CHEST Physician

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

The Centers for Disease Controls and Prevention has released a draft update of its current Clinical Practice Guidelines for Prescribing Opioids for pain management and is asking for public comment before moving forward.

The last guidance on this topic was released in 2016 and, among other things, noted that clinicians should be cautious when considering increasing dosage of opioids to 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day and should avoid increasing to a dose of 90 or more MME/day. It also noted that 3 days or less “will often be sufficient” regarding the quantity of lowest effective dose of immediate-release opioids to be prescribed for acute pain – and that more than 7 days “will rarely be needed.”

In the new report from the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), those dose limits have been replaced with the suggestion that clinicians use their best judgement – albeit still urging conservative use and even the possibility of nonopioid treatments.

The updated recommendations are now open for public comment via the Federal Register’s website through April 11.

“This comment period provides another critical opportunity for diverse audiences to offer their perspective on the draft clinical practice guideline,” Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, DrPH, acting director for the NCIPC, said in a release.

“We want to hear many voices from the public, including people living with pain and health care providers who help their patients manage pain,” Dr. Jones added.

Outpatient recommendations

The CDC noted that the updated guidance provides “evidence-based recommendations” for treatment of adults with acute, subacute, or chronic pain. It does not include guidance for managing pain related to sickle cell disease, cancer, or palliative care.

It is aimed at primary care clinicians and others who manage pain in an outpatient setting, including in dental and postsurgical practices and for those discharging patients from emergency departments. It does not apply to inpatient care.

The draft guidance includes 12 recommendations focused on four key areas:

• Helping clinicians determine whether or not to initiate opioid treatment for pain
• Opioid selection and dosage
• Duration of use and follow-up
• Assessing risk and addressing potential harms from use

The overall aim “is to ensure people have access to safe, accessible, and effective pain management that improves their function and quality of life while illuminating and reducing risks associated with prescription opioids and ultimately reducing the consequences of prescription opioid misuse and overdose,” the CDC notes.

In addition, the guidance itself “is intended to be a clinical tool to improve communication between providers and patients and empower them to make informed, patient-centered decisions,” the agency said in a press release.

It added that the new recommendations “are not intended to be applied as inflexible standards of care.” Rather, it is intended as a guide to support health care providers in their clinical decisionmaking as they provide individualized patient care.

Patients, caregivers, and providers are invited to submit comments over the next 60 days through the Federal Register docket.

“It is vitally important to CDC that we receive, process, and understand public feedback during the guideline update process,” the agency noted.

“The ultimate goal of this clinical practice guideline is to help people set and achieve personal goals to reduce their pain and improve their function and quality of life. Getting feedback from the public is essential to achieving this goal,” Dr. Jones said.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

With the Omicron variant now accounting for almost 100% of COVID-19 cases in the United States, the 7-day average of daily COVID-related deaths hit 2,600 recently, the highest rate in about a year, the Washington Post reported.

That’s higher than the approximately 2,000 daily deaths in fall 2021 during the Delta surge, but less than the 3,000 daily deaths in January 2021, when COVID vaccines were not widely available, the Post’s data analysis said.

The Omicron variant generally causes less severe disease than other strains of COVID, but because it is so transmissible, Omicron is infecting higher raw numbers of people that previous strains.

“Even if on a per-case basis fewer people develop severe illness and die, when you apply a small percentage to a very large number, you get a substantial number,” Jennifer Nuzzo, DrPH, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Post.

The unvaccinated, people over 75, and people with underlying medical conditions are the groups most endangered by Omicron, the Post said. About half of the deaths in January 2022 were among people over 75, compared with about a third in September 2021 during the Delta surge.

The age trend is seen in Florida, said Jason Salemi, PhD, an epidemiologist at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He told the Post that seniors accounted for about 85% of deaths in the winter of 2020-2021, about 60% during the Delta surge, and about 80% now during the Omicron surge.

The uptick in senior deaths may have occurred because seniors who got vaccinated in early 2021 didn’t get boosted ahead of the Omicron surge, he said.

“Omicron may be less severe for younger people, but it will still find vulnerable seniors in our community,” Dr. Salemi said. “That vaccination back in February isn’t as effective now if you aren’t boosted.”

CDC data shows that 95% of people in the United States over 65 have gotten at least one dose of vaccine, 88.5% are fully vaccinated, but only 62.5% have gotten a booster dose.

The COVID death rate is highest in the Midwest. During the last 2 months, Chicago reported more than 1,000 COVID deaths, almost as much as the December 2020 peak, The Post said. Minorities have been hit hard. About third of the city’s population is Black but about half the COVID victims are Black, the Post said.

“It’s been challenging because it goes up against the national narrative that omicron is nothing dangerous,” said Allison Arwady, commissioner of the Chicago Department of Public Health.

In a Feb. 9 news briefing at the White House, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, provided slightly different statistics on COVID-related deaths. She said that the 7-day average of daily deaths was about 2,400, up 3% from the previous week.

The 7-day daily average of cases is about 247,300 cases per day, down 44% from the previous week, she said. Hospital admissions are about 13,000 daily, down 25% from the previous week.

Dr. Walensky said the Omicron variant now accounts for almost 100% of COVID viruses circulating in the United States.

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

A small study of deceased nonvaccinated men who died of COVID-19 complications suggests the testes may be a sanctuary for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, raising questions about potential consequences for reproductive health among those infected.

The study, published online Feb. 8 on the preprint server MedRxiv, found that “patients who become critically ill exhibit severe damages and may harbor the active virus in testes,” which can “serve as a viral sanctuary.”

Guilherme M.J. Costa, PhD, a professor at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, led the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“A critical point of this article is that the virus was active in the patient’s testis after a long period of infection, indicating that the testis is able to maintain the viable virus for extended periods. It happens for many kinds of viruses in this genital organ,” Dr. Costa said in an interview.

Brian Keith McNeil, MD, vice-chair, department of urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York, told this news organization that the topic of COVID-19 and fertility has been discussed but data are sparse on the subject.

“The question this raises is whether or not COVID can live in the testes, and based on this it seems it can,” he said, adding that it also raises the question of whether COVID-19 could be transmitted through semen. “It leads one to wonder whether this could have a long-term impact on fertility in men and women.”

The authors wrote that deep testicular evaluation of patients who have been infected with COVID-19 is critical because the testes have one of the highest expressions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which play a large role in entrance of the virus into cells.

