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')]
University of Washington, Harvard ranked top medical schools for second year
It may seem like déjà vu, as not much has changed regarding the rankings of top U.S. medical schools over the past 2 years.
The University of Washington, Seattle retained its ranking from the U.S. News & World Report as the top medical school for primary care for 2023. Also repeating its 2022 standing as the top medical school for research is Harvard University.
In the primary care ranking, the top 10 schools after the University of Washington were the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Minnesota; Oregon Health and Science University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of Colorado; the University of Nebraska Medical Center; the University of California, Davis; and Harvard. Three schools tied for the no. 10 slot: the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh.
The top five schools with the most graduates practicing in primary care specialties are Des Moines University, Iowa (50.6%); the University of Pikeville (Ky.) (46.8%); Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California (46%); William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (44.7%); and A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri (44.3%).
Best for research
When it comes to schools ranking the highest for research, the Grossman School of Medicine at New York University takes the no. 2 spot after Harvard. Three schools were tied for the no. 3 spot: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Francisco; and two schools for no. 6: Duke University and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. No. 8 goes to Stanford University, followed by the University of Washington. Rounding out the top 10 is Yale University.
Specialty ranks
The top-ranked schools in eight specialties are as follows:
- Anesthesiology: Harvard
- Family medicine: the University of Washington
- Internal medicine: Johns Hopkins
- Obstetrics/gynecology: Harvard
- Pediatrics: the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman)
- Psychiatry: Harvard
- Radiology: Johns Hopkins
- Surgery: Harvard
Most diverse student body
If you’re looking for a school with significant minority representation, Howard University, Washington, D.C., ranked highest (76.8%), followed by the Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, Miami (43.2%). The University of California, Davis (40%), Sacramento, California, and the University of Vermont (Larner), Burlington (14.1%), tied for third.
Three southern schools take top honors for the most graduates practicing in underserved areas, starting with the University of South Carolina (70.9%), followed by the University of Mississippi (66.2%), and East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City, Tennessee (65.8%).
The colleges with the most graduates practicing in rural areas are William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine (28%), the University of Pikesville (25.6%), and the University of Mississippi (22.1%).
College debt
The medical school where graduates have the most debt is Nova Southeastern University Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Graduates incurred an average debt of $309,206. Western University of Health Sciences graduates racked up $276,840 in debt, followed by graduates of West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, owing $268,416.
Ranking criteria
Each year, U.S. News ranks hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities. Medical schools fall under the rankings for best graduate schools.
U.S. News surveyed 192 medical and osteopathic schools accredited in 2021 by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. Among the schools surveyed in fall 2021 and early 2022, 130 schools responded. Of those, 124 were included in both the research and primary care rankings.
The criteria for ranking include faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and qualitative assessments by schools and residency directors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It may seem like déjà vu, as not much has changed regarding the rankings of top U.S. medical schools over the past 2 years.
The University of Washington, Seattle retained its ranking from the U.S. News & World Report as the top medical school for primary care for 2023. Also repeating its 2022 standing as the top medical school for research is Harvard University.
In the primary care ranking, the top 10 schools after the University of Washington were the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Minnesota; Oregon Health and Science University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of Colorado; the University of Nebraska Medical Center; the University of California, Davis; and Harvard. Three schools tied for the no. 10 slot: the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh.
The top five schools with the most graduates practicing in primary care specialties are Des Moines University, Iowa (50.6%); the University of Pikeville (Ky.) (46.8%); Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California (46%); William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (44.7%); and A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri (44.3%).
Best for research
When it comes to schools ranking the highest for research, the Grossman School of Medicine at New York University takes the no. 2 spot after Harvard. Three schools were tied for the no. 3 spot: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Francisco; and two schools for no. 6: Duke University and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. No. 8 goes to Stanford University, followed by the University of Washington. Rounding out the top 10 is Yale University.
Specialty ranks
The top-ranked schools in eight specialties are as follows:
- Anesthesiology: Harvard
- Family medicine: the University of Washington
- Internal medicine: Johns Hopkins
- Obstetrics/gynecology: Harvard
- Pediatrics: the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman)
- Psychiatry: Harvard
- Radiology: Johns Hopkins
- Surgery: Harvard
Most diverse student body
If you’re looking for a school with significant minority representation, Howard University, Washington, D.C., ranked highest (76.8%), followed by the Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, Miami (43.2%). The University of California, Davis (40%), Sacramento, California, and the University of Vermont (Larner), Burlington (14.1%), tied for third.
Three southern schools take top honors for the most graduates practicing in underserved areas, starting with the University of South Carolina (70.9%), followed by the University of Mississippi (66.2%), and East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City, Tennessee (65.8%).
The colleges with the most graduates practicing in rural areas are William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine (28%), the University of Pikesville (25.6%), and the University of Mississippi (22.1%).
College debt
The medical school where graduates have the most debt is Nova Southeastern University Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Graduates incurred an average debt of $309,206. Western University of Health Sciences graduates racked up $276,840 in debt, followed by graduates of West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, owing $268,416.
Ranking criteria
Each year, U.S. News ranks hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities. Medical schools fall under the rankings for best graduate schools.
U.S. News surveyed 192 medical and osteopathic schools accredited in 2021 by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. Among the schools surveyed in fall 2021 and early 2022, 130 schools responded. Of those, 124 were included in both the research and primary care rankings.
The criteria for ranking include faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and qualitative assessments by schools and residency directors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It may seem like déjà vu, as not much has changed regarding the rankings of top U.S. medical schools over the past 2 years.
The University of Washington, Seattle retained its ranking from the U.S. News & World Report as the top medical school for primary care for 2023. Also repeating its 2022 standing as the top medical school for research is Harvard University.
In the primary care ranking, the top 10 schools after the University of Washington were the University of California, San Francisco; the University of Minnesota; Oregon Health and Science University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of Colorado; the University of Nebraska Medical Center; the University of California, Davis; and Harvard. Three schools tied for the no. 10 slot: the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical Center, and the University of Pittsburgh.
The top five schools with the most graduates practicing in primary care specialties are Des Moines University, Iowa (50.6%); the University of Pikeville (Ky.) (46.8%); Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California (46%); William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Hattiesburg, Mississippi (44.7%); and A.T. Still University of Health Sciences, Kirksville, Missouri (44.3%).
Best for research
When it comes to schools ranking the highest for research, the Grossman School of Medicine at New York University takes the no. 2 spot after Harvard. Three schools were tied for the no. 3 spot: Columbia University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of California, San Francisco; and two schools for no. 6: Duke University and the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. No. 8 goes to Stanford University, followed by the University of Washington. Rounding out the top 10 is Yale University.
Specialty ranks
The top-ranked schools in eight specialties are as follows:
- Anesthesiology: Harvard
- Family medicine: the University of Washington
- Internal medicine: Johns Hopkins
- Obstetrics/gynecology: Harvard
- Pediatrics: the University of Pennsylvania (Perelman)
- Psychiatry: Harvard
- Radiology: Johns Hopkins
- Surgery: Harvard
Most diverse student body
If you’re looking for a school with significant minority representation, Howard University, Washington, D.C., ranked highest (76.8%), followed by the Wertheim College of Medicine at Florida International University, Miami (43.2%). The University of California, Davis (40%), Sacramento, California, and the University of Vermont (Larner), Burlington (14.1%), tied for third.
Three southern schools take top honors for the most graduates practicing in underserved areas, starting with the University of South Carolina (70.9%), followed by the University of Mississippi (66.2%), and East Tennessee State University (Quillen), Johnson City, Tennessee (65.8%).
The colleges with the most graduates practicing in rural areas are William Carey University College of Osteopathic Medicine (28%), the University of Pikesville (25.6%), and the University of Mississippi (22.1%).
College debt
The medical school where graduates have the most debt is Nova Southeastern University Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Graduates incurred an average debt of $309,206. Western University of Health Sciences graduates racked up $276,840 in debt, followed by graduates of West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine, owing $268,416.
Ranking criteria
Each year, U.S. News ranks hundreds of U.S. colleges and universities. Medical schools fall under the rankings for best graduate schools.
U.S. News surveyed 192 medical and osteopathic schools accredited in 2021 by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the American Osteopathic Association. Among the schools surveyed in fall 2021 and early 2022, 130 schools responded. Of those, 124 were included in both the research and primary care rankings.
The criteria for ranking include faculty resources, academic achievements of entering students, and qualitative assessments by schools and residency directors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Cardiac issues after COVID infection and vaccination: New data
The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
CDC data
The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.
It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.
Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.
Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.
“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
International study
The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.
The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.
“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy.
The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”
The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021.
Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).
The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).
Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.
The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.
They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.
The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.
With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.
They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
CDC data
The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.
It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.
Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.
Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.
“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
International study
The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.
The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.
“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy.
The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”
The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021.
Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).
The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).
Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.
The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.
They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.
The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.
With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.
They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new information comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) and from a separate large international clinical study published online in Circulation.
CDC data
The CDC study analyzed electronic health record data from 40 U.S. health care systems from Jan. 1, 2021, to Jan. 31, 2022, on more than 15 million people aged 5 years or older.
It reports a rate of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination of 0-35.9 per 100,000 for males and 0-10.9 per 100,000 for females across different age groups and vaccine cohorts.
Rates of myocarditis or pericarditis after SARS-CoV-2 infection ranged from 12.6 to 114 per 100,000 for males and from 5.4 to 61.7 per 100,000 for females across different age groups.
Even among males aged 12-17 years, the group with the highest incidence of cardiac complications after receipt of a second mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, the risk was 1.8-5.6 times higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after vaccination, the CDC report notes.
“These findings provide important context for balancing risks and benefits of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination among eligible persons greater than or equal to 5 years,” the report states. They also “support the continued use of recommended mRNA vaccines among all eligible persons aged greater than or equal to 5 years,” it concludes.
International study
The international study focused on prevalence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of clinically manifest acute myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection.
The study showed a rate of acute myocarditis of 2.4 per 1,000 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“A small study previously indicated acute myocarditis is a rare occurrence in people infected with COVID-19. Our analysis of international data offers better insight to the occurrence of acute myocarditis during COVID-19 hospitalization, particularly before the COVID-19 vaccines were widely available,” coauthor Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, commented.
“This analysis indicates that, although rare, hospitalized patients with acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 infection have a much greater need for intensive care unit admission, in up to 70.5% of the cases, despite the average age of the individuals in the study being much younger than expected, at 38 years old,” added coauthor Marco Metra, MD, University of Brescia, Italy.
The researchers report that the use of corticosteroids in patients with acute myocarditis appeared safe, and, in most cases, a rapid increase in the left ventricular ejection fraction was observed. In addition, they say that discharged patients with acute myocarditis had “an excellent short-term prognosis without occurrence of cardiovascular events.”
The authors also point out that these data show much higher frequency and severity of acute myocarditis linked to COVID-19 infection, compared with myocarditis cases linked to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
The international study examined health data on 56,963 patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 at 23 hospitals across the United States and Europe from February 2020 through April 2021.
Among these patients, 97 with possible acute myocarditis were identified (4.1 per 1,000), of whom 54 (2.4 per 1,000) were classified as having “definite or probable” acute myocarditis supported by endomyocardial biopsy (31.5% of cases) or magnetic resonance imaging (92.6% of cases).
The median age of definite/probable acute myocarditis cases was 38 years, and 39% were female. On admission, chest pain and dyspnea were the most frequent symptoms (55.5% and 53.7%, respectively), and 31 cases (57.4%) occurred in the absence of COVID-19–associated pneumonia. A fulminant presentation requiring inotropic support or temporary mechanical circulatory support occurred in 21 cases (39%).
Overall, 38 patients (70.4%) were admitted to the intensive care unit for a median time of 6 days. Ten patients (18.5%) received temporary mechanical circulatory support for a median time of 5 days. Three patients died (5.5%) during the index hospitalization, all of whom also had pneumonia. At 120 days, estimated mortality was 6.6%. Patients with pneumonia were more likely to develop hemodynamic instability, require mechanical circulatory support, and die, compared with those without pneumonia.
The authors note that their reported prevalence of acute myocarditis associated with COVID-19 is lower, compared with studies that performed universal cardiac MRI screening during the convalescent COVID-19 period.
They say that underestimation of the prevalence of mild or subclinical acute myocarditis is likely in this study because of the retrospective nature of the registry, the lack of systematic cardiac MRI, and the possibility of missing some diagnoses, particularly during the first pandemic wave when cardiac MRI and endomyocardial biopsy were less frequently performed.
The authors also point out that data on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination suggest that vaccination-linked myocarditis is milder than that associated with the virus itself.
With regard to the prevalence of acute myocarditis after vaccination, they report that among 2.8 million doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in the armed forces, 23 individuals had evidence of acute myocarditis, suggesting a prevalence of less than 1 case of acute myocarditis per 100,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses.
They note that the CDC has also reported 399 reports of myocarditis among 129 million fully vaccinated individuals with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
“These figures appear reassuring, compared with the prevalence of clinically manifest acute myocarditis observed in this study among hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” they conclude.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fourth Pfizer dose better for severe than symptomatic COVID: Study
A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is effective in reducing the short-term risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in people who got a third dose at least 4 months before, a large study shows.
