient care, critical care, sleep medicine, and procedures. Many new patients are seen first by the APP, who does the workup and orders tests, and by the physician on a follow-up visit. Most patients needing routine management of asthma and COPD are seen by the physician every third or fourth visit, she said.
Ms. Young also directs a 24-hour in-house APP service recently established by the practice, and she participates in research. In a practice across town, she noted, APPs see mainly established patients and do not practice as autonomously as the state permits. “Part of that difference may [stem from] the lack of a standard of education and variable amounts of work the practice puts into their APPs.”
The American Medical Association’s #StopScopeCreep social media messaging feels divisive and “sheds a negative light on APPs working in any area,” Ms. Young said. “One of the biggest things we want to convey [at APAPP] is that we’re not here for [physicians’] jobs.”
“We’re here to support those who are practicing, to support underserved populations, and to help bridge gaps” created by an aging pulmonologist workforce and real and projected physician shortages, Ms. Young said, referring to a 2016 report from the Health Resources and Services Administration and a 2017 report from Merritt Hawkins indicating that 73% of U.S. pulmonologists (the largest percentage of all subspecialties) were at least 55 years old.
Dr. Hussain said he has “seen scope creep” first-hand in his hospitals, in the form of noncollaborative practices and tasks performed by APPs without adequate training – most likely often stemming from poor decisions and oversight by physicians. But when constructed thoughtfully, APP-physician teams are “serving great needs” in many types of care, he said, from follow-up care and management of chronic conditions to inpatient rounding. “My [colleagues] are having great success,” he said.
He is watching with interest – and some concern – pending reimbursement changes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will make time the only defining feature of the “substantive” portion of a split/shared visit involving physicians and APPs in a facility setting. Medical decision-making will no longer be applicable.
For time-based services like critical care, time alone is currently the metric. (And in the nonfacility setting, physician-APP teams may still apply “incident to” billing practices). But in the facility setting, said Amy M. Ahasic, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist in Norwalk, Conn., who coauthored a 2022 commentary on the issue, the change (now planned for 2024) could be problematic for employed physicians whose contracts are based on productivity, and could create tension and possibly lead to reduced use of APPs rather than supporting collaborative care.
“The team model has been evolving so well over the past 10-15 years,” said Dr. Ahasic, who serves on the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Reimbursement Workgroup and cochairs the CHEST/American Thoracic Society clinical practice committee with Dr. Hussain. “It’s good for patient safety to have more [providers] involved ... and because APP salaries are lower health systems could do it and be able to have better care and better coverage.”
The pulmonology culture, said Dr. Hussain, has been increasingly embracing APPs and “it’s collegial.” Pulmonologists are “coming to CHEST meetings with their APPs. They’re learning the same things we’re learning, to manage the same patients we manage.”
The article sources reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
The integration of advanced practice providers (APPs) into pulmonology practice is in flux and deepening across numerous settings, from outpatient clinics to intensive care and inpatient pulmonary consult services – and as it evolves, so are issues of training.
Some institutions are developing pulmonary fellowship programs for APPs. This is a good indication that team-based pulmonology may be moving toward a time in the future when nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) join pulmonologists in practice after having undergone formal education in the subspecialty, rather than learning solely on the job from dedicated mentors.
Neither NPs nor PAs, who comprise almost all of the APP workforce in pulmonology, currently have a pulmonary tract for training. “Weight falls on the employer’s shoulders to train and educate their APPs,” said Corinne R. Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of APP and clinical services at Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and founder and president of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers, which launched in 2018.
The role that an APP plays and their scope of practice is determined not only by state policies and regulations – and by their prior experience, knowledge and motivation – but by “how much work a practice puts into [education and training],” she said.
An estimated 3,000-8,000 APPs are working in pulmonology, according to an analysis done by a marketing agency that has worked for the American College of Chest Physicians, Ms. Young said.
A 2021 APAPP survey of its several hundred members at the time showed them working in hospital systems (41%), private practice (28%), university systems (10%), and other health care systems (21%). They indicated practicing in pulmonary medicine, sleep medicine, or critical care – or some combination of these areas – and the vast majority (82%) indicated they were seeing both new and established patients in their roles.
“Nobody knows exactly how many of us are out there,” Ms. Young said. “But CHEST and APAPP are making great efforts to be beacons to APPs working in this realm and to bring them together to have a voice.”
The APAPP also wants to “close the education gap” and to “eventually develop a certification program to vet our knowledge in this area,” she said. “Right now, the closest we can get to vetting our knowledge is to become an FCCP through CHEST.”
Earning trust, seeking training
Omar Hussain, DO, has been practicing with an NP for over a decade in his role as an intensivist and knows what it’s like to train, supervise, and grow together. He and his private practice colleagues have a contract with Advocate Condell Hospital in Libertyville, Ill., to cover its ICU, and they hired their NP primarily to help care for shorter-stay, non–critically ill patients in the ICU (for example, patients receiving postoperative monitoring).
The NP has been invaluable. “We literally sit next to each other and in the mornings we make a game plan of which patients she will tackle first and which ones I’ll see first,” Dr. Hussain said. “When we’re called by the nurse for an ICU evaluation [on the floor], we’ll decide in real time who goes.”
The NP ensures that all guidelines and quality measures are followed in the ICU and, with a Monday-Friday schedule, she provides valuable continuity when there are handoffs from one intensivist to another, said Dr. Hussain, who serves as cochair of the joint CHEST/American Thoracic Society clinical practice committee, which deals with issues of physician-APP collaboration.
After working collaboratively for some time, Dr. Hussain and his partners decided to teach the NP how to intubate. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process, and “we used the same kind of mindset we’d used when we’ve supervised residents at other institutions,” he said.
Dr. Hussain and his partners have been fortunate in having such a long-term relationship with an APP. Their NP had worked as a nurse in the ICU before training as an adult gerontology–acute care NP and joining Dr. Hussain’s practice, so she was also “well known to us,” he added.
Rachel Adney, CPNP-PC, a certified pediatric NP in the division of pediatric pulmonology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health, is an APP who actively sought advanced training. She joined Stanford in 2011 to provide ambulatory care, primarily, and having years of prior experience in asthma management and education, she fast became known as “the asthma person.”
After a physician colleague one day objected to her caring for a patient without asthma, Ms. Adney, the first APP in the division, approached John D. Mark, MD, program director of the pediatric fellowship program at Stanford, and inquired about training “so I could have more breadth and depth across the whole pulmonary milieu.”
Together they designed a “mini pediatric pulmonary fellowship” for Ms. Adney, incorporating elements of the first year of Stanford’s pediatric fellowship program as well as training materials from the University of Arizona’s Pediatric Pulmonary Center, Tucson, one of six federally funded PCCs that train various health care providers to care for pediatric patients with chronic pulmonary conditions. (Dr. Mark had previously been an educator at the center while serving on the University of Arizona faculty.)
Her curriculum consisted of 1,000 total hours of training, including 125 hours of didactic learning and 400 hours of both inpatient and outpatient clinical training in areas such as cystic fibrosis, sleep medicine, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), neuromuscular disorders, and general pulmonary medicine. “Rachel rotated through clinics, first as an observer, then as a trainee ... and she attended lectures that my fellows attended,” said Dr. Mark, who has long been a preceptor for APPs. “She became like a 1-year fellow in my division.”
Today, Ms. Adney sees patients independently in four outreach clinics along California’s central coast. “She sees very complicated pediatric pulmonary patients now” overall, and has become integral to Stanford’s interdisciplinary CRIB program (cardiac and respiratory care for infants with BPD), Dr. Mark said. “She follows these patients at Stanford along with the whole CRIB group, then sees them on her own for follow-up.”
As a result of her training, Ms. Adney said, “knowing that I have the knowledge and experience to take on more complex patients, my colleagues now trust me and are confident in my skills. They feel comfortable sending [patients] to me much earlier. ... And they know that if there’s something I need help with I will go to them instantly.”
Pulmonology “really spoke to my heart,” she said, recalling her pre-Stanford journey as an in-hospital medical-surgical nurse, and then, after her NP training, as a outpatient primary care PNP. “For the most part, it’s like putting a puzzle together, and being able to really impact the quality of life these patients have,” said Ms. Adney, who serves on the APAPP’s pediatric subcommittee.