“A direct influence of SARS-CoV-2 in testicular cells might deregulate ACE2, elevating the levels of angiotensin II, a potent pro-inflammatory and angiogenic peptide,” the authors wrote.
 

Sperm-producing cells infected

In 2021, the researchers enrolled 11 male patients deceased from COVID-19 complications; none had received a vaccine. Infection was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed during their hospital stay. All 11 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe pulmonary symptoms.

All but one of the patients had children and none had scrotal symptoms or complaints during their time in the hospital. Their clinical histories revealed no testicular disorders.

Dr. Costa said they found that detecting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in testes is difficult in a conventional RT-PCR test.

Therefore, “We modified the protocol of the RT-PCR and used nanosensors. We observed that SARS-CoV-2 has a huge tropism for the testes in this context,” he said.

He said the team performed stainings and “discovered that macrophages and germ cells are highly infected.”

That’s important, he said, because an immune cell, which is supposed to fight the virus, is infected in the tissue. Also, the germ cell, responsible for sperm production, is infected.

“This reopens the worries about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, as other authors mentioned,” he said.
 

New findings

The team also found that the testes are a good place for viral replication.

The authors say they are the first to show:

• The longer the severe condition, the lower the number of surviving germ cells.
• There was fluctuation in several essential testicular genes.
• The intratesticular testosterone levels are 30 times reduced in the testes of COVID-19 patients.

The control group was composed of six patients who had undergone testicle removal after prostate cancer was suspected. Collection of both testicles from the test group was performed within 3 hours of death after a family member signed an informed consent document.

Recent research on semen demonstrates that patients who recovered from COVID-19 reestablish their sperm quality after 3 months of infection.

That study, in Fertility and Sterility, found that sperm quality was initially reduced for months in some men after recovery from COVID-19.

The team studied semen samples from 120 Belgian men (mean age, 35 years) at an average 52 days after their last COVID-19 symptoms. The semen was not found to be infectious.

But among 35 men who provided samples within a month after infection, reductions in sperm motility were evident in 60% and sperm counts were reduced in 37%, according to the report.
 

Testicular damage

The results [of the Costa et al. paper] emphasize the importance of testicular damage in severe COVID-19,” Rafael Kroon Campos, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of microbiology & immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said in an interview.

He noted that other viruses have also been shown to infect or otherwise cause testicular damage or orchitis, such as Zika, Ebola, and the closely related SARS-CoV-1. Sexual transmission has been documented for Zika and Ebola viruses.

Dr. Campos said with SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear whether sexual transmission plays a role.

“Some reports found evidence of viral RNA in semen, but these were rare occurrences. The study by Costa and colleagues used a combination of sensitive techniques and they were able to detect a small amount of viral RNA and viral protein in the testicular tissue of the deceased patients, as well as show viral factories indicating replication of the virus by electron microscopy,” he said.

Dr. Campos said the findings are particularly important and concerning because of the large number of severe cases of COVID-19.

“It is critical to continue to investigate the impact of the disease in testes, including the impact of different variants of concern on testicular damage,” he said.

Dr. McNeil and Dr. Campos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small study of deceased nonvaccinated men who died of COVID-19 complications suggests the testes may be a sanctuary for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, raising questions about potential consequences for reproductive health among those infected.

The study, published online Feb. 8 on the preprint server MedRxiv, found that “patients who become critically ill exhibit severe damages and may harbor the active virus in testes,” which can “serve as a viral sanctuary.”

Guilherme M.J. Costa, PhD, a professor at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, led the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“A critical point of this article is that the virus was active in the patient’s testis after a long period of infection, indicating that the testis is able to maintain the viable virus for extended periods. It happens for many kinds of viruses in this genital organ,” Dr. Costa said in an interview.

Brian Keith McNeil, MD, vice-chair, department of urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York, told this news organization that the topic of COVID-19 and fertility has been discussed but data are sparse on the subject.

“The question this raises is whether or not COVID can live in the testes, and based on this it seems it can,” he said, adding that it also raises the question of whether COVID-19 could be transmitted through semen. “It leads one to wonder whether this could have a long-term impact on fertility in men and women.”

The authors wrote that deep testicular evaluation of patients who have been infected with COVID-19 is critical because the testes have one of the highest expressions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which play a large role in entrance of the virus into cells.

“A direct influence of SARS-CoV-2 in testicular cells might deregulate ACE2, elevating the levels of angiotensin II, a potent pro-inflammatory and angiogenic peptide,” the authors wrote.
 

Sperm-producing cells infected

In 2021, the researchers enrolled 11 male patients deceased from COVID-19 complications; none had received a vaccine. Infection was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed during their hospital stay. All 11 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe pulmonary symptoms.

All but one of the patients had children and none had scrotal symptoms or complaints during their time in the hospital. Their clinical histories revealed no testicular disorders.

Dr. Costa said they found that detecting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in testes is difficult in a conventional RT-PCR test.

Therefore, “We modified the protocol of the RT-PCR and used nanosensors. We observed that SARS-CoV-2 has a huge tropism for the testes in this context,” he said.

He said the team performed stainings and “discovered that macrophages and germ cells are highly infected.”

That’s important, he said, because an immune cell, which is supposed to fight the virus, is infected in the tissue. Also, the germ cell, responsible for sperm production, is infected.

“This reopens the worries about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, as other authors mentioned,” he said.
 

New findings

The team also found that the testes are a good place for viral replication.

The authors say they are the first to show:

• The longer the severe condition, the lower the number of surviving germ cells.
• There was fluctuation in several essential testicular genes.
• The intratesticular testosterone levels are 30 times reduced in the testes of COVID-19 patients.

The control group was composed of six patients who had undergone testicle removal after prostate cancer was suspected. Collection of both testicles from the test group was performed within 3 hours of death after a family member signed an informed consent document.

Recent research on semen demonstrates that patients who recovered from COVID-19 reestablish their sperm quality after 3 months of infection.

That study, in Fertility and Sterility, found that sperm quality was initially reduced for months in some men after recovery from COVID-19.

The team studied semen samples from 120 Belgian men (mean age, 35 years) at an average 52 days after their last COVID-19 symptoms. The semen was not found to be infectious.

But among 35 men who provided samples within a month after infection, reductions in sperm motility were evident in 60% and sperm counts were reduced in 37%, according to the report.
 