However, Paul Offit, MD, author of an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization, “I would argue, without fear of contradiction, that this is going to have no impact on this pandemic.”
“We are still in the midst of a zero-tolerance policy for this virus. We don’t accept mild illness and if we’re not going to accept mild illness, we think we have to boost it away, which would mean probably about two doses every year. That’s not a reasonable public health strategy,” said Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Booster confusion
Results of the research out of Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, make a case for a fourth booster for people 60 and over.
Researchers, led by Ori Magen, MD, Clalit Research Institute, innovation division, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, analyzed data comparing 182,122 matched pairs recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from Jan. 3 to Feb. 18, 2022. With more than 4.7 million members, Clalit Health Services covers more than half of the population of Israel.
The researchers compared outcomes in people 60 or older (average age, 72 years) who got a fourth dose with outcomes in those who had only a third dose. They individually matched people from the two groups, considering factors such as age, health status, and ethnicity.
Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7-30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval, 44%-47%) against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53%-58%) against symptomatic COVID-19, 68% (95% CI, 59%-74%) against hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50%-74%) against severe COVID, and 74% (95% CI, 50%-90%) against COVID-related death.
Several countries, including the United States, have begun offering a fourth vaccine dose for higher-risk populations in light of evidence of waning immunity after the third dose and waves of infection, driven by Omicron and its variants, in some parts of the world. But the recommended age groups differ considerably.
In the United States, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration in late March approved a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for anyone over 50 and people over 18 who have gotten a solid organ transplant or have a similar level of immune risk.
Dr. Offit pointed out that Israel offers the fourth vaccine for people 60 and over and the European Medical Association offers it for those over 80. No surprise that confusion over the fourth dose is rampant.
Booster advice
Dr. Offit offered this perspective: People who are immunocompromised could reasonably get a fourth dose, depending on the manner in which they are compromised.
“Someone who has a solid organ transplant is not the same as someone who is getting a monoclonal antibody for their rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Offit said, adding that people could also make a reasonable argument for the fourth dose if they are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities.
“I’m over 65,” Dr. Offit said. “I’m generally healthy. I’m not going to get a fourth dose.”
People with multiple comorbidities over age 12 could reasonably get a third dose, he said. “For everybody else – healthy people less than 65 – I would argue this is a two-dose vaccine.”
CHOP, he noted as an example, mandates the vaccine but doesn’t mandate three doses and he says that’s not unusual for hospital systems.
“How many lives are you really saving with that fourth dose? If you really want to have an effect on this pandemic, vaccinate the unvaccinated,” Dr. Offit said.
Focus on the memory cells
Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial: “Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of COVID-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as ‘breakthroughs.’ As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness – to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term ‘breakthrough,’ which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus.”
Dr. Offit said that the focus should be on the memory cells, not the neutralizing antibodies.
Regarding mRNA vaccines, Dr. Offit said “the surprise of this vaccine – it surprised me and other vaccine researchers – is that with these two doses of mRNA separated by 3-4 weeks, you actually appear to have long-lived memory response.
“That’s not the history of vaccines. If you look at the inactivated polio vaccine or the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, you really do need a 4- to 6-month interval between doses to get high frequencies of memory cells. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. It looks like two doses given close together do just that. Memory cells last for years if not, sometimes, decades.”
Neutralizing antibodies, on the other hand, protect against mild illness and their effectiveness wanes after months.
“At some point we are going to have to get used to mild illness,” Dr. Offit said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must now determine who will benefit most from booster dosing and educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines, Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial.
“Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what COVID-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”
The work was funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is effective in reducing the short-term risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in people who got a third dose at least 4 months before, a large study shows.
However, Paul Offit, MD, author of an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization, “I would argue, without fear of contradiction, that this is going to have no impact on this pandemic.”
“We are still in the midst of a zero-tolerance policy for this virus. We don’t accept mild illness and if we’re not going to accept mild illness, we think we have to boost it away, which would mean probably about two doses every year. That’s not a reasonable public health strategy,” said Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Booster confusion
Results of the research out of Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, make a case for a fourth booster for people 60 and over.
Researchers, led by Ori Magen, MD, Clalit Research Institute, innovation division, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, analyzed data comparing 182,122 matched pairs recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from Jan. 3 to Feb. 18, 2022. With more than 4.7 million members, Clalit Health Services covers more than half of the population of Israel.
The researchers compared outcomes in people 60 or older (average age, 72 years) who got a fourth dose with outcomes in those who had only a third dose. They individually matched people from the two groups, considering factors such as age, health status, and ethnicity.
Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7-30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval, 44%-47%) against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53%-58%) against symptomatic COVID-19, 68% (95% CI, 59%-74%) against hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50%-74%) against severe COVID, and 74% (95% CI, 50%-90%) against COVID-related death.
Several countries, including the United States, have begun offering a fourth vaccine dose for higher-risk populations in light of evidence of waning immunity after the third dose and waves of infection, driven by Omicron and its variants, in some parts of the world. But the recommended age groups differ considerably.
In the United States, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration in late March approved a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for anyone over 50 and people over 18 who have gotten a solid organ transplant or have a similar level of immune risk.
Dr. Offit pointed out that Israel offers the fourth vaccine for people 60 and over and the European Medical Association offers it for those over 80. No surprise that confusion over the fourth dose is rampant.
Booster advice
Dr. Offit offered this perspective: People who are immunocompromised could reasonably get a fourth dose, depending on the manner in which they are compromised.
“Someone who has a solid organ transplant is not the same as someone who is getting a monoclonal antibody for their rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Offit said, adding that people could also make a reasonable argument for the fourth dose if they are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities.
“I’m over 65,” Dr. Offit said. “I’m generally healthy. I’m not going to get a fourth dose.”
People with multiple comorbidities over age 12 could reasonably get a third dose, he said. “For everybody else – healthy people less than 65 – I would argue this is a two-dose vaccine.”
CHOP, he noted as an example, mandates the vaccine but doesn’t mandate three doses and he says that’s not unusual for hospital systems.
“How many lives are you really saving with that fourth dose? If you really want to have an effect on this pandemic, vaccinate the unvaccinated,” Dr. Offit said.
Focus on the memory cells
Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial: “Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of COVID-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as ‘breakthroughs.’ As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness – to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term ‘breakthrough,’ which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus.”
Dr. Offit said that the focus should be on the memory cells, not the neutralizing antibodies.
Regarding mRNA vaccines, Dr. Offit said “the surprise of this vaccine – it surprised me and other vaccine researchers – is that with these two doses of mRNA separated by 3-4 weeks, you actually appear to have long-lived memory response.
“That’s not the history of vaccines. If you look at the inactivated polio vaccine or the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, you really do need a 4- to 6-month interval between doses to get high frequencies of memory cells. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. It looks like two doses given close together do just that. Memory cells last for years if not, sometimes, decades.”
Neutralizing antibodies, on the other hand, protect against mild illness and their effectiveness wanes after months.
“At some point we are going to have to get used to mild illness,” Dr. Offit said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must now determine who will benefit most from booster dosing and educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines, Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial.
“Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what COVID-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”
The work was funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A fourth dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is effective in reducing the short-term risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death in people who got a third dose at least 4 months before, a large study shows.
However, Paul Offit, MD, author of an editorial accompanying the study, told this news organization, “I would argue, without fear of contradiction, that this is going to have no impact on this pandemic.”
“We are still in the midst of a zero-tolerance policy for this virus. We don’t accept mild illness and if we’re not going to accept mild illness, we think we have to boost it away, which would mean probably about two doses every year. That’s not a reasonable public health strategy,” said Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Booster confusion
Results of the research out of Israel, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, make a case for a fourth booster for people 60 and over.
Researchers, led by Ori Magen, MD, Clalit Research Institute, innovation division, Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, analyzed data comparing 182,122 matched pairs recorded by the largest health care organization in Israel from Jan. 3 to Feb. 18, 2022. With more than 4.7 million members, Clalit Health Services covers more than half of the population of Israel.
The researchers compared outcomes in people 60 or older (average age, 72 years) who got a fourth dose with outcomes in those who had only a third dose. They individually matched people from the two groups, considering factors such as age, health status, and ethnicity.
Relative vaccine effectiveness in days 7-30 after the fourth dose was estimated to be 45% (95% confidence interval, 44%-47%) against confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, 55% (95% CI, 53%-58%) against symptomatic COVID-19, 68% (95% CI, 59%-74%) against hospitalization, 62% (95% CI, 50%-74%) against severe COVID, and 74% (95% CI, 50%-90%) against COVID-related death.
Several countries, including the United States, have begun offering a fourth vaccine dose for higher-risk populations in light of evidence of waning immunity after the third dose and waves of infection, driven by Omicron and its variants, in some parts of the world. But the recommended age groups differ considerably.
In the United States, for instance, the Food and Drug Administration in late March approved a fourth dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for anyone over 50 and people over 18 who have gotten a solid organ transplant or have a similar level of immune risk.
Dr. Offit pointed out that Israel offers the fourth vaccine for people 60 and over and the European Medical Association offers it for those over 80. No surprise that confusion over the fourth dose is rampant.
Booster advice
Dr. Offit offered this perspective: People who are immunocompromised could reasonably get a fourth dose, depending on the manner in which they are compromised.
“Someone who has a solid organ transplant is not the same as someone who is getting a monoclonal antibody for their rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Offit said, adding that people could also make a reasonable argument for the fourth dose if they are over 65 and have multiple comorbidities.
“I’m over 65,” Dr. Offit said. “I’m generally healthy. I’m not going to get a fourth dose.”
People with multiple comorbidities over age 12 could reasonably get a third dose, he said. “For everybody else – healthy people less than 65 – I would argue this is a two-dose vaccine.”
CHOP, he noted as an example, mandates the vaccine but doesn’t mandate three doses and he says that’s not unusual for hospital systems.
“How many lives are you really saving with that fourth dose? If you really want to have an effect on this pandemic, vaccinate the unvaccinated,” Dr. Offit said.
Focus on the memory cells
Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial: “Arguably, the most disappointing error surrounding the use of COVID-19 vaccines was the labeling of mild illnesses or asymptomatic infections after vaccination as ‘breakthroughs.’ As is true for all mucosal vaccines, the goal is to protect against serious illness – to keep people out of the hospital, intensive care unit, and morgue. The term ‘breakthrough,’ which implies failure, created unrealistic expectations and led to the adoption of a zero-tolerance strategy for this virus.”
Dr. Offit said that the focus should be on the memory cells, not the neutralizing antibodies.
Regarding mRNA vaccines, Dr. Offit said “the surprise of this vaccine – it surprised me and other vaccine researchers – is that with these two doses of mRNA separated by 3-4 weeks, you actually appear to have long-lived memory response.
“That’s not the history of vaccines. If you look at the inactivated polio vaccine or the inactivated hepatitis A vaccine, you really do need a 4- to 6-month interval between doses to get high frequencies of memory cells. That doesn’t appear to be the case here. It looks like two doses given close together do just that. Memory cells last for years if not, sometimes, decades.”
Neutralizing antibodies, on the other hand, protect against mild illness and their effectiveness wanes after months.
“At some point we are going to have to get used to mild illness,” Dr. Offit said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must now determine who will benefit most from booster dosing and educate the public about the limits of mucosal vaccines, Dr. Offit wrote in the editorial.
“Otherwise, a zero-tolerance strategy for mild or asymptomatic infection, which can be implemented only with frequent booster doses, will continue to mislead the public about what COVID-19 vaccines can and cannot do.”
The work was funded by the Ivan and Francesca Berkowitz Family Living Laboratory Collaboration at Harvard Medical School and Clalit Research Institute.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Monoclonal antibodies for COVID – Give IV infusion or an injection?
New research suggests that the casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 could have been delivered via injection instead of intravenously. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalization or death in those treated intravenously and via subcutaneous injection.
The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, aren’t directly relevant at the moment, since the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was abandoned when it failed to work during the Omicron outbreak. However, they point toward the importance of studying multiple routes of administration, said study lead author and pharmacist Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an interview.
“It would be beneficial for all future monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 to be studied subcutaneously or intramuscularly, if possible, since that’s logistically easier than IV in the outpatient setting,” she said.
According to Dr. McCreary, an outpatient casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was used from 2020 to 2022 to treat higher-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The treatment was typically given intravenously as recommended by the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization, she said. Clinical trials of the treatment, according to the study, allowed only IV administration.
“However, during the Delta surge, we were faced with so many patient referrals for treatment and staffing shortages that we couldn’t accommodate every patient unless we switched to [the] subcutaneous route,” Dr. McCreary said. This approach shortened appointment times by 30 minutes vs. infusion, she said.
There are many benefits to subcutaneous administration versus IV, Dr. McCreary said. “You don’t need to start an intravenous line, so you avoid the line kit and the nursing time needed for that. You draw up the drug directly into syringes and inject under the skin, so you avoid the need for a fluid bag to mix the drug in and run intravenously,” she said. “The appointment times are shorter, so you can accommodate more patients per day. Pharmacy interns can give subcutaneous injections, so you avoid the need for a nurse trained in placing intravenous lines.”