It’s clear, Dr. Mark said, that “things are changing around the country” with increasing institutional interest in developing formal APP specialty training programs. “There’s no way [for an APP] to walk into a specialty and play an active role without additional training,” and institutions are frustrated with turnover and the loss of APPs who decide after 6-9 months of on-the-job training that they’re not interested in the field.
Stanford Medicine Children’s Health, in fact, has launched an internal Pediatric APP Fellowship Program that is training its first cohort of six newly graduated NPs and PAs in two clinical tracks, including a medical/surgical track that incorporates rotations in pulmonary medicine, said Raji Koppolu, CPNP-PC/AC, manager of advanced practice professional development for Stanford Medicine Children’s Health.
APP fellowship programs have been in existence since 2007 in a variety of clinical settings, she said, but more institutions are developing them as a way of recruiting and retaining APPs in areas of high need and of equipping them for successful transitions to their APP roles. Various national bodies accredit APP fellowship programs.
Most pulmonary fellowship programs, Ms. Young said, are also internal programs providing postgraduate education to their own newly hired APPs or recent NP/PA graduates. This limits their reach, but “it’s a step in the right direction toward standardizing education for pulmonary APPs.”
Defining APP competencies
In interventional pulmonology, training may soon be guided by newly defined “core clinical competencies” for APPs. The soon-to-be published and distributed competencies – the first such national APP competencies in pulmonology – were developed by an APP Leadership Council within the American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology and cover the most common disease processes and practices in IP, from COPD and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction to pleural effusion and lung cancer screening.
Rebecca Priebe, ACNP-BC, who cochairs the AABIP’s APP chapter, organized the effort several years ago, bringing together a group of APPs and physician experts in advanced bronchoscopy and IP (some but not all of whom have worked with APPs), after fielding questions from pulmonologists at AABIP meetings about what to look for in an AAP and how to train them.
Physicians and institutions who are hiring and training APPs for IP can use any or all of the 11 core competencies to personalize and evaluate the training process for each APP’s needs, she said. “Someone looking to hire an APP for pleural disease, for instance, can pull up the content on plural effusion.”
APP interest in interventional pulmonology is growing rapidly, Ms. Priebe said, noting growth in the AABIP’s APP chapter from about 7-8 APPs 5 years ago to at least 60 currently.
Ms. Priebe was hired by Henry Ford Health in Detroit about 5 years ago to help establish and run an inpatient IP consult service, and more recently, she helped establish their inpatient pleural disease service and a bronchoscopic lung volume reduction program.
For the inpatient IP service, after several months of side-by-side training with an IP fellow and attending physicians, she began independently evaluating new patients, writing notes, and making recommendations.
For patients with pleural disease, she performs ultrasound examinations, chest tube insertions, and bedside thoracentesis independently. And for the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction program, she evaluates patients for candidate status, participates in valve placement, and sees patients independently through a year of follow-up.
“Physician colleagues often aren’t sure what an APP’s education and scope of practice is,” said Ms. Priebe, who was an ICU nurse before training as an acute care NP and then worked first with a private practice inpatient service and then with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where she established and grew an APP-run program managing lung transplant patients and a step-down ICU unit.
“It’s a matter of knowing [your state’s policies], treating them like a fellow you would train, and then using them to the fullest extent of their education and training. If they’re given an opportunity to learn a subspecialty skill set, they can be an asset to any pulmonary program.”
‘We’re here to support,’ not replace
In her own practice, Ms. Young is one of seven APPs who work with nine physicians on a full range of inpatient care, outpatient care, critical care, sleep medicine, and procedures. Many new patients are seen first by the APP, who does the workup and orders tests, and by the physician on a follow-up visit. Most patients needing routine management of asthma and COPD are seen by the physician every third or fourth visit, she said.
Ms. Young also directs a 24-hour in-house APP service recently established by the practice, and she participates in research. In a practice across town, she noted, APPs see mainly established patients and do not practice as autonomously as the state permits. “Part of that difference may [stem from] the lack of a standard of education and variable amounts of work the practice puts into their APPs.”
The American Medical Association’s #StopScopeCreep social media messaging feels divisive and “sheds a negative light on APPs working in any area,” Ms. Young said. “One of the biggest things we want to convey [at APAPP] is that we’re not here for [physicians’] jobs.”
“We’re here to support those who are practicing, to support underserved populations, and to help bridge gaps” created by an aging pulmonologist workforce and real and projected physician shortages, Ms. Young said, referring to a 2016 report from the Health Resources and Services Administration and a 2017 report from Merritt Hawkins indicating that 73% of U.S. pulmonologists (the largest percentage of all subspecialties) were at least 55 years old.
Dr. Hussain said he has “seen scope creep” first-hand in his hospitals, in the form of noncollaborative practices and tasks performed by APPs without adequate training – most likely often stemming from poor decisions and oversight by physicians. But when constructed thoughtfully, APP-physician teams are “serving great needs” in many types of care, he said, from follow-up care and management of chronic conditions to inpatient rounding. “My [colleagues] are having great success,” he said.
He is watching with interest – and some concern – pending reimbursement changes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will make time the only defining feature of the “substantive” portion of a split/shared visit involving physicians and APPs in a facility setting. Medical decision-making will no longer be applicable.
For time-based services like critical care, time alone is currently the metric. (And in the nonfacility setting, physician-APP teams may still apply “incident to” billing practices). But in the facility setting, said Amy M. Ahasic, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist in Norwalk, Conn., who coauthored a 2022 commentary on the issue, the change (now planned for 2024) could be problematic for employed physicians whose contracts are based on productivity, and could create tension and possibly lead to reduced use of APPs rather than supporting collaborative care.
“The team model has been evolving so well over the past 10-15 years,” said Dr. Ahasic, who serves on the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Reimbursement Workgroup and cochairs the CHEST/American Thoracic Society clinical practice committee with Dr. Hussain. “It’s good for patient safety to have more [providers] involved ... and because APP salaries are lower health systems could do it and be able to have better care and better coverage.”
The pulmonology culture, said Dr. Hussain, has been increasingly embracing APPs and “it’s collegial.” Pulmonologists are “coming to CHEST meetings with their APPs. They’re learning the same things we’re learning, to manage the same patients we manage.”
The article sources reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
The integration of advanced practice providers (APPs) into pulmonology practice is in flux and deepening across numerous settings, from outpatient clinics to intensive care and inpatient pulmonary consult services – and as it evolves, so are issues of training.
Some institutions are developing pulmonary fellowship programs for APPs. This is a good indication that team-based pulmonology may be moving toward a time in the future when nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) join pulmonologists in practice after having undergone formal education in the subspecialty, rather than learning solely on the job from dedicated mentors.
Neither NPs nor PAs, who comprise almost all of the APP workforce in pulmonology, currently have a pulmonary tract for training. “Weight falls on the employer’s shoulders to train and educate their APPs,” said Corinne R. Young, MSN, FNP-C, FCCP, director of APP and clinical services at Colorado Springs Pulmonary Consultants and founder and president of the Association of Pulmonary Advanced Practice Providers, which launched in 2018.
The role that an APP plays and their scope of practice is determined not only by state policies and regulations – and by their prior experience, knowledge and motivation – but by “how much work a practice puts into [education and training],” she said.
An estimated 3,000-8,000 APPs are working in pulmonology, according to an analysis done by a marketing agency that has worked for the American College of Chest Physicians, Ms. Young said.
A 2021 APAPP survey of its several hundred members at the time showed them working in hospital systems (41%), private practice (28%), university systems (10%), and other health care systems (21%). They indicated practicing in pulmonary medicine, sleep medicine, or critical care – or some combination of these areas – and the vast majority (82%) indicated they were seeing both new and established patients in their roles.
“Nobody knows exactly how many of us are out there,” Ms. Young said. “But CHEST and APAPP are making great efforts to be beacons to APPs working in this realm and to bring them together to have a voice.”
The APAPP also wants to “close the education gap” and to “eventually develop a certification program to vet our knowledge in this area,” she said. “Right now, the closest we can get to vetting our knowledge is to become an FCCP through CHEST.”