Testicular damage

The results [of the Costa et al. paper] emphasize the importance of testicular damage in severe COVID-19,” Rafael Kroon Campos, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of microbiology & immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said in an interview.

He noted that other viruses have also been shown to infect or otherwise cause testicular damage or orchitis, such as Zika, Ebola, and the closely related SARS-CoV-1. Sexual transmission has been documented for Zika and Ebola viruses.

Dr. Campos said with SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear whether sexual transmission plays a role.

“Some reports found evidence of viral RNA in semen, but these were rare occurrences. The study by Costa and colleagues used a combination of sensitive techniques and they were able to detect a small amount of viral RNA and viral protein in the testicular tissue of the deceased patients, as well as show viral factories indicating replication of the virus by electron microscopy,” he said.

Dr. Campos said the findings are particularly important and concerning because of the large number of severe cases of COVID-19.

“It is critical to continue to investigate the impact of the disease in testes, including the impact of different variants of concern on testicular damage,” he said.

Dr. McNeil and Dr. Campos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A small study of deceased nonvaccinated men who died of COVID-19 complications suggests the testes may be a sanctuary for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, raising questions about potential consequences for reproductive health among those infected.

The study, published online Feb. 8 on the preprint server MedRxiv, found that “patients who become critically ill exhibit severe damages and may harbor the active virus in testes,” which can “serve as a viral sanctuary.”

Guilherme M.J. Costa, PhD, a professor at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, led the study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

“A critical point of this article is that the virus was active in the patient’s testis after a long period of infection, indicating that the testis is able to maintain the viable virus for extended periods. It happens for many kinds of viruses in this genital organ,” Dr. Costa said in an interview.

Brian Keith McNeil, MD, vice-chair, department of urology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in New York, told this news organization that the topic of COVID-19 and fertility has been discussed but data are sparse on the subject.

“The question this raises is whether or not COVID can live in the testes, and based on this it seems it can,” he said, adding that it also raises the question of whether COVID-19 could be transmitted through semen. “It leads one to wonder whether this could have a long-term impact on fertility in men and women.”

The authors wrote that deep testicular evaluation of patients who have been infected with COVID-19 is critical because the testes have one of the highest expressions of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, which play a large role in entrance of the virus into cells.

“A direct influence of SARS-CoV-2 in testicular cells might deregulate ACE2, elevating the levels of angiotensin II, a potent pro-inflammatory and angiogenic peptide,” the authors wrote.
 

Sperm-producing cells infected

In 2021, the researchers enrolled 11 male patients deceased from COVID-19 complications; none had received a vaccine. Infection was confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) performed during their hospital stay. All 11 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe pulmonary symptoms.

All but one of the patients had children and none had scrotal symptoms or complaints during their time in the hospital. Their clinical histories revealed no testicular disorders.

Dr. Costa said they found that detecting SARS-CoV-2 mRNA in testes is difficult in a conventional RT-PCR test.

Therefore, “We modified the protocol of the RT-PCR and used nanosensors. We observed that SARS-CoV-2 has a huge tropism for the testes in this context,” he said.

He said the team performed stainings and “discovered that macrophages and germ cells are highly infected.”

That’s important, he said, because an immune cell, which is supposed to fight the virus, is infected in the tissue. Also, the germ cell, responsible for sperm production, is infected.

“This reopens the worries about the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in semen, as other authors mentioned,” he said.
 

New findings

The team also found that the testes are a good place for viral replication.

The authors say they are the first to show:

• The longer the severe condition, the lower the number of surviving germ cells.
• There was fluctuation in several essential testicular genes.
• The intratesticular testosterone levels are 30 times reduced in the testes of COVID-19 patients.

The control group was composed of six patients who had undergone testicle removal after prostate cancer was suspected. Collection of both testicles from the test group was performed within 3 hours of death after a family member signed an informed consent document.

Recent research on semen demonstrates that patients who recovered from COVID-19 reestablish their sperm quality after 3 months of infection.

That study, in Fertility and Sterility, found that sperm quality was initially reduced for months in some men after recovery from COVID-19.

The team studied semen samples from 120 Belgian men (mean age, 35 years) at an average 52 days after their last COVID-19 symptoms. The semen was not found to be infectious.

But among 35 men who provided samples within a month after infection, reductions in sperm motility were evident in 60% and sperm counts were reduced in 37%, according to the report.
 

Testicular damage

The results [of the Costa et al. paper] emphasize the importance of testicular damage in severe COVID-19,” Rafael Kroon Campos, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of microbiology & immunology at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, said in an interview.

He noted that other viruses have also been shown to infect or otherwise cause testicular damage or orchitis, such as Zika, Ebola, and the closely related SARS-CoV-1. Sexual transmission has been documented for Zika and Ebola viruses.

Dr. Campos said with SARS-CoV-2, it is unclear whether sexual transmission plays a role.

“Some reports found evidence of viral RNA in semen, but these were rare occurrences. The study by Costa and colleagues used a combination of sensitive techniques and they were able to detect a small amount of viral RNA and viral protein in the testicular tissue of the deceased patients, as well as show viral factories indicating replication of the virus by electron microscopy,” he said.

Dr. Campos said the findings are particularly important and concerning because of the large number of severe cases of COVID-19.

“It is critical to continue to investigate the impact of the disease in testes, including the impact of different variants of concern on testicular damage,” he said.

Dr. McNeil and Dr. Campos have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) has refined its cardiogenic shock (CS) classification system based on the literature and clinician feedback from real-world experience.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“In the 2 years since publication in 2019, the initial definition has been broadly accepted and eagerly appreciated, allowing a very intuitive way to stage these patients for better communication, triage, and treatment,” Srihari S. Naidu, MD, professor of medicine, New York Medical College, Valhalla, said in an interview.

“But the initial definition was based on consensus opinion, with a lack of real fundamental data on segregating patients into different stages. Now we have a lot more data utilizing the definition, and it became very clear that there were a couple of limitations in the initial definition,” Dr. Naidu explained.

The refined CS classification system – authored by Dr. Naidu and a multidisciplinary panel of experts from specialties that included cardiac critical care, interventional cardiology, surgery, nursing, emergency medicine, and heart failure – was published online Jan. 31 in the Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, with simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.  

It maintains the five-stage pyramid of CS, starting with “at risk” and moving through “beginning,” “classic,” “deteriorating,” and “extremis” but now includes gradations of severity within each stage and pathways by which patients progress or recover.