The researchers prospectively assigned 1,959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 to subcutaneous or intravenous treatment. Of 969 patients who received the subcutaneous treatment (mean age, 53.8; 56.4% women), the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 3.4%. Of 1,216 patients who received intravenous treatment (mean age, 54.3; 54.4% women), the rate was 1.7%. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .16).
Among 1,306 nontreated controls, 7.0% were hospitalized or died within 28 days (risk ratio = 0.48 vs. subcutaneous treatment group; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.80; P = .002).
“We did not find any patients where IV is a must,” Dr. McCreary said. “However, our study wasn’t powered to see a difference in certain subgroups.”
In an interview, University of Toronto internal medicine and pharmacology/toxicology physician Peter Wu, MD, said he agrees that the study has value because it emphasizes the importance of testing whether monoclonal antibodies can be administered in ways other than intravenously.
However, in the larger picture, he said, this may be irrelevant since it’s clear that anti-spike treatments are not holding up against COVID-19 variants.
No study funding is reported. Some study authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Wu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research suggests that the casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 could have been delivered via injection instead of intravenously. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalization or death in those treated intravenously and via subcutaneous injection.
The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, aren’t directly relevant at the moment, since the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was abandoned when it failed to work during the Omicron outbreak. However, they point toward the importance of studying multiple routes of administration, said study lead author and pharmacist Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an interview.
“It would be beneficial for all future monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 to be studied subcutaneously or intramuscularly, if possible, since that’s logistically easier than IV in the outpatient setting,” she said.
According to Dr. McCreary, an outpatient casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was used from 2020 to 2022 to treat higher-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The treatment was typically given intravenously as recommended by the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization, she said. Clinical trials of the treatment, according to the study, allowed only IV administration.
“However, during the Delta surge, we were faced with so many patient referrals for treatment and staffing shortages that we couldn’t accommodate every patient unless we switched to [the] subcutaneous route,” Dr. McCreary said. This approach shortened appointment times by 30 minutes vs. infusion, she said.
There are many benefits to subcutaneous administration versus IV, Dr. McCreary said. “You don’t need to start an intravenous line, so you avoid the line kit and the nursing time needed for that. You draw up the drug directly into syringes and inject under the skin, so you avoid the need for a fluid bag to mix the drug in and run intravenously,” she said. “The appointment times are shorter, so you can accommodate more patients per day. Pharmacy interns can give subcutaneous injections, so you avoid the need for a nurse trained in placing intravenous lines.”
The researchers prospectively assigned 1,959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 to subcutaneous or intravenous treatment. Of 969 patients who received the subcutaneous treatment (mean age, 53.8; 56.4% women), the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 3.4%. Of 1,216 patients who received intravenous treatment (mean age, 54.3; 54.4% women), the rate was 1.7%. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .16).
Among 1,306 nontreated controls, 7.0% were hospitalized or died within 28 days (risk ratio = 0.48 vs. subcutaneous treatment group; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.80; P = .002).
“We did not find any patients where IV is a must,” Dr. McCreary said. “However, our study wasn’t powered to see a difference in certain subgroups.”
In an interview, University of Toronto internal medicine and pharmacology/toxicology physician Peter Wu, MD, said he agrees that the study has value because it emphasizes the importance of testing whether monoclonal antibodies can be administered in ways other than intravenously.
However, in the larger picture, he said, this may be irrelevant since it’s clear that anti-spike treatments are not holding up against COVID-19 variants.
No study funding is reported. Some study authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Wu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New research suggests that the casirivimab-imdevimab monoclonal antibody treatment for COVID-19 could have been delivered via injection instead of intravenously. There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day hospitalization or death in those treated intravenously and via subcutaneous injection.
The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, aren’t directly relevant at the moment, since the casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was abandoned when it failed to work during the Omicron outbreak. However, they point toward the importance of studying multiple routes of administration, said study lead author and pharmacist Erin K. McCreary, PharmD, of the University of Pittsburgh, in an interview.
“It would be beneficial for all future monoclonal antibodies for COVID-19 to be studied subcutaneously or intramuscularly, if possible, since that’s logistically easier than IV in the outpatient setting,” she said.
According to Dr. McCreary, an outpatient casirivimab-imdevimab treatment was used from 2020 to 2022 to treat higher-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. The treatment was typically given intravenously as recommended by the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization, she said. Clinical trials of the treatment, according to the study, allowed only IV administration.
“However, during the Delta surge, we were faced with so many patient referrals for treatment and staffing shortages that we couldn’t accommodate every patient unless we switched to [the] subcutaneous route,” Dr. McCreary said. This approach shortened appointment times by 30 minutes vs. infusion, she said.
There are many benefits to subcutaneous administration versus IV, Dr. McCreary said. “You don’t need to start an intravenous line, so you avoid the line kit and the nursing time needed for that. You draw up the drug directly into syringes and inject under the skin, so you avoid the need for a fluid bag to mix the drug in and run intravenously,” she said. “The appointment times are shorter, so you can accommodate more patients per day. Pharmacy interns can give subcutaneous injections, so you avoid the need for a nurse trained in placing intravenous lines.”
The researchers prospectively assigned 1,959 matched adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 to subcutaneous or intravenous treatment. Of 969 patients who received the subcutaneous treatment (mean age, 53.8; 56.4% women), the 28-day rate of hospitalization or death was 3.4%. Of 1,216 patients who received intravenous treatment (mean age, 54.3; 54.4% women), the rate was 1.7%. The difference was not statistically significant (P = .16).
Among 1,306 nontreated controls, 7.0% were hospitalized or died within 28 days (risk ratio = 0.48 vs. subcutaneous treatment group; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.80; P = .002).
“We did not find any patients where IV is a must,” Dr. McCreary said. “However, our study wasn’t powered to see a difference in certain subgroups.”
In an interview, University of Toronto internal medicine and pharmacology/toxicology physician Peter Wu, MD, said he agrees that the study has value because it emphasizes the importance of testing whether monoclonal antibodies can be administered in ways other than intravenously.
However, in the larger picture, he said, this may be irrelevant since it’s clear that anti-spike treatments are not holding up against COVID-19 variants.
No study funding is reported. Some study authors reported disclosures outside the submitted work. Dr. Wu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Better survival in older cancer patients who take metformin
according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.
The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.
Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).
Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).
Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.
“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).
Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.
Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”
The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.
The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.
Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).
Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).
Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.
“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).
Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.
Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”
The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to results of a retrospective study of patients with type 2 diabetes and stage IV cancer.
The analysis included 7,725 patients with lung, breast, colorectal, prostate, or pancreatic cancer identified through a search of a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare dataset from 2007 to 2016.
Out of the full dataset, 2,981 patients (38.5%) had been prescribed metformin, and use was highest among patients with prostate cancer (46%).
Patients who took metformin versus those who did not had significantly better overall survival in both unadjusted (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.76; P < .001) and adjusted models (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P < .001).
Lead author Lisa Scarton, PhD, RN, assistant professor, University of Florida College of Nursing, Gainesville, said that the “underlying mechanisms of metformin related to cancer are still not completely understood,” but many studies have shown metformin is associated with a reduction in the incidence of cancer, a reduction in cancer mortality, and an improvement in overall survival.
“As more evidence of anticancer benefit of metformin is emerging, it is important to explore optimal dosages that significantly improve cancer outcomes to boost anticancer effect,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Scarton presented the new data in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
The analysis found no significant difference in overall survival between patients who took metformin with average daily doses ≥ 1,000 mg or < 1,000 mg (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.93-1.08; P = .90).
Although the improvement in overall survival was seen in cancer subgroups, regardless of dose, Dr. Scarton noted the benefit was greatest among patients with breast cancer (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56-0.82; P < .001). Hazard ratios among those who received metformin were 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69-0.88; P < .001) for colorectal cancer, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72-0.82; P < .001) for lung cancer, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P < .001) for pancreatic cancer, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.62-0.88; P = .002) for prostate cancer. Also, she noted that race/ethnicity did not play a role as a significant factor for predicting better overall survival.
Among study limitations, Dr. Scarton said, was the advanced age of patients. “Our study population was 66 and older. It would be interesting to investigate this relationship among younger adults. We would also explore explicit benefits of metformin use in different racial and ethnic groups.”
The study was funded by the University of Florida. Dr. Scarton has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AACR 2022
Woman who faked medical degree practiced for 3 years
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’
Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.
Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.
The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.
Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”
And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:
- Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
- An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
- Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
- TikTok videos qualify as CME.
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
Speak louder, I can’t see you
With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?
Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.
James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”
He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.
Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.
So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours
Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.
The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.
Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”
Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’
Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.
Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.
The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.
Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”
And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:
- Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
- An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
- Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
- TikTok videos qualify as CME.
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
Speak louder, I can’t see you
With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?
Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.
James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”
He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.
Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.
So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours
Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.
The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.
Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”
Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
No need to ‘guess what size horse you are’
Is COVID-19 warming up for yet another surge? Maybe. That means it’s also time for the return of its remora-like follower, ivermectin. Our thanks go out to the Tennessee state legislature for bringing the proven-to-be-ineffective treatment for COVID back into our hearts and minds and emergency rooms.
Both the state House and Senate have approved a bill that allows pharmacists to dispense the antiparasitic drug without a prescription while shielding them “from any liability that could arise from dispensing ivermectin,” Nashville Public Radio reported.
The drug’s manufacturer, Merck, said over a year ago that there is “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from preclinical studies … and a concerning lack of safety data.” More recently, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that ivermectin treatment had no important benefits in patients with COVID.
Last week, the bill’s Senate sponsor, Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains, said that it was all about safety, as he explained to NPR station WPLN: “It’s a lot safer to go to your pharmacist and let him tell you how much ivermectin to take than it is to go to the co-op and guess what size horse you are.”
And on that note, here are a few more items of business that just might end up on the legislature’s calendar:
- Horses will be allowed to “share” their unused ivermectin with humans and other mammals.
- An apple a day not only keeps the doctor away, but the IRS and the FDA as well.
- Colon cleansing is more fun than humans should be allowed to have.
- TikTok videos qualify as CME.
Who needs medical degrees anyway?
It’s no secret that doctors make a fair chunk of change. It’s a lucrative profession, but that big fat paycheck is siloed behind long, tough years of medical school and residency. It’s not an easy path doctors walk. Or at least, it’s not supposed to be. Anything’s easy if you’re willing to lie.
That brings us to Sonia, a 31-year-old woman from northern France with a bachelor’s degree in real estate management who wasn’t bringing in enough money for her three children, at least not to her satisfaction. Naturally, the only decision was to forge some diplomas from the University of Strasbourg, as well as a certificate from the French Order of Physicians. Sonia got hired as a general practitioner by using the identities of two doctors who shared her name. She had no experience, had no idea what she was doing, and was wearing a GPS tagging bracelet for an unrelated crime, so she was quickly caught and exposed in October 2021, after, um, 3 years of fake doctoring, according to France Live.
Not to be deterred by this temporary setback, Sonia proceeded to immediately find work as an ophthalmologist, a career that requires more than 10 years of training, continuing her fraudulent medical career until recently, when she was caught again and sentenced to 3 years in prison. She did make 70,000 euros a year as a fake doctor, which isn’t exactly huge money, but certainly not bad either.
We certainly hope she’s learned her lesson about impersonating a doctor, at this point, but maybe she should just go to medical school. If not, northern France might just end up with a new endocrinologist or oncologist floating around in 3 years.
Speak louder, I can’t see you
With the introduction of FaceTime and the pandemic pushing work and social events to Zoom, video calls have become ubiquitous. Along the way, however, we’ve had to learn to adjust to technical difficulties. Often by yelling at the screen when the video quality is disrupted. Waving our hands and arms, speaking louder. Sound like you?
Well, a new study published in Royal Society Open Science shows that it sounds like a lot of us.
James Trujillo of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who was lead author of the paper, said on Eurekalert that “previous research has shown that speech and gestures are linked, but ours is the first to look into how visuals impact our behavior in those fields.”
He and his associates set up 40 participants in separate rooms to have conversations in pairs over a video chat. Over the course of 40 minutes, the video quality started to deteriorate from clear to extremely blurry. When the video quality was affected, participants started with gestures but as the quality continued to lessen the gestures increased and so did the decibels of their voices.
Even when the participants could barely see each other, they still gestured and their voices were even louder, positively supporting the idea that gestures and speech are a dynamically linked when it comes to communication. Even on regular phone calls, when we can’t see each other at all, people make small movements and gestures, Mr. Trujillo said.
So, the next time the Wifi is terrible and your video calls keep cutting out, don’t worry about looking foolish screaming at the computer. We’ve all been there.
Seek a doctor if standing at attention for more than 4 hours
Imbrochável. In Brazil, it means “unfloppable” or “flaccid proof.” It’s also a word that Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro likes to use when referring to himself. Gives you a good idea of what he’s all about. Imagine his embarrassment when news recently broke about more than 30,000 pills of Viagra that had been secretly distributed to the Brazilian military.
The military offered a simple and plausible explanation: The Viagra had been prescribed to treat pulmonary hypertension. Fair, but when a Brazilian newspaper dug a little deeper, they found that this was not the case. The Viagra was, in general, being used for its, shall we say, traditional purpose.