Earning trust, seeking training
Omar Hussain, DO, has been practicing with an NP for over a decade in his role as an intensivist and knows what it’s like to train, supervise, and grow together. He and his private practice colleagues have a contract with Advocate Condell Hospital in Libertyville, Ill., to cover its ICU, and they hired their NP primarily to help care for shorter-stay, non–critically ill patients in the ICU (for example, patients receiving postoperative monitoring).
The NP has been invaluable. “We literally sit next to each other and in the mornings we make a game plan of which patients she will tackle first and which ones I’ll see first,” Dr. Hussain said. “When we’re called by the nurse for an ICU evaluation [on the floor], we’ll decide in real time who goes.”
The NP ensures that all guidelines and quality measures are followed in the ICU and, with a Monday-Friday schedule, she provides valuable continuity when there are handoffs from one intensivist to another, said Dr. Hussain, who serves as cochair of the joint CHEST/American Thoracic Society clinical practice committee, which deals with issues of physician-APP collaboration.
After working collaboratively for some time, Dr. Hussain and his partners decided to teach the NP how to intubate. It was a thoughtful and deliberate process, and “we used the same kind of mindset we’d used when we’ve supervised residents at other institutions,” he said.
Dr. Hussain and his partners have been fortunate in having such a long-term relationship with an APP. Their NP had worked as a nurse in the ICU before training as an adult gerontology–acute care NP and joining Dr. Hussain’s practice, so she was also “well known to us,” he added.
Rachel Adney, CPNP-PC, a certified pediatric NP in the division of pediatric pulmonology at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine Children’s Health, is an APP who actively sought advanced training. She joined Stanford in 2011 to provide ambulatory care, primarily, and having years of prior experience in asthma management and education, she fast became known as “the asthma person.”
After a physician colleague one day objected to her caring for a patient without asthma, Ms. Adney, the first APP in the division, approached John D. Mark, MD, program director of the pediatric fellowship program at Stanford, and inquired about training “so I could have more breadth and depth across the whole pulmonary milieu.”
Together they designed a “mini pediatric pulmonary fellowship” for Ms. Adney, incorporating elements of the first year of Stanford’s pediatric fellowship program as well as training materials from the University of Arizona’s Pediatric Pulmonary Center, Tucson, one of six federally funded PCCs that train various health care providers to care for pediatric patients with chronic pulmonary conditions. (Dr. Mark had previously been an educator at the center while serving on the University of Arizona faculty.)
Her curriculum consisted of 1,000 total hours of training, including 125 hours of didactic learning and 400 hours of both inpatient and outpatient clinical training in areas such as cystic fibrosis, sleep medicine, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), neuromuscular disorders, and general pulmonary medicine. “Rachel rotated through clinics, first as an observer, then as a trainee ... and she attended lectures that my fellows attended,” said Dr. Mark, who has long been a preceptor for APPs. “She became like a 1-year fellow in my division.”
Today, Ms. Adney sees patients independently in four outreach clinics along California’s central coast. “She sees very complicated pediatric pulmonary patients now” overall, and has become integral to Stanford’s interdisciplinary CRIB program (cardiac and respiratory care for infants with BPD), Dr. Mark said. “She follows these patients at Stanford along with the whole CRIB group, then sees them on her own for follow-up.”
As a result of her training, Ms. Adney said, “knowing that I have the knowledge and experience to take on more complex patients, my colleagues now trust me and are confident in my skills. They feel comfortable sending [patients] to me much earlier. ... And they know that if there’s something I need help with I will go to them instantly.”
Pulmonology “really spoke to my heart,” she said, recalling her pre-Stanford journey as an in-hospital medical-surgical nurse, and then, after her NP training, as a outpatient primary care PNP. “For the most part, it’s like putting a puzzle together, and being able to really impact the quality of life these patients have,” said Ms. Adney, who serves on the APAPP’s pediatric subcommittee.
It’s clear, Dr. Mark said, that “things are changing around the country” with increasing institutional interest in developing formal APP specialty training programs. “There’s no way [for an APP] to walk into a specialty and play an active role without additional training,” and institutions are frustrated with turnover and the loss of APPs who decide after 6-9 months of on-the-job training that they’re not interested in the field.
Stanford Medicine Children’s Health, in fact, has launched an internal Pediatric APP Fellowship Program that is training its first cohort of six newly graduated NPs and PAs in two clinical tracks, including a medical/surgical track that incorporates rotations in pulmonary medicine, said Raji Koppolu, CPNP-PC/AC, manager of advanced practice professional development for Stanford Medicine Children’s Health.
APP fellowship programs have been in existence since 2007 in a variety of clinical settings, she said, but more institutions are developing them as a way of recruiting and retaining APPs in areas of high need and of equipping them for successful transitions to their APP roles. Various national bodies accredit APP fellowship programs.
Most pulmonary fellowship programs, Ms. Young said, are also internal programs providing postgraduate education to their own newly hired APPs or recent NP/PA graduates. This limits their reach, but “it’s a step in the right direction toward standardizing education for pulmonary APPs.”
Defining APP competencies
In interventional pulmonology, training may soon be guided by newly defined “core clinical competencies” for APPs. The soon-to-be published and distributed competencies – the first such national APP competencies in pulmonology – were developed by an APP Leadership Council within the American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology and cover the most common disease processes and practices in IP, from COPD and bronchoscopic lung volume reduction to pleural effusion and lung cancer screening.
Rebecca Priebe, ACNP-BC, who cochairs the AABIP’s APP chapter, organized the effort several years ago, bringing together a group of APPs and physician experts in advanced bronchoscopy and IP (some but not all of whom have worked with APPs), after fielding questions from pulmonologists at AABIP meetings about what to look for in an AAP and how to train them.
Physicians and institutions who are hiring and training APPs for IP can use any or all of the 11 core competencies to personalize and evaluate the training process for each APP’s needs, she said. “Someone looking to hire an APP for pleural disease, for instance, can pull up the content on plural effusion.”
APP interest in interventional pulmonology is growing rapidly, Ms. Priebe said, noting growth in the AABIP’s APP chapter from about 7-8 APPs 5 years ago to at least 60 currently.
Ms. Priebe was hired by Henry Ford Health in Detroit about 5 years ago to help establish and run an inpatient IP consult service, and more recently, she helped establish their inpatient pleural disease service and a bronchoscopic lung volume reduction program.
For the inpatient IP service, after several months of side-by-side training with an IP fellow and attending physicians, she began independently evaluating new patients, writing notes, and making recommendations.
For patients with pleural disease, she performs ultrasound examinations, chest tube insertions, and bedside thoracentesis independently. And for the bronchoscopic lung volume reduction program, she evaluates patients for candidate status, participates in valve placement, and sees patients independently through a year of follow-up.
“Physician colleagues often aren’t sure what an APP’s education and scope of practice is,” said Ms. Priebe, who was an ICU nurse before training as an acute care NP and then worked first with a private practice inpatient service and then with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where she established and grew an APP-run program managing lung transplant patients and a step-down ICU unit.
“It’s a matter of knowing [your state’s policies], treating them like a fellow you would train, and then using them to the fullest extent of their education and training. If they’re given an opportunity to learn a subspecialty skill set, they can be an asset to any pulmonary program.”
‘We’re here to support,’ not replace
In her own practice, Ms. Young is one of seven APPs who work with nine physicians on a full range of inpatient care, outpatient care, critical care, sleep medicine, and procedures. Many new patients are seen first by the APP, who does the workup and orders tests, and by the physician on a follow-up visit. Most patients needing routine management of asthma and COPD are seen by the physician every third or fourth visit, she said.
Ms. Young also directs a 24-hour in-house APP service recently established by the practice, and she participates in research. In a practice across town, she noted, APPs see mainly established patients and do not practice as autonomously as the state permits. “Part of that difference may [stem from] the lack of a standard of education and variable amounts of work the practice puts into their APPs.”
The American Medical Association’s #StopScopeCreep social media messaging feels divisive and “sheds a negative light on APPs working in any area,” Ms. Young said. “One of the biggest things we want to convey [at APAPP] is that we’re not here for [physicians’] jobs.”