“Progression across the SCAI shock stage continuum is a dynamic process, incorporating new information as available, and patient trajectories are important both for communication among clinicians and for decisionmaking regarding the next level of care and therapeutics,” the panel writes.

The second iteration adds a streamlined table incorporating commonly seen variables, based on lessons learned from validation studies and clinician experience.

“While keeping the same initial framework of looking at the three components of staging – the physical exam, the biochemical markers, and hemodynamics – we’ve made it very clear that there are some factors in each of these that are most typically seen. And then there are other factors that are consistent with that stage but don’t necessarily have to be seen, ... are not typically seen in that stage, or [are] not always present at that stage,” Dr. Naidu told this news organization.

The refined CS classification system provides more granularity on cardiac arrest as a risk modifier, which now excludes very brief episodes with rapid response to defibrillation and comprises only those patients who have impaired mental status with unknown neurologic recovery status after cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Lactate level and thresholds have been highlighted to detect hypoperfusion but may be dissociated from hemodynamics in cases such as chronic heart failure.

In addition, patients may have other manifestations of end-organ hypoperfusion with a normal lactate level, and there are also important causes of an elevated lactate level other than shock.

The revision proposes a three-axis model of CS evaluation and prognostication that integrates shock severity, clinical phenotype, and risk modifiers as distinct elements that should be applied to individualize patient management.

The revision also places more emphasis on the trajectory of the patient with CS through hospitalization, including a “hub and spoke” model for transfer of higher-risk patients, including those with a deteriorating SCAI shock stage.

“It is our desire and belief that the revised SCAI SHOCK stage classification system will enhance both clinical care and CS research trial design,” the panel writes.

This statement has been endorsed by the American College of Cardiology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, Society of Critical Care Medicine, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Naidu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A complete list of author disclosures is available with the original article.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People who have had COVID-19 have an increased risk for, and 12-month burden of, cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is substantial and spans an array of cardiovascular disorders, a deep dive into federal data suggests.

“I went into this thinking that this is most likely happening in people to start with who have a higher risk of cardiovascular disorders, smokers, people with high BMI, diabetes, but what we found is something different,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, said in an interview. “It’s evident in people at high risk, but it was also as clear as the sun even in people who have no cardiovascular risk whatsoever.”

Rates were increased in younger adults, never smokers, White and Black people, and males and females, he said. “So the risk confirmed by the SARS-CoV-2 virus seems to spare almost no one.”

Although cardiovascular outcomes increased with the severity of the acute infection, the excess risks and burdens were also evident in those who never required hospitalization, a group that represents the majority of people with COVID-19, observed Dr. Al-Aly, who directs the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System.

“This study is very important because it underscores not just the acute cardiovascular risk associated with COVID but the increased risk of chronic cardiovascular outcomes as well,” cardiologist C. Michael Gibson, MD, professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “Given the number of patients in the U.S. who have been infected with COVID, this could represent a significant chronic burden on the health care system, particularly as health care professionals leave the profession.”

For the study, the investigators used national VA databases to build a cohort of 153,760 veterans who were alive 30 days after testing positive for COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and January 2021. They were compared with a contemporary cohort of 5.6 million veterans with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and a historical cohort of 5.8 million veterans using the system in 2017 prior to the pandemic. Median follow-up was 347, 348, and 347 days, respectively.

As reported in Nature Medicine, the risk for a major adverse cardiovascular event, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, was 4% higher in people who had been infected with COVID-19 than in those who had not.

“People say 4% is small, but actually it’s really, really big if you think about it in the context of the huge number of people who have had COVID-19 in the United States, and also globally,” Dr. Al-Aly said.

Compared with the contemporary control group, people who had COVID-19 had an increased risk (hazard ratio [HR]) and burden per 1,000 people at 1 year for the following cardiovascular outcomes:

• Stroke: HR, 1.52; burden, 4.03
• Transient ischemic attack: HR, 1.49; burden, 1.84
• Dysrhythmias: HR, 1.69; burden, 19.86
• Ischemic heart disease: HR, 1.66; burden, 7.28
• Heart failure: HR, 1.72; burden, 11.61
• Nonischemic cardiomyopathy: HR, 1.62; burden 3.56
• Pulmonary embolism: HR, 2.93; burden, 5.47
• Deep vein thrombosis: HR, 2.09; burden, 4.18
• Pericarditis: HR, 1.85, burden, 0.98
• Myocarditis: HR, 5.38; burden, 0.31

Recent reports have raised concerns about an association between COVID-19 vaccines and myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly in young males. Although very few of the participants were vaccinated prior to becoming infected, as vaccines were not yet widely available, the researchers performed two analyses censoring participants at the time of the first dose of any COVID-19 vaccine and adjusting for vaccination as a time-varying covariate.

The absolute numbers of myocarditis and pericarditis were still higher than the contemporary and historical cohorts. These numbers are much larger than those reported for myocarditis after vaccines, which are generally around 40 cases per 1 million people, observed Dr. Al-Aly.

The overall results were also consistent when compared with the historical control subjects.

“What we’re seeing in our report and others is that SARS-CoV-2 can leave a sort of scar or imprint on people, and some of these conditions are likely chronic conditions,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So you’re going to have a generation of people who will bear the scar of COVID for their lifetime and I think that requires recognition and attention, so we’re aware of the magnitude of the problem and prepared to deal with it.”

With more than 76 million COVID-19 cases in the United States, that effort will likely have to be at the federal level, similar to President Joe Biden’s recent relaunch of the “Cancer Moonshot,” he added. “We need a greater and broader recognition at the federal level to try and recognize that when you have an earthquake, you don’t just deal with the earthquake when the earth is shaking, but you also need to deal with the aftermath.”

Dr. Gibson pointed out that this was a study of predominantly males and, thus, it’s unclear if the results can be extended to females. Nevertheless, he added, “long COVID may include outcomes beyond the central nervous system and we should educate patients about the risk of late cardiovascular outcomes.”

The authors noted the largely White, male cohort may limit generalizability of the findings. Other limitations include the possibility that some people may have had COVID-19 but were not tested, the datasets lacked information on cause of death, and possible residual confounding not accounted for in the adjusted analyses.

The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and two American Society of Nephrology and Kidney Cure fellowship awards. The authors declared no competing interests. Dr. Gibson reports having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Use of e-cigarettes was not more effective than other methods at helping cigarette smokers quit, authors of new research found.