Many Brazilians reacted poorly to the news that their tax dollars were being used to provide Brazilian soldiers with downstairs assistance, with the standard associated furor on social media. A rival politician, Ciro Gomes, who is planning on challenging the president in an upcoming election, had perhaps the best remark on the situation: “Unless they’re able to prove they’re developing some kind of secret weapon – capable of revolutionizing the international arms industry – it’ll be tough to justify the purchase of 35,000 units of a erectile dysfunction drug.”
Hmm, secret weapon. Well, a certain Russian fellow has made a bit of a thrust into world affairs recently. Does anyone know if Putin is sitting on a big Viagra stash?
Gaps in follow-up care put kids with asthma at risk of severe recurrence
Jo Ward’s twin boys have been to the emergency department for respiratory problems about as many times as the dozen years they’ve been alive. Both have asthma and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a form of chronic airway damage that can occur in children born premature, as the twins were. But each time Ms. Ward took them in for treatment during an acute bout of breathing distress, the staff told her to schedule a follow-up visit for the children with their physician only if they didn’t get better, not regardless of the outcome – as medical guidelines recommend.
“They asked questions, they did the exams, but they really didn’t give you a lot of information to help you at home,” Ms. Ward told this news organization. If they had, she doesn’t think she’d have needed to take them in for emergency care so often.
A new study, published in Academic Pediatrics, suggests she’s right.
Current clinical guidelines for asthma recommend that patients who visit the ED for an asthma-related problem should have a follow-up appointment within a month after the visit, independent of how well they have recovered once home, according to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the new study.
Her research found that children who have a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks of such a visit are less likely to come back again the next year. Yet the study also found that only about one in five youth had a follow-up visit within that 2-week window.
“The emergency department visit is probably a sign that they need some additional attention for their asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “We know we can prevent emergency department visits if they get the right kind of medication or if they figure out how to avoid the things that are going to cause an asthma exacerbation or flare.”
For the study, Dr. Bardach and colleagues analyzed data from California, Vermont, and Massachusetts for all asthma-related emergency visits for patients aged 3-21 years between 2013 and 2016.
Out of the 90,267 such visits they identified, 22.6% of patients had a follow-up within 2 weeks, more often by patients who were younger, had commercial insurance, had evidence of prior asthma, or had complex chronic conditions.
Whereas 5.7% of patients who had follow-up visits returned to the ED within 60 days, 6.4% of those who didn’t came back – a 12% difference (P < .001). The gap was larger a year out, with 25% of those with follow-ups returning to the ED, compared with 28.3% of those without follow-ups returning (P < .001), according to the researchers.
Overall, Dr. Bardach’s group estimates that for every 30 children who have follow-up visits with a physician, one would avoid a return trip to the emergency department for asthma within a year.
But given the sheer number of asthma-related trips to the ED each year – 164,145 for kids age 1-17 years in the United States in 2016 alone – that translates into big numbers of kids not going back to the hospital: approximately 72,000 such trips avoided at a savings to the health care system of at least $8.6 million annually.
Missed opportunities
Had Ms. Ward’s boys been among the one in five to receive follow-up care earlier in their lives, she might have saved a significant amount of time, money, anxiety, and heartache. When the twins were 9 years old, she took them to a new pediatric pulmonologist. That changed everything. In that first visit, “they gave me way more information than I ever had in the first 9 years,” she said.
The doctor told Ms. Ward to keep steroids on hand, gave her a prescription for extra doses of the powerful medication, and explained that they needed to be used within 24 hours of the first sign of a breathing problem.
“She said if you give them the steroids right away, it keeps them out of the emergency room, and that’s actually worked,” Ms. Ward said. “She made sure we had care plans every visit and asked me each time if I still had it or we needed to rewrite it. They gave me signs to look for, for when to go to hospital visits. I think that when you go to the doctor, they should be telling you stuff like that.”
Dr. Bardach said visits with a primary care doctor or asthma specialist offer families a chance to receive information to keep the condition from becoming critical.
“Going to that follow-up visit, they can get access to education from the provider about how to avoid things that trigger asthma, and there’s medication that kids can take that keeps the lungs calm and less likely to have a big asthma reaction, so getting access to that medication can be really helpful,” she said.
That was the case for Amy Davenport, of Chapel Hill, N.C., whose 6-year-old son has been to the ED twice for his asthma.
The first time, when he was 3, he was having trouble breathing with a respiratory tract infection and received nebulizer treatment – although he received it in the ED since no beds were available in the ICU. The staff did tell Ms. Davenport to follow up with her primary care provider, but her son’s pediatrician was reluctant to diagnose him with asthma at such a young age and didn’t prescribe any maintenance medications.
A few months later, Ms. Davenport and her son found themselves back in the hospital, and an ICU bed was open this time. The critical care staff referred Davenport to a pediatric pulmonary specialist, and they haven’t been back to the hospital since. Ms. Davenport said she believes if they’d received a maintenance medication after the first visit, it likely would have prevented the second one.
“I’ve definitely seen now that, after the second admission, we got an asthma action plan and it said exactly what to do,” she said. “I felt like we had really good follow-up. We had that action plan on our refrigerator for a long time, and it helped us as parents with three small children to manage.”
Of course, follow-up care takes time – time away from work and school that not all families can spare, the researchers acknowledged. Telehealth may be an option, especially after its use expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We know that health systems have a hard time being flexible enough to actually have a kid be able to make an appointment within a short period of time, and we also know it’s hard for families sometimes to go back into a clinical setting within a certain period of time,” Dr. Bardach said. The urgency for the appointment may wane for those whose children seem to be doing better.
When the researchers adjusted their calculations for socioeconomic status, the results didn’t change much. But the study did find that patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to have follow-up visits as those on Medicaid (43.7% vs. 21.7%). And “the content and conduct” of the follow-up visit makes a difference as well.
Ms. Ward, whose boys are insured through Medicaid, recalled several visits to the ED where she had to push the staff to get the care her children needed. In one case, when one of her boys was a year old and struggling to breathe, the emergency doctor handed her a prescription and recommended she fill it at a neighborhood drugstore that would be cheaper than the hospital’s pharmacy. Then a nurse came in to begin the discharge process.
“I said no, ‘we’re not ready yet. Look at him,’” Ms. Ward said. The nurse took a pulse oximeter reading that showed the boy’s oxygen levels were at 84%, dangerously low. “If I wasn’t so knowledgeable and paid attention when they were born, since they were preemies, if it would have been somebody else, they probably would’ve went home and he’d have died.”
With the pediatric pulmonologist the boys have now, Ms. Ward said she feels more capable of managing their asthma and knowing how to reduce the likelihood that they’ll need to visit the ED.
“Part of what we’re seeing here is that having an existing and trusting relationship with a clinician can be helpful to kids with asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “If we help establish and maintain those connections, and explain how important that connection can be, that can also help somebody with asthma overall.”
The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jo Ward’s twin boys have been to the emergency department for respiratory problems about as many times as the dozen years they’ve been alive. Both have asthma and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a form of chronic airway damage that can occur in children born premature, as the twins were. But each time Ms. Ward took them in for treatment during an acute bout of breathing distress, the staff told her to schedule a follow-up visit for the children with their physician only if they didn’t get better, not regardless of the outcome – as medical guidelines recommend.
“They asked questions, they did the exams, but they really didn’t give you a lot of information to help you at home,” Ms. Ward told this news organization. If they had, she doesn’t think she’d have needed to take them in for emergency care so often.
A new study, published in Academic Pediatrics, suggests she’s right.
Current clinical guidelines for asthma recommend that patients who visit the ED for an asthma-related problem should have a follow-up appointment within a month after the visit, independent of how well they have recovered once home, according to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the new study.
Her research found that children who have a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks of such a visit are less likely to come back again the next year. Yet the study also found that only about one in five youth had a follow-up visit within that 2-week window.
“The emergency department visit is probably a sign that they need some additional attention for their asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “We know we can prevent emergency department visits if they get the right kind of medication or if they figure out how to avoid the things that are going to cause an asthma exacerbation or flare.”
For the study, Dr. Bardach and colleagues analyzed data from California, Vermont, and Massachusetts for all asthma-related emergency visits for patients aged 3-21 years between 2013 and 2016.
Out of the 90,267 such visits they identified, 22.6% of patients had a follow-up within 2 weeks, more often by patients who were younger, had commercial insurance, had evidence of prior asthma, or had complex chronic conditions.
Whereas 5.7% of patients who had follow-up visits returned to the ED within 60 days, 6.4% of those who didn’t came back – a 12% difference (P < .001). The gap was larger a year out, with 25% of those with follow-ups returning to the ED, compared with 28.3% of those without follow-ups returning (P < .001), according to the researchers.
Overall, Dr. Bardach’s group estimates that for every 30 children who have follow-up visits with a physician, one would avoid a return trip to the emergency department for asthma within a year.
But given the sheer number of asthma-related trips to the ED each year – 164,145 for kids age 1-17 years in the United States in 2016 alone – that translates into big numbers of kids not going back to the hospital: approximately 72,000 such trips avoided at a savings to the health care system of at least $8.6 million annually.
Missed opportunities
Had Ms. Ward’s boys been among the one in five to receive follow-up care earlier in their lives, she might have saved a significant amount of time, money, anxiety, and heartache. When the twins were 9 years old, she took them to a new pediatric pulmonologist. That changed everything. In that first visit, “they gave me way more information than I ever had in the first 9 years,” she said.
The doctor told Ms. Ward to keep steroids on hand, gave her a prescription for extra doses of the powerful medication, and explained that they needed to be used within 24 hours of the first sign of a breathing problem.
“She said if you give them the steroids right away, it keeps them out of the emergency room, and that’s actually worked,” Ms. Ward said. “She made sure we had care plans every visit and asked me each time if I still had it or we needed to rewrite it. They gave me signs to look for, for when to go to hospital visits. I think that when you go to the doctor, they should be telling you stuff like that.”
Dr. Bardach said visits with a primary care doctor or asthma specialist offer families a chance to receive information to keep the condition from becoming critical.
“Going to that follow-up visit, they can get access to education from the provider about how to avoid things that trigger asthma, and there’s medication that kids can take that keeps the lungs calm and less likely to have a big asthma reaction, so getting access to that medication can be really helpful,” she said.
That was the case for Amy Davenport, of Chapel Hill, N.C., whose 6-year-old son has been to the ED twice for his asthma.
The first time, when he was 3, he was having trouble breathing with a respiratory tract infection and received nebulizer treatment – although he received it in the ED since no beds were available in the ICU. The staff did tell Ms. Davenport to follow up with her primary care provider, but her son’s pediatrician was reluctant to diagnose him with asthma at such a young age and didn’t prescribe any maintenance medications.
A few months later, Ms. Davenport and her son found themselves back in the hospital, and an ICU bed was open this time. The critical care staff referred Davenport to a pediatric pulmonary specialist, and they haven’t been back to the hospital since. Ms. Davenport said she believes if they’d received a maintenance medication after the first visit, it likely would have prevented the second one.
“I’ve definitely seen now that, after the second admission, we got an asthma action plan and it said exactly what to do,” she said. “I felt like we had really good follow-up. We had that action plan on our refrigerator for a long time, and it helped us as parents with three small children to manage.”
Of course, follow-up care takes time – time away from work and school that not all families can spare, the researchers acknowledged. Telehealth may be an option, especially after its use expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We know that health systems have a hard time being flexible enough to actually have a kid be able to make an appointment within a short period of time, and we also know it’s hard for families sometimes to go back into a clinical setting within a certain period of time,” Dr. Bardach said. The urgency for the appointment may wane for those whose children seem to be doing better.
When the researchers adjusted their calculations for socioeconomic status, the results didn’t change much. But the study did find that patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to have follow-up visits as those on Medicaid (43.7% vs. 21.7%). And “the content and conduct” of the follow-up visit makes a difference as well.
Ms. Ward, whose boys are insured through Medicaid, recalled several visits to the ED where she had to push the staff to get the care her children needed. In one case, when one of her boys was a year old and struggling to breathe, the emergency doctor handed her a prescription and recommended she fill it at a neighborhood drugstore that would be cheaper than the hospital’s pharmacy. Then a nurse came in to begin the discharge process.
“I said no, ‘we’re not ready yet. Look at him,’” Ms. Ward said. The nurse took a pulse oximeter reading that showed the boy’s oxygen levels were at 84%, dangerously low. “If I wasn’t so knowledgeable and paid attention when they were born, since they were preemies, if it would have been somebody else, they probably would’ve went home and he’d have died.”
With the pediatric pulmonologist the boys have now, Ms. Ward said she feels more capable of managing their asthma and knowing how to reduce the likelihood that they’ll need to visit the ED.
“Part of what we’re seeing here is that having an existing and trusting relationship with a clinician can be helpful to kids with asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “If we help establish and maintain those connections, and explain how important that connection can be, that can also help somebody with asthma overall.”
The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Jo Ward’s twin boys have been to the emergency department for respiratory problems about as many times as the dozen years they’ve been alive. Both have asthma and bronchopulmonary dysplasia, a form of chronic airway damage that can occur in children born premature, as the twins were. But each time Ms. Ward took them in for treatment during an acute bout of breathing distress, the staff told her to schedule a follow-up visit for the children with their physician only if they didn’t get better, not regardless of the outcome – as medical guidelines recommend.