“We’re here to support those who are practicing, to support underserved populations, and to help bridge gaps” created by an aging pulmonologist workforce and real and projected physician shortages, Ms. Young said, referring to a 2016 report from the Health Resources and Services Administration and a 2017 report from Merritt Hawkins indicating that 73% of U.S. pulmonologists (the largest percentage of all subspecialties) were at least 55 years old.
Dr. Hussain said he has “seen scope creep” first-hand in his hospitals, in the form of noncollaborative practices and tasks performed by APPs without adequate training – most likely often stemming from poor decisions and oversight by physicians. But when constructed thoughtfully, APP-physician teams are “serving great needs” in many types of care, he said, from follow-up care and management of chronic conditions to inpatient rounding. “My [colleagues] are having great success,” he said.
He is watching with interest – and some concern – pending reimbursement changes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will make time the only defining feature of the “substantive” portion of a split/shared visit involving physicians and APPs in a facility setting. Medical decision-making will no longer be applicable.
For time-based services like critical care, time alone is currently the metric. (And in the nonfacility setting, physician-APP teams may still apply “incident to” billing practices). But in the facility setting, said Amy M. Ahasic, MD, MPH, a pulmonologist in Norwalk, Conn., who coauthored a 2022 commentary on the issue, the change (now planned for 2024) could be problematic for employed physicians whose contracts are based on productivity, and could create tension and possibly lead to reduced use of APPs rather than supporting collaborative care.
“The team model has been evolving so well over the past 10-15 years,” said Dr. Ahasic, who serves on the CHEST Health Policy and Advocacy Reimbursement Workgroup and cochairs the CHEST/American Thoracic Society clinical practice committee with Dr. Hussain. “It’s good for patient safety to have more [providers] involved ... and because APP salaries are lower health systems could do it and be able to have better care and better coverage.”
The pulmonology culture, said Dr. Hussain, has been increasingly embracing APPs and “it’s collegial.” Pulmonologists are “coming to CHEST meetings with their APPs. They’re learning the same things we’re learning, to manage the same patients we manage.”
The article sources reported that they had no relevant financial conflicts of interest to disclose.
Everyone wins when losers get paid
Bribery really is the solution to all of life’s problems
Breaking news: The United States has a bit of an obesity epidemic. Okay, maybe not so breaking news. But it’s a problem we’ve been struggling with for a very long time. Part of the issue is that there really is no secret to weight loss. Pretty much anything can work if you’re committed. The millions of diets floating around are testament to this idea.
The problem of losing weight is amplified if you don’t rake in the big bucks. Lower-income individuals often can’t afford healthy superfoods, and they’re often too busy to spend time at classes, exercising, or following programs. A group of researchers at New York University has offered up an alternate solution to encourage weight loss in low-income people: Pay them.
Specifically, pay them for losing weight. A reward, if you will. The researchers recruited several hundred lower-income people and split them into three groups. All participants received a free 1-year membership to a gym and weight-loss program, as well as food journals and fitness devices, but one group received payment (on average, about $300 overall) for attending meetings, exercising a certain amount every week, or weighing themselves twice a week. About 40% of people in this group lost 5% of their body weight after 6 months, twice as many as in the group that did not receive payment for performing these tasks.
The big winners, however, were those in the third group. They also received the free stuff, but the researchers offered them a more simple and direct bribe: Lose 5% of your weight over 6 months and we’ll pay you. The reward? About $450 on average, and it worked very well, with half this group losing the weight after 6 months. That said, after a year something like a fifth of this group put the weight back on, bringing them in line with the group that was paid to perform tasks. Still, both groups outperformed the control group, which received no money.
The takeaway from this research is pretty obvious. Pay people a fair price to do something, and they’ll do it. This is a lesson that has absolutely no relevance in the modern world. Nope, none whatsoever. We all receive completely fair wages. We all have plenty of money to pay for things. Everything is fine.
More green space, less medicine
Have you heard of the 3-30-300 rule? Proposed by urban forester Cecil Konijnendijk, it’s become the rule of thumb for urban planners and other foresters into getting more green space in populated areas. A recent study has found that people who lived within this 3-30-300 rule had better mental health and less medication use.
If you’re not an urban forester, however, you may not know what the 3-30-300 rule is. But it’s pretty simple, people should be able to see at least three trees from their home, have 30% tree canopy in their neighborhood, and have 300 Spartans to defend against the Persian army.
We may have made that last one up. It’s actually have a green space or park within 300 meters of your home.
In the new study, only 4.7% of people surveyed lived in an area that followed all three rules. About 62% of the surveyed lived with a green space at least 300 meters away, 43% had at least three trees within 15 meters from their home, and a rather pitiful 9% had adequate tree canopy coverage in their neighborhood.
Greater adherence to the 3-30-300 rule was associated with fewer visits to the psychologist, with 8.3% of the participants reporting a psychologist visit in the last year. The data come from a sample of a little over 3,000 Barcelona residents aged 15-97 who were randomly selected to participate in the Barcelona Public Health Agency Survey.
“There is an urgent need to provide citizens with more green space,” said Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, lead author of the study. “We may need to tear out asphalt and plant more trees, which would not only improve health, but also reduce heat island effects and contribute to carbon capture.”
The main goal and message is that more green space is good for everyone. So if you’re feeling a little overwhelmed, take a breather and sit somewhere green. Or call those 300 Spartans and get them to start knocking some buildings down.
Said the toilet to the engineer: Do you hear what I hear?
A mythical hero’s journey took Dorothy along the yellow brick road to find the Wizard of Oz. Huckleberry Finn used a raft to float down the Mississippi River. Luke Skywalker did most of his traveling between planets. For the rest of us, the journey may be just a bit shorter.
Also a bit less heroic. Unless, of course, you’re prepping for a colonoscopy. Yup, we’re headed to the toilet, but not just any toilet. This toilet was the subject of a presentation at the annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, titled “The feces thesis: Using machine learning to detect diarrhea,” and that presentation was the hero’s journey of Maia Gatlin, PhD, a research engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
She and her team attached a noninvasive microphone sensor to a toilet, and now they can identify bowel diseases without collecting any identifiable information.
The audio sample of an excretion event is “transformed into a spectrogram, which essentially captures the sound in an image. Different events produce different features in the audio and the spectrogram. For example, urination creates a consistent tone, while defecation may have a singular tone. In contrast, diarrhea is more random,” they explained in the written statement.
They used a machine learning algorithm to classify each spectrogram based on its features. “The algorithm’s performance was tested against data with and without background noises to make sure it was learning the right sound features, regardless of the sensor’s environment,” Dr. Gatlin and associates wrote.
Their goal is to use the toilet sensor in areas where cholera is common to prevent the spread of disease. After that, who knows? “Perhaps someday, our algorithm can be used with existing in-home smart devices to monitor one’s own bowel movements and health!” she suggested.
That would be a heroic toilet indeed.
Bribery really is the solution to all of life’s problems
Breaking news: The United States has a bit of an obesity epidemic. Okay, maybe not so breaking news. But it’s a problem we’ve been struggling with for a very long time. Part of the issue is that there really is no secret to weight loss. Pretty much anything can work if you’re committed. The millions of diets floating around are testament to this idea.
The problem of losing weight is amplified if you don’t rake in the big bucks. Lower-income individuals often can’t afford healthy superfoods, and they’re often too busy to spend time at classes, exercising, or following programs. A group of researchers at New York University has offered up an alternate solution to encourage weight loss in low-income people: Pay them.
Specifically, pay them for losing weight. A reward, if you will. The researchers recruited several hundred lower-income people and split them into three groups. All participants received a free 1-year membership to a gym and weight-loss program, as well as food journals and fitness devices, but one group received payment (on average, about $300 overall) for attending meetings, exercising a certain amount every week, or weighing themselves twice a week. About 40% of people in this group lost 5% of their body weight after 6 months, twice as many as in the group that did not receive payment for performing these tasks.
The big winners, however, were those in the third group. They also received the free stuff, but the researchers offered them a more simple and direct bribe: Lose 5% of your weight over 6 months and we’ll pay you. The reward? About $450 on average, and it worked very well, with half this group losing the weight after 6 months. That said, after a year something like a fifth of this group put the weight back on, bringing them in line with the group that was paid to perform tasks. Still, both groups outperformed the control group, which received no money.