From 2013 to 2017, e-cigarette sales in the United States nearly doubled, driven by a rapid uptake of use by adolescents, wrote Riufeng Chen, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues, in their paper published in Tobacco Control. However, the subsequent effect of increased e-cigarette use on smoking cessation have not been examined, they said.

In their study, Dr. Chen and colleagues analyzed data from 3,578 previous-year smokers with a recent quit attempt and 1,323 recent former smokers who were part of the PATH cohort in 2017. The participants reported using e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarette smoking. The primary outcomes were at least 12 months of cigarette abstinence, and tobacco abstinence in 2019. In 2017, 32.8% of established smokers reported trying to quit. Of these, 12.6% used e-cigarettes to help them quit. Cigarette abstinence for at least 12 months for these individuals was 9.9%, which was lower than for those who used either nicotine replacement therapy or a pharmaceutical aid only (15.2%), and about half of the 18.6% abstinence in those who used no products to help them quit.

“In our study, e-cigarettes resulted in seven fewer successful quitters than those who used pharmaceutical aids,” emphasized corresponding author, John P. Pierce, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Among smokers attempting to quit, the adjusted risk difference for cigarette abstinence for a least 12 months with e-cigarettes vs. pharmaceutical aids was –7.3%, and –7.7% for e-cigarettes vs. other smoking cessation methods.

*“Among recent former smokers who had switched to daily use of e-cigarettes in 2017, 43.2% had successfully quit cigarette smoking by 2019, which was similar to those who used e-cigarettes on a nondaily basis (34.6%) or to those who switched to another tobacco product, whether daily (43.6%) or nondaily (44.7%),” the researchers wrote.

The rapid growth in e-cigarette use between 2014 and 2017 has been attributed in part to aggressive marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarettes, they said. “The high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette has been noted as the closest match to cigarettes in both nicotine delivery and user satisfaction, which should make it one of the best candidates as a product to which smokers could switch in order to maintain their nicotine habit,” they said in their discussion of the findings.

More research needed

The researchers acknowledged the need to review more recent data.

“When we looked ahead to 2019, recent former smokers had started using high-nicotine e-cigarettes. The effectiveness of high-nicotine e-cigarettes at preventing relapse will require another follow-up PATH survey,” they said.

Among recent former smokers, 2.2% reported switching to a high-nicotine e-cigarette. Although individuals who switched to e-cigarettes showed a higher rate of relapse to cigarettes than those who did not switch to other tobacco or e-cigarette products, this difference was not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and inability to control for all potential confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large and representative study population, and the inclusion of biological samples to validate self-reported smoking, they said.
 

Several findings surprised study author

Dr. Pierce said he was surprised by several aspects of the study findings.

“First of all, contrary to what we expected, there was a 25% decline in using e-cigarettes to quit, compared to the previous year (not the 40% increase that was expected from the increase in e-cigarette sales) and almost no smokers were using high-nicotine JUUL products to help them quit,” he said. “In this study, e-cigarettes were much less helpful (7 less successful quitters per 100) than pharmaceutical cessation aids in helping people quit,” he added.

“The fact that the proportion of smokers using e-cigarettes for cessation dropped from 17% to 12% was unexpected, and it suggests that the belief that they are a cessation aid is declining,” he said.

The implication for clinical practice is that e-cigarettes are not a useful tool for smoking cessation, Dr. Pierce said. “We are not finding any evidence in this very large nationally representative study that smokers who switch to getting their nicotine from e-cigarettes are less likely to relapse back to cigarette smoking,” he said.

“We don’t know about the high-nicotine versions,” he added. 
 

New review advises against e-cigarettes for cessation

A recent review article published in JAMA supported the use of pharmacotherapy and behavioral support for smokers wanting to quit. In the review, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues summarized the evidence for managing tobacco smoking in clinical practice.

“The health risk from cigarette smoking is primarily due to chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and not to nicotine,” they noted. However, the physical dependence on nicotine makes quitting a challenge, but it is one worth pursuing, the authors said.

The authors of this review identified 30 reviews, 12 randomized clinical trials, and 7 recent guidelines and evidence reviews. Their key message: Pharmacotherapy and behavioral support are effective when used alone, but even more effective when combined. Pharmacotherapy helps reduce the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, while behavioral intervention tackles the challenge of changing learned behaviors associated with smoking, the researchers said.

Although combining medications, such as varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion might improve successful quit rates, these combinations have not been well studied, they noted.

With regard to e-cigarettes, the researchers cited a 2021 Cochrane review of 16,759 individuals who used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, which found no evidence of harm, but insufficient evidence to asses the balance of risks vs. benefits.

In addition to the lack of randomized trials, “the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, not as medical products and has not evaluated any e-cigarette for medical use as a cessation aid,” the authors of the new review noted.

The review was limited by several factors, including the lack of quality assessment for the selected studies and the exclusion of pharmacotherapy not licensed in the United States.

Commenting on the JAMA paper, Dr. Pierce said, “This review looks like a number of Cochrane Reports that have been published recently. Of course, it only considers randomized trials and not population evidence.”

“If public health had limited itself to this form of evidence, then we still would not know that smoking caused cancer,” he noted. “Randomized trials are very important for testing new drugs; they use selected populations and provide considerable support that is not available in the real world. Sometimes they do not generalize to the population.”
 

Findings may guide patient conversations

The Tobacco Control study was important, because few studies on e-cigarettes have been conducted, said Linda Girgis, MD, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., in an interview.

“As clinicians, we do not have a lot of data available in order to make clinical decisions that are evidence based. Also, getting patients to quit smoking is often very difficult, and having more tools available is a great benefit; however, we need to have the evidence that these tools are effective,” she said.

Dr. Girgis also said she was not surprised by the findings.

“Patients still have the same concerns from e-cigarettes regarding nicotine exposure, but just to a lesser degree; and we still don’t know the long-term effects of e-cigarette use, she said. Based on these studies, recommending e-cigarettes for smokers looking to quit may not be the best method, she noted.

“While it may seem reasonable that exposing lungs to lower doses of nicotine will reduce harm, we need to see actual evidence of this. Also, we also need to study the additives that are frequently used in e-cigs, such as artificial flavorings, to see what harms they may pose, she emphasized.

With regard to the JAMA review, Dr. Girgis said she agreed with the recommendations for pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy as first-line treatments for smoking cessation. “There is evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these methods, and they have been used for decades,” she said.