“They asked questions, they did the exams, but they really didn’t give you a lot of information to help you at home,” Ms. Ward told this news organization. If they had, she doesn’t think she’d have needed to take them in for emergency care so often.
A new study, published in Academic Pediatrics, suggests she’s right.
Current clinical guidelines for asthma recommend that patients who visit the ED for an asthma-related problem should have a follow-up appointment within a month after the visit, independent of how well they have recovered once home, according to Naomi S. Bardach, MD, a professor of pediatrics and health policy at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the new study.
Her research found that children who have a follow-up appointment within 2 weeks of such a visit are less likely to come back again the next year. Yet the study also found that only about one in five youth had a follow-up visit within that 2-week window.
“The emergency department visit is probably a sign that they need some additional attention for their asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “We know we can prevent emergency department visits if they get the right kind of medication or if they figure out how to avoid the things that are going to cause an asthma exacerbation or flare.”
For the study, Dr. Bardach and colleagues analyzed data from California, Vermont, and Massachusetts for all asthma-related emergency visits for patients aged 3-21 years between 2013 and 2016.
Out of the 90,267 such visits they identified, 22.6% of patients had a follow-up within 2 weeks, more often by patients who were younger, had commercial insurance, had evidence of prior asthma, or had complex chronic conditions.
Whereas 5.7% of patients who had follow-up visits returned to the ED within 60 days, 6.4% of those who didn’t came back – a 12% difference (P < .001). The gap was larger a year out, with 25% of those with follow-ups returning to the ED, compared with 28.3% of those without follow-ups returning (P < .001), according to the researchers.
Overall, Dr. Bardach’s group estimates that for every 30 children who have follow-up visits with a physician, one would avoid a return trip to the emergency department for asthma within a year.
But given the sheer number of asthma-related trips to the ED each year – 164,145 for kids age 1-17 years in the United States in 2016 alone – that translates into big numbers of kids not going back to the hospital: approximately 72,000 such trips avoided at a savings to the health care system of at least $8.6 million annually.
Missed opportunities
Had Ms. Ward’s boys been among the one in five to receive follow-up care earlier in their lives, she might have saved a significant amount of time, money, anxiety, and heartache. When the twins were 9 years old, she took them to a new pediatric pulmonologist. That changed everything. In that first visit, “they gave me way more information than I ever had in the first 9 years,” she said.
The doctor told Ms. Ward to keep steroids on hand, gave her a prescription for extra doses of the powerful medication, and explained that they needed to be used within 24 hours of the first sign of a breathing problem.
“She said if you give them the steroids right away, it keeps them out of the emergency room, and that’s actually worked,” Ms. Ward said. “She made sure we had care plans every visit and asked me each time if I still had it or we needed to rewrite it. They gave me signs to look for, for when to go to hospital visits. I think that when you go to the doctor, they should be telling you stuff like that.”
Dr. Bardach said visits with a primary care doctor or asthma specialist offer families a chance to receive information to keep the condition from becoming critical.
“Going to that follow-up visit, they can get access to education from the provider about how to avoid things that trigger asthma, and there’s medication that kids can take that keeps the lungs calm and less likely to have a big asthma reaction, so getting access to that medication can be really helpful,” she said.
That was the case for Amy Davenport, of Chapel Hill, N.C., whose 6-year-old son has been to the ED twice for his asthma.
The first time, when he was 3, he was having trouble breathing with a respiratory tract infection and received nebulizer treatment – although he received it in the ED since no beds were available in the ICU. The staff did tell Ms. Davenport to follow up with her primary care provider, but her son’s pediatrician was reluctant to diagnose him with asthma at such a young age and didn’t prescribe any maintenance medications.
A few months later, Ms. Davenport and her son found themselves back in the hospital, and an ICU bed was open this time. The critical care staff referred Davenport to a pediatric pulmonary specialist, and they haven’t been back to the hospital since. Ms. Davenport said she believes if they’d received a maintenance medication after the first visit, it likely would have prevented the second one.
“I’ve definitely seen now that, after the second admission, we got an asthma action plan and it said exactly what to do,” she said. “I felt like we had really good follow-up. We had that action plan on our refrigerator for a long time, and it helped us as parents with three small children to manage.”
Of course, follow-up care takes time – time away from work and school that not all families can spare, the researchers acknowledged. Telehealth may be an option, especially after its use expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We know that health systems have a hard time being flexible enough to actually have a kid be able to make an appointment within a short period of time, and we also know it’s hard for families sometimes to go back into a clinical setting within a certain period of time,” Dr. Bardach said. The urgency for the appointment may wane for those whose children seem to be doing better.
When the researchers adjusted their calculations for socioeconomic status, the results didn’t change much. But the study did find that patients with private insurance were about twice as likely to have follow-up visits as those on Medicaid (43.7% vs. 21.7%). And “the content and conduct” of the follow-up visit makes a difference as well.
Ms. Ward, whose boys are insured through Medicaid, recalled several visits to the ED where she had to push the staff to get the care her children needed. In one case, when one of her boys was a year old and struggling to breathe, the emergency doctor handed her a prescription and recommended she fill it at a neighborhood drugstore that would be cheaper than the hospital’s pharmacy. Then a nurse came in to begin the discharge process.
“I said no, ‘we’re not ready yet. Look at him,’” Ms. Ward said. The nurse took a pulse oximeter reading that showed the boy’s oxygen levels were at 84%, dangerously low. “If I wasn’t so knowledgeable and paid attention when they were born, since they were preemies, if it would have been somebody else, they probably would’ve went home and he’d have died.”
With the pediatric pulmonologist the boys have now, Ms. Ward said she feels more capable of managing their asthma and knowing how to reduce the likelihood that they’ll need to visit the ED.
“Part of what we’re seeing here is that having an existing and trusting relationship with a clinician can be helpful to kids with asthma,” Dr. Bardach said. “If we help establish and maintain those connections, and explain how important that connection can be, that can also help somebody with asthma overall.”
The research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS
Breakthrough COVID dangerous for vaccinated cancer patients
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The risks were highest among patients who had certain cancers and those who had received cancer treatment within the past year.
“These results emphasize the need for patients with cancer to maintain mitigation practice, especially with the emergence of different virus variants and the waning immunity of vaccines,” the study authors wrote.
Researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland analyzed electronic health record data for more than 636,000 vaccinated patients, including more than 45,000 vaccinated patients with cancer. They looked for the time trends, risks, and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections for vaccinated cancer patients in the United States between December 2020 and November 2021.
Overall, the cumulative risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated cancer patients was 13.6%, with the highest risk for pancreatic (24.7%), liver (22.8%), lung (20.4%), and colorectal (17.5%) cancers and the lowest risk for thyroid (10.3%), endometrial (11.9%), and breast (11.9%) cancers, versus 4.9% in vaccinated patients without cancer.
Patients who had medical encounters for their cancer within the past year had a higher risk for a breakthrough infection, particularly those with breast cancer, blood cancers, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer.
Among patients with cancer, the overall risk for hospitalization after a breakthrough infection was 31.6%, as compared with 3.9% in those without a breakthrough infection. In addition, the risk of death was 6.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 1.3% in those without a breakthrough infection.
Among patients who didn’t have cancer, the overall hospitalization risk was 25.9% in patients with a breakthrough infection, as compared with 3% in those without a breakthrough infection. The overall risk of death was 2.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 0.5% in those without a breakthrough infection.
In addition, breakthrough infections continuously increased for all patients from December 2020 to November 2021, with the numbers consistently higher among patients with cancer.
“This increasing time trend may reflect waning immunity of vaccines, the emergence of different virus variants, and varied measures taken by individuals and communities over time during the pandemic,” the study authors wrote.
Vaccines are likely less protective against coronavirus infection in cancer patients, and in turn, cancer patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote. As breakthrough infections continue to increase for everyone, patients with cancer will face increased risks for severe breakthroughs, hospitalization, and death, they concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The risks were highest among patients who had certain cancers and those who had received cancer treatment within the past year.
“These results emphasize the need for patients with cancer to maintain mitigation practice, especially with the emergence of different virus variants and the waning immunity of vaccines,” the study authors wrote.
Researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland analyzed electronic health record data for more than 636,000 vaccinated patients, including more than 45,000 vaccinated patients with cancer. They looked for the time trends, risks, and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections for vaccinated cancer patients in the United States between December 2020 and November 2021.
Overall, the cumulative risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated cancer patients was 13.6%, with the highest risk for pancreatic (24.7%), liver (22.8%), lung (20.4%), and colorectal (17.5%) cancers and the lowest risk for thyroid (10.3%), endometrial (11.9%), and breast (11.9%) cancers, versus 4.9% in vaccinated patients without cancer.
Patients who had medical encounters for their cancer within the past year had a higher risk for a breakthrough infection, particularly those with breast cancer, blood cancers, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer.
Among patients with cancer, the overall risk for hospitalization after a breakthrough infection was 31.6%, as compared with 3.9% in those without a breakthrough infection. In addition, the risk of death was 6.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 1.3% in those without a breakthrough infection.
Among patients who didn’t have cancer, the overall hospitalization risk was 25.9% in patients with a breakthrough infection, as compared with 3% in those without a breakthrough infection. The overall risk of death was 2.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 0.5% in those without a breakthrough infection.
In addition, breakthrough infections continuously increased for all patients from December 2020 to November 2021, with the numbers consistently higher among patients with cancer.
“This increasing time trend may reflect waning immunity of vaccines, the emergence of different virus variants, and varied measures taken by individuals and communities over time during the pandemic,” the study authors wrote.
Vaccines are likely less protective against coronavirus infection in cancer patients, and in turn, cancer patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote. As breakthrough infections continue to increase for everyone, patients with cancer will face increased risks for severe breakthroughs, hospitalization, and death, they concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.
The risks were highest among patients who had certain cancers and those who had received cancer treatment within the past year.
“These results emphasize the need for patients with cancer to maintain mitigation practice, especially with the emergence of different virus variants and the waning immunity of vaccines,” the study authors wrote.
Researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland analyzed electronic health record data for more than 636,000 vaccinated patients, including more than 45,000 vaccinated patients with cancer. They looked for the time trends, risks, and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections for vaccinated cancer patients in the United States between December 2020 and November 2021.
Overall, the cumulative risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated cancer patients was 13.6%, with the highest risk for pancreatic (24.7%), liver (22.8%), lung (20.4%), and colorectal (17.5%) cancers and the lowest risk for thyroid (10.3%), endometrial (11.9%), and breast (11.9%) cancers, versus 4.9% in vaccinated patients without cancer.
Patients who had medical encounters for their cancer within the past year had a higher risk for a breakthrough infection, particularly those with breast cancer, blood cancers, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer.
Among patients with cancer, the overall risk for hospitalization after a breakthrough infection was 31.6%, as compared with 3.9% in those without a breakthrough infection. In addition, the risk of death was 6.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 1.3% in those without a breakthrough infection.
Among patients who didn’t have cancer, the overall hospitalization risk was 25.9% in patients with a breakthrough infection, as compared with 3% in those without a breakthrough infection. The overall risk of death was 2.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 0.5% in those without a breakthrough infection.
In addition, breakthrough infections continuously increased for all patients from December 2020 to November 2021, with the numbers consistently higher among patients with cancer.
“This increasing time trend may reflect waning immunity of vaccines, the emergence of different virus variants, and varied measures taken by individuals and communities over time during the pandemic,” the study authors wrote.
Vaccines are likely less protective against coronavirus infection in cancer patients, and in turn, cancer patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote. As breakthrough infections continue to increase for everyone, patients with cancer will face increased risks for severe breakthroughs, hospitalization, and death, they concluded.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease can be challenging to treat
Living in coastal areas of Florida and California has great appeal for many, with the warm, sunny climate and nearby fresh water and salt water.
But, unknown to many, those balmy coasts also carry the risk of infection from nontuberculous (atypical) mycobacteria (NTM). Unlike its relative, tuberculosis, NTM is not transmitted from person to person, with one exception: patients with cystic fibrosis.
It is estimated that there were 181,000 people with NTM lung disease in the U.S. in 2015, and according to one study, the incidence is increasing by 8.2% annually among those aged 65 years and older. But NTM doesn’t only affect the elderly; it’s estimated that 31% of all NTM patients are younger than 65 years.
With the warm, moist soil and water, NTM is most commonly found in Florida, California, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast states. The incidence is somewhat lower in states along the Great Lakes. Other states are not without risk – but NTM is perhaps even more likely to be overlooked in these states by physicians because of a lack of awareness of the disease.
Rebecca Prevots, PhD, MPH, chief of the epidemiology and population studies unit of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told this news organization that “why NTM is increasing is one of the most common questions” she gets, followed by whether it is due to climate change. “The short answer is, we don’t know.”
She suggests that the increase in diagnoses is due to a combination of increased awareness, host susceptibility, and perhaps environmental changes. One problem is that NTM is not a reportable disease. Also, public health resources have been decimated, both through funding cuts and loss of personnel. Dr. Prevots said, “It’s not just NTM surveillance that is important, but you can’t just make a certain condition reportable and expect to have good data without putting resources to it. ... Diseases are made reportable at the state level. There’s no mandated reporting up to CDC. So CDC is piloting reporting events through their emerging infectious program.”