The takeaway from this research is pretty obvious. Pay people a fair price to do something, and they’ll do it. This is a lesson that has absolutely no relevance in the modern world. Nope, none whatsoever. We all receive completely fair wages. We all have plenty of money to pay for things. Everything is fine.
More green space, less medicine
Have you heard of the 3-30-300 rule? Proposed by urban forester Cecil Konijnendijk, it’s become the rule of thumb for urban planners and other foresters into getting more green space in populated areas. A recent study has found that people who lived within this 3-30-300 rule had better mental health and less medication use.
If you’re not an urban forester, however, you may not know what the 3-30-300 rule is. But it’s pretty simple, people should be able to see at least three trees from their home, have 30% tree canopy in their neighborhood, and have 300 Spartans to defend against the Persian army.
We may have made that last one up. It’s actually have a green space or park within 300 meters of your home.
In the new study, only 4.7% of people surveyed lived in an area that followed all three rules. About 62% of the surveyed lived with a green space at least 300 meters away, 43% had at least three trees within 15 meters from their home, and a rather pitiful 9% had adequate tree canopy coverage in their neighborhood.
Greater adherence to the 3-30-300 rule was associated with fewer visits to the psychologist, with 8.3% of the participants reporting a psychologist visit in the last year. The data come from a sample of a little over 3,000 Barcelona residents aged 15-97 who were randomly selected to participate in the Barcelona Public Health Agency Survey.
“There is an urgent need to provide citizens with more green space,” said Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, lead author of the study. “We may need to tear out asphalt and plant more trees, which would not only improve health, but also reduce heat island effects and contribute to carbon capture.”
The main goal and message is that more green space is good for everyone. So if you’re feeling a little overwhelmed, take a breather and sit somewhere green. Or call those 300 Spartans and get them to start knocking some buildings down.
Said the toilet to the engineer: Do you hear what I hear?
A mythical hero’s journey took Dorothy along the yellow brick road to find the Wizard of Oz. Huckleberry Finn used a raft to float down the Mississippi River. Luke Skywalker did most of his traveling between planets. For the rest of us, the journey may be just a bit shorter.
Also a bit less heroic. Unless, of course, you’re prepping for a colonoscopy. Yup, we’re headed to the toilet, but not just any toilet. This toilet was the subject of a presentation at the annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, titled “The feces thesis: Using machine learning to detect diarrhea,” and that presentation was the hero’s journey of Maia Gatlin, PhD, a research engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
She and her team attached a noninvasive microphone sensor to a toilet, and now they can identify bowel diseases without collecting any identifiable information.
The audio sample of an excretion event is “transformed into a spectrogram, which essentially captures the sound in an image. Different events produce different features in the audio and the spectrogram. For example, urination creates a consistent tone, while defecation may have a singular tone. In contrast, diarrhea is more random,” they explained in the written statement.
They used a machine learning algorithm to classify each spectrogram based on its features. “The algorithm’s performance was tested against data with and without background noises to make sure it was learning the right sound features, regardless of the sensor’s environment,” Dr. Gatlin and associates wrote.
Their goal is to use the toilet sensor in areas where cholera is common to prevent the spread of disease. After that, who knows? “Perhaps someday, our algorithm can be used with existing in-home smart devices to monitor one’s own bowel movements and health!” she suggested.
That would be a heroic toilet indeed.
Bribery really is the solution to all of life’s problems
Breaking news: The United States has a bit of an obesity epidemic. Okay, maybe not so breaking news. But it’s a problem we’ve been struggling with for a very long time. Part of the issue is that there really is no secret to weight loss. Pretty much anything can work if you’re committed. The millions of diets floating around are testament to this idea.
The problem of losing weight is amplified if you don’t rake in the big bucks. Lower-income individuals often can’t afford healthy superfoods, and they’re often too busy to spend time at classes, exercising, or following programs. A group of researchers at New York University has offered up an alternate solution to encourage weight loss in low-income people: Pay them.
Specifically, pay them for losing weight. A reward, if you will. The researchers recruited several hundred lower-income people and split them into three groups. All participants received a free 1-year membership to a gym and weight-loss program, as well as food journals and fitness devices, but one group received payment (on average, about $300 overall) for attending meetings, exercising a certain amount every week, or weighing themselves twice a week. About 40% of people in this group lost 5% of their body weight after 6 months, twice as many as in the group that did not receive payment for performing these tasks.
The big winners, however, were those in the third group. They also received the free stuff, but the researchers offered them a more simple and direct bribe: Lose 5% of your weight over 6 months and we’ll pay you. The reward? About $450 on average, and it worked very well, with half this group losing the weight after 6 months. That said, after a year something like a fifth of this group put the weight back on, bringing them in line with the group that was paid to perform tasks. Still, both groups outperformed the control group, which received no money.
The takeaway from this research is pretty obvious. Pay people a fair price to do something, and they’ll do it. This is a lesson that has absolutely no relevance in the modern world. Nope, none whatsoever. We all receive completely fair wages. We all have plenty of money to pay for things. Everything is fine.
More green space, less medicine
Have you heard of the 3-30-300 rule? Proposed by urban forester Cecil Konijnendijk, it’s become the rule of thumb for urban planners and other foresters into getting more green space in populated areas. A recent study has found that people who lived within this 3-30-300 rule had better mental health and less medication use.
If you’re not an urban forester, however, you may not know what the 3-30-300 rule is. But it’s pretty simple, people should be able to see at least three trees from their home, have 30% tree canopy in their neighborhood, and have 300 Spartans to defend against the Persian army.
We may have made that last one up. It’s actually have a green space or park within 300 meters of your home.
In the new study, only 4.7% of people surveyed lived in an area that followed all three rules. About 62% of the surveyed lived with a green space at least 300 meters away, 43% had at least three trees within 15 meters from their home, and a rather pitiful 9% had adequate tree canopy coverage in their neighborhood.
Greater adherence to the 3-30-300 rule was associated with fewer visits to the psychologist, with 8.3% of the participants reporting a psychologist visit in the last year. The data come from a sample of a little over 3,000 Barcelona residents aged 15-97 who were randomly selected to participate in the Barcelona Public Health Agency Survey.
“There is an urgent need to provide citizens with more green space,” said Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, lead author of the study. “We may need to tear out asphalt and plant more trees, which would not only improve health, but also reduce heat island effects and contribute to carbon capture.”
The main goal and message is that more green space is good for everyone. So if you’re feeling a little overwhelmed, take a breather and sit somewhere green. Or call those 300 Spartans and get them to start knocking some buildings down.
Said the toilet to the engineer: Do you hear what I hear?
A mythical hero’s journey took Dorothy along the yellow brick road to find the Wizard of Oz. Huckleberry Finn used a raft to float down the Mississippi River. Luke Skywalker did most of his traveling between planets. For the rest of us, the journey may be just a bit shorter.
Also a bit less heroic. Unless, of course, you’re prepping for a colonoscopy. Yup, we’re headed to the toilet, but not just any toilet. This toilet was the subject of a presentation at the annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, titled “The feces thesis: Using machine learning to detect diarrhea,” and that presentation was the hero’s journey of Maia Gatlin, PhD, a research engineer at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
She and her team attached a noninvasive microphone sensor to a toilet, and now they can identify bowel diseases without collecting any identifiable information.
The audio sample of an excretion event is “transformed into a spectrogram, which essentially captures the sound in an image. Different events produce different features in the audio and the spectrogram. For example, urination creates a consistent tone, while defecation may have a singular tone. In contrast, diarrhea is more random,” they explained in the written statement.
They used a machine learning algorithm to classify each spectrogram based on its features. “The algorithm’s performance was tested against data with and without background noises to make sure it was learning the right sound features, regardless of the sensor’s environment,” Dr. Gatlin and associates wrote.
Their goal is to use the toilet sensor in areas where cholera is common to prevent the spread of disease. After that, who knows? “Perhaps someday, our algorithm can be used with existing in-home smart devices to monitor one’s own bowel movements and health!” she suggested.