Dr. Girgis added that there is a role for e-cigarettes in smoking cessation strategies as a method of harm reduction, but pointed out the problem of many people thinking these products are safe and not understanding the hazards they pose.

“They think they can replace smoking with e-cigarettes and be safe from the health risks associated with smoking. I think if the plan were to switch to e-cigarettes for a short period and then quit, there would be a role,” Dr. Girgis said. “However, replacing one risk for another may reduce harm, but doesn’t eliminate it.”

“To continue to use e-cigarettes indefinitely should not be the goal,” she added.

The Tobacco Control study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The JAMA study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funds to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Lead author Dr. Rigotti disclosed funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Achieve Life Sciences and personal fees from UpToDate and Achieve Life Sciences. Dr. Girgis had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 2/28/2022.

Use of e-cigarettes was not more effective than other methods at helping cigarette smokers quit, authors of new research found.

From 2013 to 2017, e-cigarette sales in the United States nearly doubled, driven by a rapid uptake of use by adolescents, wrote Riufeng Chen, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues, in their paper published in Tobacco Control. However, the subsequent effect of increased e-cigarette use on smoking cessation have not been examined, they said.

In their study, Dr. Chen and colleagues analyzed data from 3,578 previous-year smokers with a recent quit attempt and 1,323 recent former smokers who were part of the PATH cohort in 2017. The participants reported using e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarette smoking. The primary outcomes were at least 12 months of cigarette abstinence, and tobacco abstinence in 2019. In 2017, 32.8% of established smokers reported trying to quit. Of these, 12.6% used e-cigarettes to help them quit. Cigarette abstinence for at least 12 months for these individuals was 9.9%, which was lower than for those who used either nicotine replacement therapy or a pharmaceutical aid only (15.2%), and about half of the 18.6% abstinence in those who used no products to help them quit.

“In our study, e-cigarettes resulted in seven fewer successful quitters than those who used pharmaceutical aids,” emphasized corresponding author, John P. Pierce, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Among smokers attempting to quit, the adjusted risk difference for cigarette abstinence for a least 12 months with e-cigarettes vs. pharmaceutical aids was –7.3%, and –7.7% for e-cigarettes vs. other smoking cessation methods.

*“Among recent former smokers who had switched to daily use of e-cigarettes in 2017, 43.2% had successfully quit cigarette smoking by 2019, which was similar to those who used e-cigarettes on a nondaily basis (34.6%) or to those who switched to another tobacco product, whether daily (43.6%) or nondaily (44.7%),” the researchers wrote.

The rapid growth in e-cigarette use between 2014 and 2017 has been attributed in part to aggressive marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarettes, they said. “The high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette has been noted as the closest match to cigarettes in both nicotine delivery and user satisfaction, which should make it one of the best candidates as a product to which smokers could switch in order to maintain their nicotine habit,” they said in their discussion of the findings.

More research needed

The researchers acknowledged the need to review more recent data.

“When we looked ahead to 2019, recent former smokers had started using high-nicotine e-cigarettes. The effectiveness of high-nicotine e-cigarettes at preventing relapse will require another follow-up PATH survey,” they said.

Among recent former smokers, 2.2% reported switching to a high-nicotine e-cigarette. Although individuals who switched to e-cigarettes showed a higher rate of relapse to cigarettes than those who did not switch to other tobacco or e-cigarette products, this difference was not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and inability to control for all potential confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large and representative study population, and the inclusion of biological samples to validate self-reported smoking, they said.
 

Several findings surprised study author

Dr. Pierce said he was surprised by several aspects of the study findings.

“First of all, contrary to what we expected, there was a 25% decline in using e-cigarettes to quit, compared to the previous year (not the 40% increase that was expected from the increase in e-cigarette sales) and almost no smokers were using high-nicotine JUUL products to help them quit,” he said. “In this study, e-cigarettes were much less helpful (7 less successful quitters per 100) than pharmaceutical cessation aids in helping people quit,” he added.

“The fact that the proportion of smokers using e-cigarettes for cessation dropped from 17% to 12% was unexpected, and it suggests that the belief that they are a cessation aid is declining,” he said.

The implication for clinical practice is that e-cigarettes are not a useful tool for smoking cessation, Dr. Pierce said. “We are not finding any evidence in this very large nationally representative study that smokers who switch to getting their nicotine from e-cigarettes are less likely to relapse back to cigarette smoking,” he said.

“We don’t know about the high-nicotine versions,” he added. 
 

New review advises against e-cigarettes for cessation

A recent review article published in JAMA supported the use of pharmacotherapy and behavioral support for smokers wanting to quit. In the review, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues summarized the evidence for managing tobacco smoking in clinical practice.

“The health risk from cigarette smoking is primarily due to chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and not to nicotine,” they noted. However, the physical dependence on nicotine makes quitting a challenge, but it is one worth pursuing, the authors said.

The authors of this review identified 30 reviews, 12 randomized clinical trials, and 7 recent guidelines and evidence reviews. Their key message: Pharmacotherapy and behavioral support are effective when used alone, but even more effective when combined. Pharmacotherapy helps reduce the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, while behavioral intervention tackles the challenge of changing learned behaviors associated with smoking, the researchers said.

Although combining medications, such as varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion might improve successful quit rates, these combinations have not been well studied, they noted.

With regard to e-cigarettes, the researchers cited a 2021 Cochrane review of 16,759 individuals who used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, which found no evidence of harm, but insufficient evidence to asses the balance of risks vs. benefits.

In addition to the lack of randomized trials, “the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, not as medical products and has not evaluated any e-cigarette for medical use as a cessation aid,” the authors of the new review noted.

The review was limited by several factors, including the lack of quality assessment for the selected studies and the exclusion of pharmacotherapy not licensed in the United States.

Commenting on the JAMA paper, Dr. Pierce said, “This review looks like a number of Cochrane Reports that have been published recently. Of course, it only considers randomized trials and not population evidence.”

“If public health had limited itself to this form of evidence, then we still would not know that smoking caused cancer,” he noted. “Randomized trials are very important for testing new drugs; they use selected populations and provide considerable support that is not available in the real world. Sometimes they do not generalize to the population.”
 

Findings may guide patient conversations

The Tobacco Control study was important, because few studies on e-cigarettes have been conducted, said Linda Girgis, MD, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., in an interview.