Anthony Cannella, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida (USF), is in the midst of NTM. He told this news organization that “there’s a huge circle with big old dots right over the center of the state.” He is adamant that “a soil-water survey has to occur. We need to know what the devil is happening.”
Florida legislators agreed to allocate $519,000 for NTM testing and surveillance in 2019. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed that line item in the budget. WUSF (a National Public Radio affiliate on the USF campus) was unable to get a response to their query about this from the governor’s office.
Who gets NTM?
Mycobacterium avium complex primarily causes lung disease, which presents as two clinical syndromes.
“These infections don’t affect everyone,” Kenneth Olivier, MD, MPH, chief of pulmonary clinical medicine, Cardiovascular Pulmonary Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in an interview. They affect “patients that have underlying genetic conditions that cause abnormalities in the airway clearance mechanisms, particularly cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia [and], to some extent, patients with COPD.”
The second group is “comprised mainly of postmenopausal women, many of whom have had no predisposing medical problems prior to onset of generally frequent throat clearing or chronic cough, which is what brings them to medical attention.” Dr. Olivier added that “many of these patients have a fairly unique appearance. They tend to have a high prevalence of curvature of the spine, scoliosis, indentation of the chest wall (pectus excavatum), and physical characteristics that overlap heritable connective tissue disorders like Marfan syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”
Dr. Olivier pointed out a major problem in NTM diagnosis and treatment: “The guidelines-based approach to chronic cough generally calls for treating postnasal drip, airway reactivity, asthma type symptoms first empirically, before doing different diagnostic studies. That generally causes a delay in obtaining things like CT scan, where you can see the characteristic changes.”
Dr. Cannella added, “People are starting to become more aware of it. It’s kind of like pneumocystis back in the 80s. ... We’ve had patients who have had long periods of febrile neutropenia, and NTM wasn’t on the radar. Now we’ve picked up at least seven or eight.”
In addition to pulmonary infections, nosocomial outbreaks have occurred, owing to contaminated heater-cooler units, catheter infections, nail salons, or to medical tourism. These more commonly involve rapidly growing species, such as M abscessus, M chelonae, and M fortuitum. Clinicians should also be aware of skin infections from M marinum, which come from wounds from aquariums, fish, or shellfish. Incubation can occur over months, highlighting the importance of a detailed history and special cultures.
Diagnostics
The diagnosis of NTM is delayed for several reasons. One is the lack of awareness among clinicians about NTM and its risk factors, including hobbies such as gardening or working in places where dirt is aerosolized, such as on road crews, or even from hot tubs. A thorough history is critical.
Another is not recognizing the need for an acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture, which requires specialized media. Fortunately, NTM can be picked up on fungal cultures, Dr. Cannella noted. Clinicians are sometimes discouraged from culturing AFB because doing so may not be cost-effective. And many hospital laboratories are increasingly sending cultures to outside labs, and it can take days – sometimes even more than a week – to receive a report of results.
Charles Daley, MD, chief of the Division of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections at National Jewish Health, expressed his frustration about labs in an interview, saying diagnostics is “an important hole in the U.S., as our laboratories do not provide clinicians with the results that they need to make good decisions. Most laboratories in the U.S. just don’t speciate the organisms or subspeciate in the setting of abscesses. They don’t tell the clinician enough about the susceptibility, particularly whether there’s inducible resistance. As a clinician, you just don’t have the information to make the right decisions. ... We need to improve diagnostics in NTM. Everything is there and available. They just don’t want to do it because it increases the costs.”
Men tend to have fibrocavitary disease, which shows on ordinary chest x-rays, but CT scans are essential for women because women tend to have either nodular disease or bronchiectasis, which does not show on a plain film.
Treatment
A standard treatment for NTM lung disease includes three or four medications – clarithromycin or azithromycin, rifampin or rifabutin, ethambutol, and streptomycin or amikacin. In vitro resistance is important in predicting the clinical response to a macrolide or amikacin.
For bronchiectatic disease, National Jewish Hospital recommends treatment three times per week rather than daily therapy, as it is better tolerated. Azithromycin is preferred over clarithromycin. Amikacin should be added if there is cavitary or severe disease, and the macrolide is then given daily.
Dr. Olivier suggested that physicians stagger the initiation of those drugs to improve the tolerability of the difficult regimen. Generally, treatment is for 18 months – a year after sputum cultures become negative.
If therapy fails – that is, sputum is persistently positive at 6 months – amikacin liposomal inhalation solution (Arikayce) is likely to be added. Patients should be monitored with monthly safety labs, sputum cultures, and an audiogram (if receiving amikacin). Every 3 months, vestibular tests, eye exams, and spirometry should be conducted, and every 6 months, physicians should order a CT, an audiogram, and an electrocardiogram.
Despite completing such a rigorous regimen, about half of patients experience reinfection because of their underlying host susceptibility. Genomic sequencing shows that these are new infections, not relapses, Dr. Prevots said. She also noted that gastroesophageal reflux disease is a significant risk factor because of chronic aspiration.
Dr. Daley outlined the newer treatments being studied. They include Arikayce, omadocycline, and bedaquiline. He added, “There’s a neutrophil elastase inhibitor trial that’s ongoing, a huge trial. There’s another one looking at basically eosinophilic inflammation.”
Other trials are in the offing, he said, all focusing on the inflammatory response – a development he described as exciting, because for the longest time, there were few if any NTM trials.
Dr. Cannella is also buoyed by the potential synergy of dual beta-lactam therapy with ceftaroline and a carbapenem for M abscessus infections, which are notoriously difficult to treat.
There are unique problems facing drug development for NTM because, for approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires the drug to “improve how a patient feels, functions, or survives.” NTM is associated with low mortality, so that “is off the table,” Dr. Daley explained. It’s hard to quantify improvement in function. The top two symptoms to measure are coughing and fatigue, he said. But both are difficult to measure, and some of the medicines worsen cough. Some research groups are now trying to validate patient-reported outcome instruments to satisfy the FDA’s requirements.
Tips for patients and physicians
The experts this news organization spoke to had very consistent recommendations for patients:
- NTM is resistant to chlorine and bromine, so tap water is a major source of infection. Patients should consider to greater than 130° F and using metal showerheads or bathing rather than showering.
- Good bathroom ventilation helps.
- Patients should consider using a water filter that filters entities less than 5 mcm in size – but not carbon filters, which concentrate the organisms.
- Humidifiers and hot tubs should be avoided.
- A good face mask, such as an N95, should be worn when gardening or repotting plants.
Dr. Olivier stressed that clinicians should familiarize themselves with the guidelines for diagnosing and treating NTM. In particular, clinicians should be aware that using azithromycin for bronchitis might cause resistance in NTM. “Macrolide resistance turns what may be a slowly progressive or bothersome infection into a lethal infection with a 1-year mortality of 35%.”
He concluded, “I would just urge that if the patient’s on their second or third Z-Pak within a year, it’s probably time to look for other causes of what might be happening.”
Dr. Cannella, Dr. Prevots, and Dr. Olivier reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cannella adds, “My views are not those of my employers, the U.S. Dept of VA, or the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.” Dr. Daley reports research grants/contracts with AN2, Beyond Air, Bugworks, Insmed, and Paratek and service on advisory boards or as a consultant for AN2, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Insmed, Matinas, Paratek, Pfizer, and Spero.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Living in coastal areas of Florida and California has great appeal for many, with the warm, sunny climate and nearby fresh water and salt water.
But, unknown to many, those balmy coasts also carry the risk of infection from nontuberculous (atypical) mycobacteria (NTM). Unlike its relative, tuberculosis, NTM is not transmitted from person to person, with one exception: patients with cystic fibrosis.
It is estimated that there were 181,000 people with NTM lung disease in the U.S. in 2015, and according to one study, the incidence is increasing by 8.2% annually among those aged 65 years and older. But NTM doesn’t only affect the elderly; it’s estimated that 31% of all NTM patients are younger than 65 years.
With the warm, moist soil and water, NTM is most commonly found in Florida, California, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast states. The incidence is somewhat lower in states along the Great Lakes. Other states are not without risk – but NTM is perhaps even more likely to be overlooked in these states by physicians because of a lack of awareness of the disease.
Rebecca Prevots, PhD, MPH, chief of the epidemiology and population studies unit of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told this news organization that “why NTM is increasing is one of the most common questions” she gets, followed by whether it is due to climate change. “The short answer is, we don’t know.”
She suggests that the increase in diagnoses is due to a combination of increased awareness, host susceptibility, and perhaps environmental changes. One problem is that NTM is not a reportable disease. Also, public health resources have been decimated, both through funding cuts and loss of personnel. Dr. Prevots said, “It’s not just NTM surveillance that is important, but you can’t just make a certain condition reportable and expect to have good data without putting resources to it. ... Diseases are made reportable at the state level. There’s no mandated reporting up to CDC. So CDC is piloting reporting events through their emerging infectious program.”
Anthony Cannella, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida (USF), is in the midst of NTM. He told this news organization that “there’s a huge circle with big old dots right over the center of the state.” He is adamant that “a soil-water survey has to occur. We need to know what the devil is happening.”
Florida legislators agreed to allocate $519,000 for NTM testing and surveillance in 2019. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed that line item in the budget. WUSF (a National Public Radio affiliate on the USF campus) was unable to get a response to their query about this from the governor’s office.
Who gets NTM?
Mycobacterium avium complex primarily causes lung disease, which presents as two clinical syndromes.
“These infections don’t affect everyone,” Kenneth Olivier, MD, MPH, chief of pulmonary clinical medicine, Cardiovascular Pulmonary Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in an interview. They affect “patients that have underlying genetic conditions that cause abnormalities in the airway clearance mechanisms, particularly cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia [and], to some extent, patients with COPD.”
The second group is “comprised mainly of postmenopausal women, many of whom have had no predisposing medical problems prior to onset of generally frequent throat clearing or chronic cough, which is what brings them to medical attention.” Dr. Olivier added that “many of these patients have a fairly unique appearance. They tend to have a high prevalence of curvature of the spine, scoliosis, indentation of the chest wall (pectus excavatum), and physical characteristics that overlap heritable connective tissue disorders like Marfan syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”
Dr. Olivier pointed out a major problem in NTM diagnosis and treatment: “The guidelines-based approach to chronic cough generally calls for treating postnasal drip, airway reactivity, asthma type symptoms first empirically, before doing different diagnostic studies. That generally causes a delay in obtaining things like CT scan, where you can see the characteristic changes.”
Dr. Cannella added, “People are starting to become more aware of it. It’s kind of like pneumocystis back in the 80s. ... We’ve had patients who have had long periods of febrile neutropenia, and NTM wasn’t on the radar. Now we’ve picked up at least seven or eight.”
In addition to pulmonary infections, nosocomial outbreaks have occurred, owing to contaminated heater-cooler units, catheter infections, nail salons, or to medical tourism. These more commonly involve rapidly growing species, such as M abscessus, M chelonae, and M fortuitum. Clinicians should also be aware of skin infections from M marinum, which come from wounds from aquariums, fish, or shellfish. Incubation can occur over months, highlighting the importance of a detailed history and special cultures.
Diagnostics
The diagnosis of NTM is delayed for several reasons. One is the lack of awareness among clinicians about NTM and its risk factors, including hobbies such as gardening or working in places where dirt is aerosolized, such as on road crews, or even from hot tubs. A thorough history is critical.
Another is not recognizing the need for an acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture, which requires specialized media. Fortunately, NTM can be picked up on fungal cultures, Dr. Cannella noted. Clinicians are sometimes discouraged from culturing AFB because doing so may not be cost-effective. And many hospital laboratories are increasingly sending cultures to outside labs, and it can take days – sometimes even more than a week – to receive a report of results.
Charles Daley, MD, chief of the Division of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections at National Jewish Health, expressed his frustration about labs in an interview, saying diagnostics is “an important hole in the U.S., as our laboratories do not provide clinicians with the results that they need to make good decisions. Most laboratories in the U.S. just don’t speciate the organisms or subspeciate in the setting of abscesses. They don’t tell the clinician enough about the susceptibility, particularly whether there’s inducible resistance. As a clinician, you just don’t have the information to make the right decisions. ... We need to improve diagnostics in NTM. Everything is there and available. They just don’t want to do it because it increases the costs.”
Men tend to have fibrocavitary disease, which shows on ordinary chest x-rays, but CT scans are essential for women because women tend to have either nodular disease or bronchiectasis, which does not show on a plain film.
Treatment
A standard treatment for NTM lung disease includes three or four medications – clarithromycin or azithromycin, rifampin or rifabutin, ethambutol, and streptomycin or amikacin. In vitro resistance is important in predicting the clinical response to a macrolide or amikacin.
For bronchiectatic disease, National Jewish Hospital recommends treatment three times per week rather than daily therapy, as it is better tolerated. Azithromycin is preferred over clarithromycin. Amikacin should be added if there is cavitary or severe disease, and the macrolide is then given daily.
Dr. Olivier suggested that physicians stagger the initiation of those drugs to improve the tolerability of the difficult regimen. Generally, treatment is for 18 months – a year after sputum cultures become negative.