That would be a heroic toilet indeed.
Fungi that cause lung infections now found in most states: Study
Soil-dwelling fungi that can cause lung infections are more widespread than most doctors thought, sometimes leading to missed diagnoses, according to a new study.
Researchers studying fungi-linked lung infections realized that many infections were occurring in places the fungi weren’t thought to exist. They found that maps doctors use to know if the fungi are a threat in their area hadn’t been updated in half a century.
University of California, Davis infectious disease professor George Thompson, MD, said in a commentary published along with the study.
Published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, the study sought to identify illnesses linked to three types of soil fungi in the United States that are known to cause lung infections. They are called histoplasma, blastomyces, and coccidioides, the latter of which causes an illness known as Valley fever, which has been on the rise in California.
Researchers used data for more than 45 million people who use Medicare and found that at least 1 of these 3 fungi are present in 48 of 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.
Symptoms after breathing in the fungi spores include fever and cough and can be similar to symptoms of other illnesses, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
The researchers said health care providers need to increase their suspicion for these fungi, which “would likely result in fewer missed diagnoses, fewer diagnostic delays, and improved patient outcomes.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Soil-dwelling fungi that can cause lung infections are more widespread than most doctors thought, sometimes leading to missed diagnoses, according to a new study.
Researchers studying fungi-linked lung infections realized that many infections were occurring in places the fungi weren’t thought to exist. They found that maps doctors use to know if the fungi are a threat in their area hadn’t been updated in half a century.
University of California, Davis infectious disease professor George Thompson, MD, said in a commentary published along with the study.
Published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, the study sought to identify illnesses linked to three types of soil fungi in the United States that are known to cause lung infections. They are called histoplasma, blastomyces, and coccidioides, the latter of which causes an illness known as Valley fever, which has been on the rise in California.
Researchers used data for more than 45 million people who use Medicare and found that at least 1 of these 3 fungi are present in 48 of 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.
Symptoms after breathing in the fungi spores include fever and cough and can be similar to symptoms of other illnesses, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
The researchers said health care providers need to increase their suspicion for these fungi, which “would likely result in fewer missed diagnoses, fewer diagnostic delays, and improved patient outcomes.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Soil-dwelling fungi that can cause lung infections are more widespread than most doctors thought, sometimes leading to missed diagnoses, according to a new study.
Researchers studying fungi-linked lung infections realized that many infections were occurring in places the fungi weren’t thought to exist. They found that maps doctors use to know if the fungi are a threat in their area hadn’t been updated in half a century.
University of California, Davis infectious disease professor George Thompson, MD, said in a commentary published along with the study.
Published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, the study sought to identify illnesses linked to three types of soil fungi in the United States that are known to cause lung infections. They are called histoplasma, blastomyces, and coccidioides, the latter of which causes an illness known as Valley fever, which has been on the rise in California.
Researchers used data for more than 45 million people who use Medicare and found that at least 1 of these 3 fungi are present in 48 of 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.
Symptoms after breathing in the fungi spores include fever and cough and can be similar to symptoms of other illnesses, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
The researchers said health care providers need to increase their suspicion for these fungi, which “would likely result in fewer missed diagnoses, fewer diagnostic delays, and improved patient outcomes.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASE
New melting hydrogel bandage could treat burn wounds faster, with less pain
Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.
“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”
Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
A better bandage
Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.
Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.
“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.
The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.
“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.
The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
Hybrid gels
Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.
“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.
The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.
The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.
And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.
When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.
“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.
The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.
“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”
Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
A better bandage
Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.
Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.
“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.
The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.
“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.
The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
Hybrid gels
Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.
“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.
The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.
The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.
And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.
When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.
“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.
The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Surgically debriding burn wounds can be tedious for doctors and excruciating for patients. To change that, bioengineers have created a new hydrogel formula that dissolves rapidly from wound sites, melting off in 6 minutes or less.
“The removal of dressings, with the current standard of care, is very hard and time-consuming. It becomes very painful for the patient. People are screaming, or they’re given a lot of opioids,” said senior author O. Berk Usta, PhD, of the Center for Engineering in Medicine and Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “Those are the things we wanted to minimize: the pain and the time.”
Although beneficial for all patients, a short, painless bandage change would be a particular boon for younger patients. At the pediatric burns care center at Shriners Hospitals for Children (an MGH partner), researchers “observe a lot of children who go through therapy or treatment after burns,” said Dr. Usta. The team at MGH collaborated with scientists at Tufts University, Boston, with those patients in mind, setting out to create a new hydrogel that would transform burn wound care.
A better bandage
Hydrogels provide cooling relief to burn wounds and maintain a moist environment that can speed healing. There are currently hydrogel sheets and hydrogel-infused dressings, as well as gel that is applied directly to burn wounds before being covered with protective material. These dressings must be replaced frequently to prevent infections, but that can be unbearably painful and drawn out, as dressings often stick to wounds.
Mechanical debridement can be especially difficult for second-degree burn patients, whose wounds may still retain nerve endings. Debridement tends to also remove some healthy tissue and can damage newly formed tissue, slowing down healing.
“It can take up to 2, 3 hours, and it requires multiple people working on it,” said Dr. Usta.
The new hydrogel treatment can be applied directly to a wound and it forms a protective barrier around the site in 15 seconds. The hydrogel is then covered by a protective dressing until it needs to be changed.
“After you take off the protective covering, you add another solution, which dissolves the [hydrogel] dressing, so that it can be easily removed from the burn site,” Dr. Usta said.
The solution dissolves the hydrogel in 4-6 minutes.
Hybrid gels
Many hydrogels currently used for burn wounds feature physically cross-linked molecules. This makes them strong and capable of retaining moisture, but also difficult to dissolve. The researchers used a different approach.
“This is not physical cross-linking like the traditional approaches, but rather, softer covalent bonds between the different molecules. And that’s why, when you bring in another solution, the hydrogel dissolves away,” Dr. Usta said.
The new hydrogels rely on a supramolecular assembly: a network of synthetic polymers whose connections can be reversed more easily, meaning they can be dissolved quickly. Another standout feature of the new hydrogels is their hybrid composition, displaying characteristics of both liquids and solids. The polymers are knitted together into a mesh-like network that enables water retention, with the goal of maintaining the moist environment needed for wound healing.
The supramolecular assembly is also greener, Dr. Usta explained; traditional cross-linking approaches produce a lot of toxic by-products that could harm the environment.
And whereas traditional hydrogels can require a dozen chemistry steps to produce, the new hydrogels are ready after mixing two solutions, Dr. Usta explained. This makes them easy to prepare at bedside, ideal for treating large wounds in the ER or even on battlefields.
When tested in vitro, using skin cells, and in vivo, on mice, the new hydrogels were shown to be safe to use on wounds. Additional studies on mice, as well as large animals, will focus on safety and efficacy, and may be followed by human clinical trials, said Dr. Usta.
“The next phase of the project will be to look at whether these dressings will help wound healing by creating a moist environment,” said Dr. Usta.
The researchers are also exploring how to manufacture individual prewrapped hydrogels that could be applied in a clinical setting – or even in people’s homes. The consumer market is “another possibility,” said Dr. Usta, particularly among patients with “smaller, more superficial burns” or patients whose large burn wounds are still healing once they leave the hospital.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research Interim Support Fund, and Shriners Hospitals.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BIOACTIVE MATERIALS
GOLD Report 2023: Important updates and revisions
The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report is revised annually and is used widely throughout the world as a tool for implementing effective management.
Among the updates in the 2023 GOLD Report, the section on diagnostic criteria added a proposed new category “PRISm,” denoting “preserved ratio impaired spirometry,” encompassing individuals who present with structural lung lesions (for example, emphysema) and/or other physiological abnormalities such as low-normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), gas trapping, hyperinflation, reduced lung diffusing capacity and/or rapid FEV1 decline, but without airflow obstruction (FEV1/FEV ≥ 0.7 post bronchodilation). Some of these “pre-COPD” (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) individuals, who have a normal ratio but abnormal spirometry are at risk over time of developing airflow obstruction. The best treatment for them, beyond smoking cessation, needs to be determined through research, the report states.