“As clinicians, we do not have a lot of data available in order to make clinical decisions that are evidence based. Also, getting patients to quit smoking is often very difficult, and having more tools available is a great benefit; however, we need to have the evidence that these tools are effective,” she said.

Dr. Girgis also said she was not surprised by the findings.

“Patients still have the same concerns from e-cigarettes regarding nicotine exposure, but just to a lesser degree; and we still don’t know the long-term effects of e-cigarette use, she said. Based on these studies, recommending e-cigarettes for smokers looking to quit may not be the best method, she noted.

“While it may seem reasonable that exposing lungs to lower doses of nicotine will reduce harm, we need to see actual evidence of this. Also, we also need to study the additives that are frequently used in e-cigs, such as artificial flavorings, to see what harms they may pose, she emphasized.

With regard to the JAMA review, Dr. Girgis said she agreed with the recommendations for pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy as first-line treatments for smoking cessation. “There is evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these methods, and they have been used for decades,” she said.

Dr. Girgis added that there is a role for e-cigarettes in smoking cessation strategies as a method of harm reduction, but pointed out the problem of many people thinking these products are safe and not understanding the hazards they pose.

“They think they can replace smoking with e-cigarettes and be safe from the health risks associated with smoking. I think if the plan were to switch to e-cigarettes for a short period and then quit, there would be a role,” Dr. Girgis said. “However, replacing one risk for another may reduce harm, but doesn’t eliminate it.”

“To continue to use e-cigarettes indefinitely should not be the goal,” she added.

The Tobacco Control study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The JAMA study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funds to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Lead author Dr. Rigotti disclosed funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Achieve Life Sciences and personal fees from UpToDate and Achieve Life Sciences. Dr. Girgis had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 2/28/2022.

Use of e-cigarettes was not more effective than other methods at helping cigarette smokers quit, authors of new research found.

From 2013 to 2017, e-cigarette sales in the United States nearly doubled, driven by a rapid uptake of use by adolescents, wrote Riufeng Chen, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues, in their paper published in Tobacco Control. However, the subsequent effect of increased e-cigarette use on smoking cessation have not been examined, they said.

In their study, Dr. Chen and colleagues analyzed data from 3,578 previous-year smokers with a recent quit attempt and 1,323 recent former smokers who were part of the PATH cohort in 2017. The participants reported using e-cigarettes or other products to quit cigarette smoking. The primary outcomes were at least 12 months of cigarette abstinence, and tobacco abstinence in 2019. In 2017, 32.8% of established smokers reported trying to quit. Of these, 12.6% used e-cigarettes to help them quit. Cigarette abstinence for at least 12 months for these individuals was 9.9%, which was lower than for those who used either nicotine replacement therapy or a pharmaceutical aid only (15.2%), and about half of the 18.6% abstinence in those who used no products to help them quit.

“In our study, e-cigarettes resulted in seven fewer successful quitters than those who used pharmaceutical aids,” emphasized corresponding author, John P. Pierce, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego.

Among smokers attempting to quit, the adjusted risk difference for cigarette abstinence for a least 12 months with e-cigarettes vs. pharmaceutical aids was –7.3%, and –7.7% for e-cigarettes vs. other smoking cessation methods.

*“Among recent former smokers who had switched to daily use of e-cigarettes in 2017, 43.2% had successfully quit cigarette smoking by 2019, which was similar to those who used e-cigarettes on a nondaily basis (34.6%) or to those who switched to another tobacco product, whether daily (43.6%) or nondaily (44.7%),” the researchers wrote.

The rapid growth in e-cigarette use between 2014 and 2017 has been attributed in part to aggressive marketing of high-nicotine e-cigarettes, they said. “The high-nicotine JUUL e-cigarette has been noted as the closest match to cigarettes in both nicotine delivery and user satisfaction, which should make it one of the best candidates as a product to which smokers could switch in order to maintain their nicotine habit,” they said in their discussion of the findings.

More research needed

The researchers acknowledged the need to review more recent data.

“When we looked ahead to 2019, recent former smokers had started using high-nicotine e-cigarettes. The effectiveness of high-nicotine e-cigarettes at preventing relapse will require another follow-up PATH survey,” they said.

Among recent former smokers, 2.2% reported switching to a high-nicotine e-cigarette. Although individuals who switched to e-cigarettes showed a higher rate of relapse to cigarettes than those who did not switch to other tobacco or e-cigarette products, this difference was not significant.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and inability to control for all potential confounding factors, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the use of a large and representative study population, and the inclusion of biological samples to validate self-reported smoking, they said.
 

Several findings surprised study author

Dr. Pierce said he was surprised by several aspects of the study findings.

“First of all, contrary to what we expected, there was a 25% decline in using e-cigarettes to quit, compared to the previous year (not the 40% increase that was expected from the increase in e-cigarette sales) and almost no smokers were using high-nicotine JUUL products to help them quit,” he said. “In this study, e-cigarettes were much less helpful (7 less successful quitters per 100) than pharmaceutical cessation aids in helping people quit,” he added.

“The fact that the proportion of smokers using e-cigarettes for cessation dropped from 17% to 12% was unexpected, and it suggests that the belief that they are a cessation aid is declining,” he said.

The implication for clinical practice is that e-cigarettes are not a useful tool for smoking cessation, Dr. Pierce said. “We are not finding any evidence in this very large nationally representative study that smokers who switch to getting their nicotine from e-cigarettes are less likely to relapse back to cigarette smoking,” he said.

“We don’t know about the high-nicotine versions,” he added. 
 

New review advises against e-cigarettes for cessation

A recent review article published in JAMA supported the use of pharmacotherapy and behavioral support for smokers wanting to quit. In the review, Nancy A. Rigotti, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues summarized the evidence for managing tobacco smoking in clinical practice.

“The health risk from cigarette smoking is primarily due to chemicals produced by the burning of tobacco and not to nicotine,” they noted. However, the physical dependence on nicotine makes quitting a challenge, but it is one worth pursuing, the authors said.

The authors of this review identified 30 reviews, 12 randomized clinical trials, and 7 recent guidelines and evidence reviews. Their key message: Pharmacotherapy and behavioral support are effective when used alone, but even more effective when combined. Pharmacotherapy helps reduce the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal, while behavioral intervention tackles the challenge of changing learned behaviors associated with smoking, the researchers said.

Although combining medications, such as varenicline and nicotine replacement therapy or bupropion might improve successful quit rates, these combinations have not been well studied, they noted.