If therapy fails – that is, sputum is persistently positive at 6 months – amikacin liposomal inhalation solution (Arikayce) is likely to be added. Patients should be monitored with monthly safety labs, sputum cultures, and an audiogram (if receiving amikacin). Every 3 months, vestibular tests, eye exams, and spirometry should be conducted, and every 6 months, physicians should order a CT, an audiogram, and an electrocardiogram.
Despite completing such a rigorous regimen, about half of patients experience reinfection because of their underlying host susceptibility. Genomic sequencing shows that these are new infections, not relapses, Dr. Prevots said. She also noted that gastroesophageal reflux disease is a significant risk factor because of chronic aspiration.
Dr. Daley outlined the newer treatments being studied. They include Arikayce, omadocycline, and bedaquiline. He added, “There’s a neutrophil elastase inhibitor trial that’s ongoing, a huge trial. There’s another one looking at basically eosinophilic inflammation.”
Other trials are in the offing, he said, all focusing on the inflammatory response – a development he described as exciting, because for the longest time, there were few if any NTM trials.
Dr. Cannella is also buoyed by the potential synergy of dual beta-lactam therapy with ceftaroline and a carbapenem for M abscessus infections, which are notoriously difficult to treat.
There are unique problems facing drug development for NTM because, for approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires the drug to “improve how a patient feels, functions, or survives.” NTM is associated with low mortality, so that “is off the table,” Dr. Daley explained. It’s hard to quantify improvement in function. The top two symptoms to measure are coughing and fatigue, he said. But both are difficult to measure, and some of the medicines worsen cough. Some research groups are now trying to validate patient-reported outcome instruments to satisfy the FDA’s requirements.
Tips for patients and physicians
The experts this news organization spoke to had very consistent recommendations for patients:
- NTM is resistant to chlorine and bromine, so tap water is a major source of infection. Patients should consider to greater than 130° F and using metal showerheads or bathing rather than showering.
- Good bathroom ventilation helps.
- Patients should consider using a water filter that filters entities less than 5 mcm in size – but not carbon filters, which concentrate the organisms.
- Humidifiers and hot tubs should be avoided.
- A good face mask, such as an N95, should be worn when gardening or repotting plants.
Dr. Olivier stressed that clinicians should familiarize themselves with the guidelines for diagnosing and treating NTM. In particular, clinicians should be aware that using azithromycin for bronchitis might cause resistance in NTM. “Macrolide resistance turns what may be a slowly progressive or bothersome infection into a lethal infection with a 1-year mortality of 35%.”
He concluded, “I would just urge that if the patient’s on their second or third Z-Pak within a year, it’s probably time to look for other causes of what might be happening.”
Dr. Cannella, Dr. Prevots, and Dr. Olivier reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cannella adds, “My views are not those of my employers, the U.S. Dept of VA, or the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.” Dr. Daley reports research grants/contracts with AN2, Beyond Air, Bugworks, Insmed, and Paratek and service on advisory boards or as a consultant for AN2, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Insmed, Matinas, Paratek, Pfizer, and Spero.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Living in coastal areas of Florida and California has great appeal for many, with the warm, sunny climate and nearby fresh water and salt water.
But, unknown to many, those balmy coasts also carry the risk of infection from nontuberculous (atypical) mycobacteria (NTM). Unlike its relative, tuberculosis, NTM is not transmitted from person to person, with one exception: patients with cystic fibrosis.
It is estimated that there were 181,000 people with NTM lung disease in the U.S. in 2015, and according to one study, the incidence is increasing by 8.2% annually among those aged 65 years and older. But NTM doesn’t only affect the elderly; it’s estimated that 31% of all NTM patients are younger than 65 years.
With the warm, moist soil and water, NTM is most commonly found in Florida, California, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast states. The incidence is somewhat lower in states along the Great Lakes. Other states are not without risk – but NTM is perhaps even more likely to be overlooked in these states by physicians because of a lack of awareness of the disease.
Rebecca Prevots, PhD, MPH, chief of the epidemiology and population studies unit of the Division of Intramural Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told this news organization that “why NTM is increasing is one of the most common questions” she gets, followed by whether it is due to climate change. “The short answer is, we don’t know.”
She suggests that the increase in diagnoses is due to a combination of increased awareness, host susceptibility, and perhaps environmental changes. One problem is that NTM is not a reportable disease. Also, public health resources have been decimated, both through funding cuts and loss of personnel. Dr. Prevots said, “It’s not just NTM surveillance that is important, but you can’t just make a certain condition reportable and expect to have good data without putting resources to it. ... Diseases are made reportable at the state level. There’s no mandated reporting up to CDC. So CDC is piloting reporting events through their emerging infectious program.”
Anthony Cannella, MD, assistant professor of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida (USF), is in the midst of NTM. He told this news organization that “there’s a huge circle with big old dots right over the center of the state.” He is adamant that “a soil-water survey has to occur. We need to know what the devil is happening.”
Florida legislators agreed to allocate $519,000 for NTM testing and surveillance in 2019. But Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vetoed that line item in the budget. WUSF (a National Public Radio affiliate on the USF campus) was unable to get a response to their query about this from the governor’s office.
Who gets NTM?
Mycobacterium avium complex primarily causes lung disease, which presents as two clinical syndromes.
“These infections don’t affect everyone,” Kenneth Olivier, MD, MPH, chief of pulmonary clinical medicine, Cardiovascular Pulmonary Branch of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, said in an interview. They affect “patients that have underlying genetic conditions that cause abnormalities in the airway clearance mechanisms, particularly cystic fibrosis and primary ciliary dyskinesia [and], to some extent, patients with COPD.”
The second group is “comprised mainly of postmenopausal women, many of whom have had no predisposing medical problems prior to onset of generally frequent throat clearing or chronic cough, which is what brings them to medical attention.” Dr. Olivier added that “many of these patients have a fairly unique appearance. They tend to have a high prevalence of curvature of the spine, scoliosis, indentation of the chest wall (pectus excavatum), and physical characteristics that overlap heritable connective tissue disorders like Marfan syndrome or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.”
Dr. Olivier pointed out a major problem in NTM diagnosis and treatment: “The guidelines-based approach to chronic cough generally calls for treating postnasal drip, airway reactivity, asthma type symptoms first empirically, before doing different diagnostic studies. That generally causes a delay in obtaining things like CT scan, where you can see the characteristic changes.”
Dr. Cannella added, “People are starting to become more aware of it. It’s kind of like pneumocystis back in the 80s. ... We’ve had patients who have had long periods of febrile neutropenia, and NTM wasn’t on the radar. Now we’ve picked up at least seven or eight.”
In addition to pulmonary infections, nosocomial outbreaks have occurred, owing to contaminated heater-cooler units, catheter infections, nail salons, or to medical tourism. These more commonly involve rapidly growing species, such as M abscessus, M chelonae, and M fortuitum. Clinicians should also be aware of skin infections from M marinum, which come from wounds from aquariums, fish, or shellfish. Incubation can occur over months, highlighting the importance of a detailed history and special cultures.
Diagnostics
The diagnosis of NTM is delayed for several reasons. One is the lack of awareness among clinicians about NTM and its risk factors, including hobbies such as gardening or working in places where dirt is aerosolized, such as on road crews, or even from hot tubs. A thorough history is critical.
Another is not recognizing the need for an acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture, which requires specialized media. Fortunately, NTM can be picked up on fungal cultures, Dr. Cannella noted. Clinicians are sometimes discouraged from culturing AFB because doing so may not be cost-effective. And many hospital laboratories are increasingly sending cultures to outside labs, and it can take days – sometimes even more than a week – to receive a report of results.
Charles Daley, MD, chief of the Division of Mycobacterial and Respiratory Infections at National Jewish Health, expressed his frustration about labs in an interview, saying diagnostics is “an important hole in the U.S., as our laboratories do not provide clinicians with the results that they need to make good decisions. Most laboratories in the U.S. just don’t speciate the organisms or subspeciate in the setting of abscesses. They don’t tell the clinician enough about the susceptibility, particularly whether there’s inducible resistance. As a clinician, you just don’t have the information to make the right decisions. ... We need to improve diagnostics in NTM. Everything is there and available. They just don’t want to do it because it increases the costs.”
Men tend to have fibrocavitary disease, which shows on ordinary chest x-rays, but CT scans are essential for women because women tend to have either nodular disease or bronchiectasis, which does not show on a plain film.
Treatment
A standard treatment for NTM lung disease includes three or four medications – clarithromycin or azithromycin, rifampin or rifabutin, ethambutol, and streptomycin or amikacin. In vitro resistance is important in predicting the clinical response to a macrolide or amikacin.
For bronchiectatic disease, National Jewish Hospital recommends treatment three times per week rather than daily therapy, as it is better tolerated. Azithromycin is preferred over clarithromycin. Amikacin should be added if there is cavitary or severe disease, and the macrolide is then given daily.
Dr. Olivier suggested that physicians stagger the initiation of those drugs to improve the tolerability of the difficult regimen. Generally, treatment is for 18 months – a year after sputum cultures become negative.
If therapy fails – that is, sputum is persistently positive at 6 months – amikacin liposomal inhalation solution (Arikayce) is likely to be added. Patients should be monitored with monthly safety labs, sputum cultures, and an audiogram (if receiving amikacin). Every 3 months, vestibular tests, eye exams, and spirometry should be conducted, and every 6 months, physicians should order a CT, an audiogram, and an electrocardiogram.
Despite completing such a rigorous regimen, about half of patients experience reinfection because of their underlying host susceptibility. Genomic sequencing shows that these are new infections, not relapses, Dr. Prevots said. She also noted that gastroesophageal reflux disease is a significant risk factor because of chronic aspiration.
Dr. Daley outlined the newer treatments being studied. They include Arikayce, omadocycline, and bedaquiline. He added, “There’s a neutrophil elastase inhibitor trial that’s ongoing, a huge trial. There’s another one looking at basically eosinophilic inflammation.”
Other trials are in the offing, he said, all focusing on the inflammatory response – a development he described as exciting, because for the longest time, there were few if any NTM trials.
Dr. Cannella is also buoyed by the potential synergy of dual beta-lactam therapy with ceftaroline and a carbapenem for M abscessus infections, which are notoriously difficult to treat.
There are unique problems facing drug development for NTM because, for approval, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires the drug to “improve how a patient feels, functions, or survives.” NTM is associated with low mortality, so that “is off the table,” Dr. Daley explained. It’s hard to quantify improvement in function. The top two symptoms to measure are coughing and fatigue, he said. But both are difficult to measure, and some of the medicines worsen cough. Some research groups are now trying to validate patient-reported outcome instruments to satisfy the FDA’s requirements.
Tips for patients and physicians
The experts this news organization spoke to had very consistent recommendations for patients:
- NTM is resistant to chlorine and bromine, so tap water is a major source of infection. Patients should consider to greater than 130° F and using metal showerheads or bathing rather than showering.
- Good bathroom ventilation helps.
- Patients should consider using a water filter that filters entities less than 5 mcm in size – but not carbon filters, which concentrate the organisms.
- Humidifiers and hot tubs should be avoided.
- A good face mask, such as an N95, should be worn when gardening or repotting plants.
Dr. Olivier stressed that clinicians should familiarize themselves with the guidelines for diagnosing and treating NTM. In particular, clinicians should be aware that using azithromycin for bronchitis might cause resistance in NTM. “Macrolide resistance turns what may be a slowly progressive or bothersome infection into a lethal infection with a 1-year mortality of 35%.”
He concluded, “I would just urge that if the patient’s on their second or third Z-Pak within a year, it’s probably time to look for other causes of what might be happening.”
Dr. Cannella, Dr. Prevots, and Dr. Olivier reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Cannella adds, “My views are not those of my employers, the U.S. Dept of VA, or the University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine.” Dr. Daley reports research grants/contracts with AN2, Beyond Air, Bugworks, Insmed, and Paratek and service on advisory boards or as a consultant for AN2, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Insmed, Matinas, Paratek, Pfizer, and Spero.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Long-term smell loss in COVID-19 tied to damage in the brain’s olfactory bulb
Patients with COVID-19, especially those with an altered sense of smell, have significantly more axon and microvasculopathy damage in the brain’s olfactory tissue versus non-COVID patients. These new findings from a postmortem study may explain long-term loss of smell in some patients with the virus.
“The striking axonal pathology in some cases indicates that olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 may be severe and permanent,” the investigators led by Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, write.
“The results show the damage caused by COVID can extend beyond the nasal cavity and involve the brain,” Dr. Ho told this news organization.
The study was published online April 11 in JAMA Neurology.
A more thorough investigation
Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, present with a wide range of symptoms. In addition to respiratory illnesses, they may exhibit various nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19.
One of the most prevalent of these is olfactory dysfunction. Research shows such dysfunction, including anosmia (loss of smell), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), and parosmia (smells that are distorted or unpleasant), affects 30%-60% of patients with COVID-19, said Dr. Ho.
However, these statistics come from research before the advent of the Omicron variant, which evidence suggests causes less smell loss in patients with COVID, she said.
Previous studies in this area mainly focused on the lining of the nasal cavity. “We wanted to go a step beyond to see how the olfactory bulb was affected by COVID infection,” said Dr. Ho.
The study included 23 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 ranging in age from 28 to 93 years at death (median 62 years, 60.9% men). It also included 14 controls who tested negative for COVID-19, ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (median 53.5 years, 50% men).