Clinical updates
The GOLD 2023 Report also offers proposed clinical guidance, in the absence of high-quality clinical trial evidence, on initial pharmacologic management of COPD. The proposal is based on individual assessment of symptoms and exacerbation risk following use of the ABE Assessment Tool, a revised version of the ABCD Assessment Tool that recognizes the clinical relevance of exacerbations independent of symptom level.
These updates to information and figures pertaining to initial pharmacological treatment and follow-up pharmacological treatment revise the positioning of LABA (long-acting beta2 agonists) plus LAMA (long-acting muscarinic agonists) and LABA/ICS (inhaled corticosteroids). Among GOLD group A patients with 0 or 1 moderate exacerbations that do not lead to hospital admission, a bronchodilator is recommended.
The recommendation for group B patients is LABA/LAMA with the caveat that single inhaler therapy may be more convenient and effective than multiple inhalers. For group E patients with two or more moderate exacerbations or one or more leading to hospitalization, LABA/LAMA is recommended (with the same inhaler therapy caveat). With blood eosinophil levels at 300 or higher, LABA/LAMA/ICS may be considered.
Commenting on the combination recommendations in a press release, Antonio Anzueto, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary critical care, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, stated: “From a physician’s perspective, we are always grateful to receive well-vetted and informed recommendations on how we can best utilize available treatment options to provide the most benefit to our patients. The new 2023 GOLD recommendations represent a meaningful change for the treatment of COPD by prioritizing the utilization of a fixed LAMA/LABA combination.”
More interventions
In a section on therapeutic interventions to reduce COPD mortality, the report lists studies showing mortality benefits for fixed-dose inhaled triple combinations (LABA + LAMA + ICS) versus dual inhaled long-acting bronchodilations, and for smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation.
Also new is a strong emphasis on inhaler choice, education, and technique training with assessment of inhaler technique and adherence urged as a prerequisite to judging whether current therapy as insufficient. The report summarizes principles guiding inhaler type selection.
The report also added a section on chronic bronchitis, defining it as a common but variable condition in COPD patients with cough and expectorated sputum on a regular basis over a defined period in the absence of other conditions plausibly causing symptoms.
The fact that chronic bronchitis is sometimes found in never-smokers suggests the involvement of other factors such as exposure to inhaled dusts, biomass fuels, chemical fumes, or domestic heating and cooking fuels, according to the report. Gastroesophageal reflux may also be associated with chronic bronchitis.
The report discusses various taxonomic terms for different types of COPD, such as COPD-G for genetically determined COPD, COPD-D for those with abnormal lung development, and COPD-C for COPD associated with cigarette smoking, etc.
Change in exacerbations
The report also revises the definition of a COPD exacerbation as “an event characterized by increased dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens in less than 14 days which may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia and is often associated with increased local and system inflammation caused by infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways.” To overcome limitations conferred by the current grading of COPD exacerbations, the 2023 report proposes a four-step point-of-contact diagnosis and assessment tool.
Telemedicine
Given the constraints brought on by COVID-19 on top of the generally sparse availability of programs and facilities for delivering well-proven pulmonary rehabilitation methods, tele-rehabilitation has been proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches. While the evidence base is still evolving and best practices have not yet been established, the GOLD Report calls for better understanding of barriers to tele-rehabilitation success.
Comorbidities update
The GOLD Report chapter on COPD and comorbidities was also updated, and lists cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, osteoporosis, depression/anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease as common comorbid conditions which may affect prognosis and, in the case of cancer, mortality. The report urges simplicity of treatment to minimize polypharmacy. While annual low-dose CT is recommended for COPD caused by smoking, it is not recommended for COPD caused by smoking; data are insufficient to establish benefit over harm.
While the GOLD Report “COVID-19 and COPD” chapter summarizes current evidence stating that individuals with COPD do not seem to be at substantially greater risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, it underscores that they are at higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and may be at higher risk for developing severe disease and death.
Many other topics are included in the updated report, among them screening, imaging, vaccinations, adherence to therapy, and surgical and bronchoscopic interventions. In its closing section, the GOLD Report 2023 reiterates its mission, stating: “The GOLD initiative will continue to work with National Leaders and other interested health care professionals to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, to raise awareness of the burden of COPD and to develop programs for early detection, prevention and approaches to management.
The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report is revised annually and is used widely throughout the world as a tool for implementing effective management.
Among the updates in the 2023 GOLD Report, the section on diagnostic criteria added a proposed new category “PRISm,” denoting “preserved ratio impaired spirometry,” encompassing individuals who present with structural lung lesions (for example, emphysema) and/or other physiological abnormalities such as low-normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), gas trapping, hyperinflation, reduced lung diffusing capacity and/or rapid FEV1 decline, but without airflow obstruction (FEV1/FEV ≥ 0.7 post bronchodilation). Some of these “pre-COPD” (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) individuals, who have a normal ratio but abnormal spirometry are at risk over time of developing airflow obstruction. The best treatment for them, beyond smoking cessation, needs to be determined through research, the report states.
Clinical updates
The GOLD 2023 Report also offers proposed clinical guidance, in the absence of high-quality clinical trial evidence, on initial pharmacologic management of COPD. The proposal is based on individual assessment of symptoms and exacerbation risk following use of the ABE Assessment Tool, a revised version of the ABCD Assessment Tool that recognizes the clinical relevance of exacerbations independent of symptom level.
These updates to information and figures pertaining to initial pharmacological treatment and follow-up pharmacological treatment revise the positioning of LABA (long-acting beta2 agonists) plus LAMA (long-acting muscarinic agonists) and LABA/ICS (inhaled corticosteroids). Among GOLD group A patients with 0 or 1 moderate exacerbations that do not lead to hospital admission, a bronchodilator is recommended.
The recommendation for group B patients is LABA/LAMA with the caveat that single inhaler therapy may be more convenient and effective than multiple inhalers. For group E patients with two or more moderate exacerbations or one or more leading to hospitalization, LABA/LAMA is recommended (with the same inhaler therapy caveat). With blood eosinophil levels at 300 or higher, LABA/LAMA/ICS may be considered.
Commenting on the combination recommendations in a press release, Antonio Anzueto, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary critical care, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, stated: “From a physician’s perspective, we are always grateful to receive well-vetted and informed recommendations on how we can best utilize available treatment options to provide the most benefit to our patients. The new 2023 GOLD recommendations represent a meaningful change for the treatment of COPD by prioritizing the utilization of a fixed LAMA/LABA combination.”
More interventions
In a section on therapeutic interventions to reduce COPD mortality, the report lists studies showing mortality benefits for fixed-dose inhaled triple combinations (LABA + LAMA + ICS) versus dual inhaled long-acting bronchodilations, and for smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation.
Also new is a strong emphasis on inhaler choice, education, and technique training with assessment of inhaler technique and adherence urged as a prerequisite to judging whether current therapy as insufficient. The report summarizes principles guiding inhaler type selection.
The report also added a section on chronic bronchitis, defining it as a common but variable condition in COPD patients with cough and expectorated sputum on a regular basis over a defined period in the absence of other conditions plausibly causing symptoms.
The fact that chronic bronchitis is sometimes found in never-smokers suggests the involvement of other factors such as exposure to inhaled dusts, biomass fuels, chemical fumes, or domestic heating and cooking fuels, according to the report. Gastroesophageal reflux may also be associated with chronic bronchitis.
The report discusses various taxonomic terms for different types of COPD, such as COPD-G for genetically determined COPD, COPD-D for those with abnormal lung development, and COPD-C for COPD associated with cigarette smoking, etc.
Change in exacerbations
The report also revises the definition of a COPD exacerbation as “an event characterized by increased dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens in less than 14 days which may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia and is often associated with increased local and system inflammation caused by infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways.” To overcome limitations conferred by the current grading of COPD exacerbations, the 2023 report proposes a four-step point-of-contact diagnosis and assessment tool.
Telemedicine
Given the constraints brought on by COVID-19 on top of the generally sparse availability of programs and facilities for delivering well-proven pulmonary rehabilitation methods, tele-rehabilitation has been proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches. While the evidence base is still evolving and best practices have not yet been established, the GOLD Report calls for better understanding of barriers to tele-rehabilitation success.