With regard to e-cigarettes, the researchers cited a 2021 Cochrane review of 16,759 individuals who used e-cigarettes for smoking cessation, which found no evidence of harm, but insufficient evidence to asses the balance of risks vs. benefits.

In addition to the lack of randomized trials, “the FDA regulates e-cigarettes as tobacco products, not as medical products and has not evaluated any e-cigarette for medical use as a cessation aid,” the authors of the new review noted.

The review was limited by several factors, including the lack of quality assessment for the selected studies and the exclusion of pharmacotherapy not licensed in the United States.

Commenting on the JAMA paper, Dr. Pierce said, “This review looks like a number of Cochrane Reports that have been published recently. Of course, it only considers randomized trials and not population evidence.”

“If public health had limited itself to this form of evidence, then we still would not know that smoking caused cancer,” he noted. “Randomized trials are very important for testing new drugs; they use selected populations and provide considerable support that is not available in the real world. Sometimes they do not generalize to the population.”
 

Findings may guide patient conversations

The Tobacco Control study was important, because few studies on e-cigarettes have been conducted, said Linda Girgis, MD, a family physician in private practice in South River, N.J., in an interview.

“As clinicians, we do not have a lot of data available in order to make clinical decisions that are evidence based. Also, getting patients to quit smoking is often very difficult, and having more tools available is a great benefit; however, we need to have the evidence that these tools are effective,” she said.

Dr. Girgis also said she was not surprised by the findings.

“Patients still have the same concerns from e-cigarettes regarding nicotine exposure, but just to a lesser degree; and we still don’t know the long-term effects of e-cigarette use, she said. Based on these studies, recommending e-cigarettes for smokers looking to quit may not be the best method, she noted.

“While it may seem reasonable that exposing lungs to lower doses of nicotine will reduce harm, we need to see actual evidence of this. Also, we also need to study the additives that are frequently used in e-cigs, such as artificial flavorings, to see what harms they may pose, she emphasized.

With regard to the JAMA review, Dr. Girgis said she agreed with the recommendations for pharmacotherapy and behavior therapy as first-line treatments for smoking cessation. “There is evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these methods, and they have been used for decades,” she said.

Dr. Girgis added that there is a role for e-cigarettes in smoking cessation strategies as a method of harm reduction, but pointed out the problem of many people thinking these products are safe and not understanding the hazards they pose.

“They think they can replace smoking with e-cigarettes and be safe from the health risks associated with smoking. I think if the plan were to switch to e-cigarettes for a short period and then quit, there would be a role,” Dr. Girgis said. “However, replacing one risk for another may reduce harm, but doesn’t eliminate it.”

“To continue to use e-cigarettes indefinitely should not be the goal,” she added.

The Tobacco Control study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program of the University of California. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The JAMA study was funded in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funds to the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group. Lead author Dr. Rigotti disclosed funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Achieve Life Sciences and personal fees from UpToDate and Achieve Life Sciences. Dr. Girgis had no financial conflicts to disclose.

*This article was updated on 2/28/2022.

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

People with long-COVID “brain fog” may be able to recover mental abilities that were dulled or stolen from them by the virus through an approach that has improved the effects of stroke, traumatic brain injury, and other post-viral disorders, doctors and scientists say.

For a lucky portion of the population, COVID-19 lasts a handful of days with minor symptoms. But for an estimated 37% who contract the virus, symptoms can linger for weeks, months, or even years. One of the most common symptoms of long COVID is brain fog: a life-altering condition characterized by slow thinking, confusion, difficulty remembering things, and poor concentration.

A type of rehabilitation program that allows the brain to rewire itself has been successful in improving the lives of people with brain fog. The approaches are based on the concept of neuroplasticity: The ability of neural networks in the brain to change, adapt, and strengthen, much like a muscle in the body that has been trained and exercised.

“The brain’s ability to bounce back from injury is what neuroplasticity is, and I’ve worked with people in our rehab clinic who have had brain tumors or suffer the effects of surgery or radiation on the brain, and people who have had West Nile virus, HIV, and meningitis,” said Tom Bergquist, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. “There’s not a week that goes by that I don’t see someone recovering from COVID-19.”

One of the approaches used in the clinic is errorless learning, or having a patient with memory problems repeat information a certain number of times without error. The repetition helps rebuild those memory skills that were weakened during infection, Dr. Bergquist says.

People who have experienced brain fog after other viral infections have seen improvements with these approaches. Ben Ahrens, co-founder and CEO of re-origin – a company that offers neuroplasticity therapy – says he had long-term cognitive issues after a Lyme disease infection. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndrome, or chronic Lyme disease, occurs in about 1 in 10 people who are infected.

Mr. Ahrens says he was struck with Lyme 10 years ago and had brain fog, joint pain, and brain lesions detectable on scans for several years after infection.

According to Mr. Ahrens, neuroplasticity-based therapies help combat what researchers have found may be a lingering memory of past infections that lead to a heightened immune response, causing lingering symptoms.

“Essentially, what we believe is happening here, is the brain has learned that these symptoms are life-threatening – because, in fact, they can be,” Mr. Ahrens said. “The brain’s one job is to protect the body, and once it’s learned to associate these symptoms with that potentially very dangerous pathogen, even after it’s gone, things like a normal headache can trigger an immune cascade.”

Studies are underway at the University of Alabama at Birmingham to examine whether constraint-induced therapy – an approach rooted in neuroplasticity and historically used for loss of limb and speech function – is also effective for cognitive impairments like brain fog.

One technique they use is called shaping, which requires a person to repeatedly carry out their personal best function of impaired use – for example, remembering household tasks they have previously forgotten. That is done multiple times over several weeks in the clinic, and patients are given ways to transfer those skills to real-life use.

So far, the results are promising, said Edward Taub, PhD, researcher and professor of psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

When used in the past for physical impairments, researchers have noted not just clinical improvements, but structural changes. It led to an increase in the brain’s gray matter – which allows individuals to control movement, memory, and emotions – and improved white matter, which helps communication between gray matter areas.

Though results of the cognitive studies have not been published, Dr. Taub said patients with brain fog have shown improvement after just 35 hours of therapy and are nearly 100% improved after 6 months.

“The idea behind this is that the brain is responsive to use,” Dr. Taub said. “The amount of brain territory that’s dedicated to supporting or mediating a given behavioral function depends on the demands placed on the brain.”

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

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.