Researchers collected postmortem tissue from the brain, lung, and other organs and reviewed pertinent clinical information.
Most patients with COVID died of COVID pneumonia or related complications, although some died from a different cause. Some had an active COVID infection and others were “post infection, meaning they were in the recovery stage,” said Dr. Ho.
Six patients with COVID-19 and eight controls had significant brain pathology.
Compared with controls, those with COVID-19 showed significantly worse olfactory axonal damage. The mean axon pathology score (range 1-3 with 3 the worst) was 1.921 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.198 in controls (95% confidence interval, 0.444-1.002; P < .001).
The mean axon density in the lateral olfactory tract was significantly less in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (P = .002), indicating a 23% loss of olfactory axons in the COVID group.
Comparing COVID patients with and without reported loss of smell, researchers found those with an altered sense of smell had significantly more severe olfactory axon pathology.
Vascular damage
Patients with COVID also had worse vascular damage. The mean microvasculopathy score (range, 1-3) was 1.907 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.405 in controls (95% CI, 0.259-0.745; P < .001).
There was no evidence of the virus in the olfactory tissue of most patients, suggesting the olfactory pathology was likely caused by vascular damage, said Dr. Ho.
What’s unique about SARS-CoV-2 is that, although it’s a respiratory virus, it’s capable of infecting endothelial cells lining vessels.
“Other respiratory viruses only attack the airways and won’t attack vessels, but vascular damage has been seen in the heart and lung in COVID patients, and our study showed the same findings in the olfactory bulb,” Dr. Ho explained.
The researchers divided patients with COVID by infection severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Interestingly, those with the most severe olfactory pathology were the ones with milder infections, said Dr. Ho.
She noted other studies have reported patients with mild infection are more likely to lose the sense of smell than those with severe infection, but she’s skeptical about this finding.
“Patients with severe COVID are usually hospitalized and intubated, so it’s hard to get them to tell you whether they’ve lost smell or not; they have other more important issues to deal with like respiratory failure,” said Dr. Ho.
Advanced age is associated with neuropathologic changes, such as tau deposits, so the researchers conducted an analysis factoring in age-related brain changes. They found a COVID-19 diagnosis remained associated with increased axonal pathology, reduced axonal density, and increased vascular pathology.
“This means that the COVID patients had more severe olfactory pathology not just because they had more tau pathology,” Dr. Ho added.
New guidance for patients
Commenting for this news organization, Davangere P. Devanand, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and director of geriatric psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings indicate the damage from COVID in the olfactory pathway may not be reversible as was previously thought.
“This has been suggested before as a possibility, but the autopsy findings in this case series indicate clearly that there may be permanent damage,” he said.
The results highlight the need to monitor patients with COVID for a smell deficit, said Dr. Devanand.
“Assuring patients of a full recovery in smell and taste may not be sound advice, although recovery does occur in many patients,” he added.
He praised the study design, especially the blinding of raters, but noted a number of weaknesses, including the small sample size and the age and gender discrepancies between the groups.
Another possible limitation was inclusion of patients with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body pathology, said Dr. Devanand.
“These patients typically already have pathology in the olfactory pathways, which means we don’t know if it was COVID or the underlying brain pathology contributing to smell difficulties in these patients,” he said.
He noted that, unlike deceased COVID cases in the study, patients who survive COVID may not experience axonal and microvascular injury in olfactory neurons and pathways and their sense of smell may make a full return.
Dr. Devanand said he would have liked more detailed information on the clinical history and course of study participants and whether these factors affected the pathology findings.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Ho and Dr. Devanand have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with COVID-19, especially those with an altered sense of smell, have significantly more axon and microvasculopathy damage in the brain’s olfactory tissue versus non-COVID patients. These new findings from a postmortem study may explain long-term loss of smell in some patients with the virus.
“The striking axonal pathology in some cases indicates that olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 may be severe and permanent,” the investigators led by Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, write.
“The results show the damage caused by COVID can extend beyond the nasal cavity and involve the brain,” Dr. Ho told this news organization.
The study was published online April 11 in JAMA Neurology.
A more thorough investigation
Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, present with a wide range of symptoms. In addition to respiratory illnesses, they may exhibit various nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19.
One of the most prevalent of these is olfactory dysfunction. Research shows such dysfunction, including anosmia (loss of smell), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), and parosmia (smells that are distorted or unpleasant), affects 30%-60% of patients with COVID-19, said Dr. Ho.
However, these statistics come from research before the advent of the Omicron variant, which evidence suggests causes less smell loss in patients with COVID, she said.
Previous studies in this area mainly focused on the lining of the nasal cavity. “We wanted to go a step beyond to see how the olfactory bulb was affected by COVID infection,” said Dr. Ho.
The study included 23 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 ranging in age from 28 to 93 years at death (median 62 years, 60.9% men). It also included 14 controls who tested negative for COVID-19, ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (median 53.5 years, 50% men).
Researchers collected postmortem tissue from the brain, lung, and other organs and reviewed pertinent clinical information.
Most patients with COVID died of COVID pneumonia or related complications, although some died from a different cause. Some had an active COVID infection and others were “post infection, meaning they were in the recovery stage,” said Dr. Ho.
Six patients with COVID-19 and eight controls had significant brain pathology.
Compared with controls, those with COVID-19 showed significantly worse olfactory axonal damage. The mean axon pathology score (range 1-3 with 3 the worst) was 1.921 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.198 in controls (95% confidence interval, 0.444-1.002; P < .001).
The mean axon density in the lateral olfactory tract was significantly less in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (P = .002), indicating a 23% loss of olfactory axons in the COVID group.
Comparing COVID patients with and without reported loss of smell, researchers found those with an altered sense of smell had significantly more severe olfactory axon pathology.
Vascular damage
Patients with COVID also had worse vascular damage. The mean microvasculopathy score (range, 1-3) was 1.907 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.405 in controls (95% CI, 0.259-0.745; P < .001).
There was no evidence of the virus in the olfactory tissue of most patients, suggesting the olfactory pathology was likely caused by vascular damage, said Dr. Ho.
What’s unique about SARS-CoV-2 is that, although it’s a respiratory virus, it’s capable of infecting endothelial cells lining vessels.
“Other respiratory viruses only attack the airways and won’t attack vessels, but vascular damage has been seen in the heart and lung in COVID patients, and our study showed the same findings in the olfactory bulb,” Dr. Ho explained.
The researchers divided patients with COVID by infection severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Interestingly, those with the most severe olfactory pathology were the ones with milder infections, said Dr. Ho.
She noted other studies have reported patients with mild infection are more likely to lose the sense of smell than those with severe infection, but she’s skeptical about this finding.
“Patients with severe COVID are usually hospitalized and intubated, so it’s hard to get them to tell you whether they’ve lost smell or not; they have other more important issues to deal with like respiratory failure,” said Dr. Ho.
Advanced age is associated with neuropathologic changes, such as tau deposits, so the researchers conducted an analysis factoring in age-related brain changes. They found a COVID-19 diagnosis remained associated with increased axonal pathology, reduced axonal density, and increased vascular pathology.
“This means that the COVID patients had more severe olfactory pathology not just because they had more tau pathology,” Dr. Ho added.
New guidance for patients
Commenting for this news organization, Davangere P. Devanand, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and director of geriatric psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings indicate the damage from COVID in the olfactory pathway may not be reversible as was previously thought.
“This has been suggested before as a possibility, but the autopsy findings in this case series indicate clearly that there may be permanent damage,” he said.
The results highlight the need to monitor patients with COVID for a smell deficit, said Dr. Devanand.
“Assuring patients of a full recovery in smell and taste may not be sound advice, although recovery does occur in many patients,” he added.
He praised the study design, especially the blinding of raters, but noted a number of weaknesses, including the small sample size and the age and gender discrepancies between the groups.
Another possible limitation was inclusion of patients with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body pathology, said Dr. Devanand.
“These patients typically already have pathology in the olfactory pathways, which means we don’t know if it was COVID or the underlying brain pathology contributing to smell difficulties in these patients,” he said.
He noted that, unlike deceased COVID cases in the study, patients who survive COVID may not experience axonal and microvascular injury in olfactory neurons and pathways and their sense of smell may make a full return.
Dr. Devanand said he would have liked more detailed information on the clinical history and course of study participants and whether these factors affected the pathology findings.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Ho and Dr. Devanand have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with COVID-19, especially those with an altered sense of smell, have significantly more axon and microvasculopathy damage in the brain’s olfactory tissue versus non-COVID patients. These new findings from a postmortem study may explain long-term loss of smell in some patients with the virus.
“The striking axonal pathology in some cases indicates that olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 may be severe and permanent,” the investigators led by Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, write.
“The results show the damage caused by COVID can extend beyond the nasal cavity and involve the brain,” Dr. Ho told this news organization.
The study was published online April 11 in JAMA Neurology.
A more thorough investigation
Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, present with a wide range of symptoms. In addition to respiratory illnesses, they may exhibit various nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19.
One of the most prevalent of these is olfactory dysfunction. Research shows such dysfunction, including anosmia (loss of smell), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), and parosmia (smells that are distorted or unpleasant), affects 30%-60% of patients with COVID-19, said Dr. Ho.
However, these statistics come from research before the advent of the Omicron variant, which evidence suggests causes less smell loss in patients with COVID, she said.
Previous studies in this area mainly focused on the lining of the nasal cavity. “We wanted to go a step beyond to see how the olfactory bulb was affected by COVID infection,” said Dr. Ho.
The study included 23 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 ranging in age from 28 to 93 years at death (median 62 years, 60.9% men). It also included 14 controls who tested negative for COVID-19, ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (median 53.5 years, 50% men).
Researchers collected postmortem tissue from the brain, lung, and other organs and reviewed pertinent clinical information.
Most patients with COVID died of COVID pneumonia or related complications, although some died from a different cause. Some had an active COVID infection and others were “post infection, meaning they were in the recovery stage,” said Dr. Ho.
Six patients with COVID-19 and eight controls had significant brain pathology.
Compared with controls, those with COVID-19 showed significantly worse olfactory axonal damage. The mean axon pathology score (range 1-3 with 3 the worst) was 1.921 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.198 in controls (95% confidence interval, 0.444-1.002; P < .001).
The mean axon density in the lateral olfactory tract was significantly less in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (P = .002), indicating a 23% loss of olfactory axons in the COVID group.
Comparing COVID patients with and without reported loss of smell, researchers found those with an altered sense of smell had significantly more severe olfactory axon pathology.
Vascular damage
Patients with COVID also had worse vascular damage. The mean microvasculopathy score (range, 1-3) was 1.907 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.405 in controls (95% CI, 0.259-0.745; P < .001).
There was no evidence of the virus in the olfactory tissue of most patients, suggesting the olfactory pathology was likely caused by vascular damage, said Dr. Ho.
What’s unique about SARS-CoV-2 is that, although it’s a respiratory virus, it’s capable of infecting endothelial cells lining vessels.
“Other respiratory viruses only attack the airways and won’t attack vessels, but vascular damage has been seen in the heart and lung in COVID patients, and our study showed the same findings in the olfactory bulb,” Dr. Ho explained.
The researchers divided patients with COVID by infection severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Interestingly, those with the most severe olfactory pathology were the ones with milder infections, said Dr. Ho.
She noted other studies have reported patients with mild infection are more likely to lose the sense of smell than those with severe infection, but she’s skeptical about this finding.
“Patients with severe COVID are usually hospitalized and intubated, so it’s hard to get them to tell you whether they’ve lost smell or not; they have other more important issues to deal with like respiratory failure,” said Dr. Ho.
Advanced age is associated with neuropathologic changes, such as tau deposits, so the researchers conducted an analysis factoring in age-related brain changes. They found a COVID-19 diagnosis remained associated with increased axonal pathology, reduced axonal density, and increased vascular pathology.
“This means that the COVID patients had more severe olfactory pathology not just because they had more tau pathology,” Dr. Ho added.
New guidance for patients
Commenting for this news organization, Davangere P. Devanand, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and director of geriatric psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings indicate the damage from COVID in the olfactory pathway may not be reversible as was previously thought.
“This has been suggested before as a possibility, but the autopsy findings in this case series indicate clearly that there may be permanent damage,” he said.
The results highlight the need to monitor patients with COVID for a smell deficit, said Dr. Devanand.
“Assuring patients of a full recovery in smell and taste may not be sound advice, although recovery does occur in many patients,” he added.
He praised the study design, especially the blinding of raters, but noted a number of weaknesses, including the small sample size and the age and gender discrepancies between the groups.
Another possible limitation was inclusion of patients with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body pathology, said Dr. Devanand.
“These patients typically already have pathology in the olfactory pathways, which means we don’t know if it was COVID or the underlying brain pathology contributing to smell difficulties in these patients,” he said.
He noted that, unlike deceased COVID cases in the study, patients who survive COVID may not experience axonal and microvascular injury in olfactory neurons and pathways and their sense of smell may make a full return.
Dr. Devanand said he would have liked more detailed information on the clinical history and course of study participants and whether these factors affected the pathology findings.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Ho and Dr. Devanand have reported no relevant financial disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NEUROLOGY