Comorbidities update
The GOLD Report chapter on COPD and comorbidities was also updated, and lists cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, osteoporosis, depression/anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease as common comorbid conditions which may affect prognosis and, in the case of cancer, mortality. The report urges simplicity of treatment to minimize polypharmacy. While annual low-dose CT is recommended for COPD caused by smoking, it is not recommended for COPD caused by smoking; data are insufficient to establish benefit over harm.
While the GOLD Report “COVID-19 and COPD” chapter summarizes current evidence stating that individuals with COPD do not seem to be at substantially greater risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, it underscores that they are at higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and may be at higher risk for developing severe disease and death.
Many other topics are included in the updated report, among them screening, imaging, vaccinations, adherence to therapy, and surgical and bronchoscopic interventions. In its closing section, the GOLD Report 2023 reiterates its mission, stating: “The GOLD initiative will continue to work with National Leaders and other interested health care professionals to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, to raise awareness of the burden of COPD and to develop programs for early detection, prevention and approaches to management.
The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) Report is revised annually and is used widely throughout the world as a tool for implementing effective management.
Among the updates in the 2023 GOLD Report, the section on diagnostic criteria added a proposed new category “PRISm,” denoting “preserved ratio impaired spirometry,” encompassing individuals who present with structural lung lesions (for example, emphysema) and/or other physiological abnormalities such as low-normal forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), gas trapping, hyperinflation, reduced lung diffusing capacity and/or rapid FEV1 decline, but without airflow obstruction (FEV1/FEV ≥ 0.7 post bronchodilation). Some of these “pre-COPD” (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) individuals, who have a normal ratio but abnormal spirometry are at risk over time of developing airflow obstruction. The best treatment for them, beyond smoking cessation, needs to be determined through research, the report states.
Clinical updates
The GOLD 2023 Report also offers proposed clinical guidance, in the absence of high-quality clinical trial evidence, on initial pharmacologic management of COPD. The proposal is based on individual assessment of symptoms and exacerbation risk following use of the ABE Assessment Tool, a revised version of the ABCD Assessment Tool that recognizes the clinical relevance of exacerbations independent of symptom level.
These updates to information and figures pertaining to initial pharmacological treatment and follow-up pharmacological treatment revise the positioning of LABA (long-acting beta2 agonists) plus LAMA (long-acting muscarinic agonists) and LABA/ICS (inhaled corticosteroids). Among GOLD group A patients with 0 or 1 moderate exacerbations that do not lead to hospital admission, a bronchodilator is recommended.
The recommendation for group B patients is LABA/LAMA with the caveat that single inhaler therapy may be more convenient and effective than multiple inhalers. For group E patients with two or more moderate exacerbations or one or more leading to hospitalization, LABA/LAMA is recommended (with the same inhaler therapy caveat). With blood eosinophil levels at 300 or higher, LABA/LAMA/ICS may be considered.
Commenting on the combination recommendations in a press release, Antonio Anzueto, MD, professor of medicine, pulmonary critical care, University of Texas Health, San Antonio, stated: “From a physician’s perspective, we are always grateful to receive well-vetted and informed recommendations on how we can best utilize available treatment options to provide the most benefit to our patients. The new 2023 GOLD recommendations represent a meaningful change for the treatment of COPD by prioritizing the utilization of a fixed LAMA/LABA combination.”
More interventions
In a section on therapeutic interventions to reduce COPD mortality, the report lists studies showing mortality benefits for fixed-dose inhaled triple combinations (LABA + LAMA + ICS) versus dual inhaled long-acting bronchodilations, and for smoking cessation and pulmonary rehabilitation.
Also new is a strong emphasis on inhaler choice, education, and technique training with assessment of inhaler technique and adherence urged as a prerequisite to judging whether current therapy as insufficient. The report summarizes principles guiding inhaler type selection.
The report also added a section on chronic bronchitis, defining it as a common but variable condition in COPD patients with cough and expectorated sputum on a regular basis over a defined period in the absence of other conditions plausibly causing symptoms.
The fact that chronic bronchitis is sometimes found in never-smokers suggests the involvement of other factors such as exposure to inhaled dusts, biomass fuels, chemical fumes, or domestic heating and cooking fuels, according to the report. Gastroesophageal reflux may also be associated with chronic bronchitis.
The report discusses various taxonomic terms for different types of COPD, such as COPD-G for genetically determined COPD, COPD-D for those with abnormal lung development, and COPD-C for COPD associated with cigarette smoking, etc.
Change in exacerbations
The report also revises the definition of a COPD exacerbation as “an event characterized by increased dyspnea and/or cough and sputum that worsens in less than 14 days which may be accompanied by tachypnea and/or tachycardia and is often associated with increased local and system inflammation caused by infection, pollution, or other insult to the airways.” To overcome limitations conferred by the current grading of COPD exacerbations, the 2023 report proposes a four-step point-of-contact diagnosis and assessment tool.
Telemedicine
Given the constraints brought on by COVID-19 on top of the generally sparse availability of programs and facilities for delivering well-proven pulmonary rehabilitation methods, tele-rehabilitation has been proposed as an alternative to traditional approaches. While the evidence base is still evolving and best practices have not yet been established, the GOLD Report calls for better understanding of barriers to tele-rehabilitation success.
Comorbidities update
The GOLD Report chapter on COPD and comorbidities was also updated, and lists cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, osteoporosis, depression/anxiety, and gastroesophageal reflux disease as common comorbid conditions which may affect prognosis and, in the case of cancer, mortality. The report urges simplicity of treatment to minimize polypharmacy. While annual low-dose CT is recommended for COPD caused by smoking, it is not recommended for COPD caused by smoking; data are insufficient to establish benefit over harm.
While the GOLD Report “COVID-19 and COPD” chapter summarizes current evidence stating that individuals with COPD do not seem to be at substantially greater risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2, it underscores that they are at higher risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and may be at higher risk for developing severe disease and death.
Many other topics are included in the updated report, among them screening, imaging, vaccinations, adherence to therapy, and surgical and bronchoscopic interventions. In its closing section, the GOLD Report 2023 reiterates its mission, stating: “The GOLD initiative will continue to work with National Leaders and other interested health care professionals to bring COPD to the attention of governments, public health officials, health care workers, and the general public, to raise awareness of the burden of COPD and to develop programs for early detection, prevention and approaches to management.
Children and COVID: Hospitalizations provide a tale of two sources
New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.
New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.
The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.
New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.
The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.
New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.
New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.
The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.
New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.
The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.
New cases of COVID-19 in children largely held steady over the Thanksgiving holiday, but hospital admissions are telling a somewhat different story.
New pediatric COVID cases for the week ending on Thanksgiving (11/18-11/24) were up by 5.3% over the previous week, but in the most recent week (11/25-12/1) new cases dropped by 2.6%, according to state data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
In both weeks, though, the total case count stayed below 30,000 – a streak that has now lasted 8 weeks – so the actual number of weekly cases remained fairly low, the AAP/CHA weekly report indicates.
The nation’s emergency departments also experienced a small Thanksgiving bump, as the proportion of visits with diagnosed COVID went from 1.0% of all ED visits for children aged 0-11 years on Nov. 14 to 2.0% on Nov. 27, just 3 days after the official holiday, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The rate was down to 1.5% on Dec. 1, and similar patterns can be seen for children aged 12-15 and 16-17 years.
New hospital admissions, on the other hand, seem to be following a different path, at least according to the CDC. The hospitalization rate for children aged 0-17 years bottomed out at 0.16 new admissions per 100,000 population back on Oct. 21 and has climbed fairly steadily since then. It was up to 0.20 per 100,000 by Nov. 14, had reached 0.22 per 100,000 on Thanksgiving day (11/24), and then continued to 0.26 per 100,000 by Dec. 2, the latest date for which CDC data are available.
The hospitalization story, however, offers yet another twist. The New York Times, using data from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, reports that new COVID-related admissions have held steady at 1.0 per 100,000 since Nov. 18. The rate is much higher than has been reported by the CDC, but no increase can be seen in recent weeks among children, which is not the case for Americans overall, Medscape recently reported.