CHEST Physician

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

Lack of a high school education is a predictor of whether a person will be resistant to getting the COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows.

Researchers from the University of North Carolina looked at vaccination rates in 3,142 counties in the U.S. They compared them to population characteristics based on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index.

They found that more than half of the unvaccinated adults in the U.S. with strong vaccine hesitancy had a high school education or less. Vaccine hesitancy was defined as refusal to be vaccinated even if the COVID-19 vaccine was available.

The other main predictor for vaccine hesitancy was concern about vaccine availability and distribution, the researchers said.

“Our study suggests that low education levels are a major contributor to vaccine hesitancy and ultimately vaccination levels,” the authors wrote. The study was published in the American Journal of Infection Control. “Specifically, low vaccination levels were found in communities with a less educated population and with more concern about vaccine uptake capacity, suggesting that education is an ongoing challenge.”

“Our findings suggest that policy makers and community leaders should tailor vaccine information and efforts to those with limited education and specifically address knowledge concerns that are prevalent and likely more modifiable.”

The study was based on data gathered months ago. It says that as of May 9, 2021, 34.7% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated and that 8% reported a strong unwillingness to get vaccinated.

At press time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s COVID Data Tracker showed that 62.5% of the U.S. population was fully vaccinated.

According to the study, other consistent characteristics of people who are vaccine hesitant are that they belong to a racial minority, are 65 or older, live in a household with children 18 or younger, or are unemployed.

When asked why they were vaccine hesitant, people gave these reasons: Lack of trust in COVID-19 vaccines (55%), concerns about side effects (48%), and lack of trust in government (46%).

Lack of access to vaccines, often cited in previous studies about resistance to other vaccines, was not cited as a reason for not getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

“COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is a public health threat,” the researchers concluded. “Since education levels are not easily modifiable, our results suggest that policymakers would be best served by closing knowledge gaps to overcome negative perceptions of the vaccine through tailored interventions.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the dual orexin receptor antagonist daridorexant (Quviviq) for the treatment of insomnia in adults, the drug’s manufacturer, Idorsia, has announced.

The FDA’s decision was based partly on a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate to severe insomnia who were randomly assigned to receive 25 or 50 mg of daridorexant or matching placebo. Daridorexant was associated with dose-dependent improvements in wake after sleep onset, total sleep time, and latency to persistent sleep.

Whereas the overall results are very positive, the improvements in daytime functioning are especially “exciting,” Thomas Roth, PhD, director of the Sleep Disorders and Research Center at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, said in an interview.

“That’s sort of a big deal. For me, that’s the biggest deal there is,” said Dr. Roth, who was a consultant on the design of the phase 3 trial and on the interpretation of the data.

The drug will be available in doses of 25 mg and 50 mg, and the FDA has recommended that it be classified as a controlled substance. After it is scheduled by the Drug Enforcement Administration, daridorexant is expected to be made available in May.
 

Favorable safety profile

Insomnia is a common disorder characterized by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep and by early-morning awakenings. Patients with insomnia often report fatigue, irritability, and difficulty with concentration. The condition can also result in significant problems with work and social activities, thus contributing to anxiety or depression.

As with other dual orexin receptor antagonists, daridorexant competitively binds with both orexin receptors in the lateral hypothalamus to block the activity of orexin in a reversible way. This approach decreases the downstream action of the wake-promoting neurotransmitters that are overactive in patients with insomnia.

The phase 3 trial measured daytime functioning using the new Insomnia Daytime Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire (IDSIQ), a patient-reported outcome instrument. Daridorexant was associated with significant improvements in daytime function, particularly in sleepiness and mood.

Previous trials of other dual orexin receptor antagonists did not use the IDSIQ as an outcome, so it is not possible to compare daridorexant with those drugs in this respect, Dr. Roth noted. Researchers also have not conducted head-to-head trials of the drug with other dual orexin receptor antagonists.

Daridorexant also had a favorable safety profile and was not associated with rebound insomnia or withdrawal effects. The most common adverse events were headache and somnolence or fatigue.

“They had no effect on sleep stage distribution [and] they had no significant effects on sleep and breathing in people with mild to moderate sleep apnea,” said Dr. Roth, who presented the phase 3 findings at SLEEP 2020. 

In addition to serving as a consultant for Idorsia on the trial design and interpretation of results, Dr. Roth has also served as a consultant for other companies that develop sleep agents.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Many states have restored restrictions on telehealth use that they suspended earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a new report jointly prepared by the Reason Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the Cicero Institute.

Among the most important restrictions that have been reinstated in some states are those barring requirements for insurers to cover telehealth and regulations that prohibit telehealth visits across state lines, unless the physician is licensed in both states.

“Only three states – Arizona, Florida, and Indiana – allow all health care providers to easily practice telehealth across state lines,” says a news release on the think tanks’ report. “Forty-seven others have arbitrary barriers in place that limit patients’ access to specialists and available appointments based purely on residency.”

“Once the [state-based] public health emergency declarations started to end or executive orders were withdrawn, many of the new flexibilities for providers, insurers, and patients were lost overnight,” Vittorio Nastasi, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and a co-author of the report, says in the news release. “States need to adopt a number of telehealth reforms to provide their residents better access to this safe and effective virtual care.”

On a positive note, the report says, most states have removed the requirement that a patient must first see a provider in person before they can use telehealth services. The exceptions are Tennessee, Alaska, and West Virginia, which require an in-person visit before certain telehealth services can be provided.

In addition, 20 states allow nurse practitioners to conduct telehealth visits without being under the supervision of a physician. Prior to the pandemic, some states allowed only doctors to use telehealth, the report says, but, during the COVID crisis, “the acute shortage of providers in many counties adds to the need for more kinds of providers to be able to use it.”

A number of states place restrictions on the telehealth modalities that can be utilized. Under the definition by the American Telemedicine Association, telehealth includes audio-video visits, remote patient monitoring, and “store and forward” telemedicine, which entails collecting clinical information and sending it to another site for evaluation. The latter method is particularly useful for consultations with specialists, the report notes.
 

Coverage mandates and payment parity

The report also examines other parameters of telehealth regulations in each state, including whether they have telehealth coverage mandates and whether they require physicians to be paid the same amount for similar types of in-person and telehealth visits.

The report views insurance mandates as beneficial, but not if they require coverage of all virtual services. While telehealth can be a game changer for post-stroke care and for other “treatment-intensive conditions,” the report says, the evidence of better outcomes for other conditions treated through telehealth is far less certain. Therefore, it advises states to “protect flexibility so that new innovative models can emerge.”

Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School who studies telehealth, agrees that it offers more value in some clinical situations than in others. “High value is improving quality or outcomes at a reasonable cost,” he told this news organization. “If a telemedicine visit for stroke can save a person’s life and prevent disability, let’s pay for it. A telemedicine visit for a cold may not be necessary. Mom’s chicken soup is fine.”

A little over half of the states still require payment parity, according to the report. While these regulations are intended to promote the use of telehealth, the authors note, they can increase the growth of health care costs. Moreover, they argue, it’s hard to defend equal payments for virtual visits when the overhead required to deliver them – such as office rental, utility, and labor costs – is much lower than that for in-person visits. Also, it makes no sense for health systems to charge facility fees for telehealth visits when these visits can be initiated from anywhere, they say.

Dr. Mehrotra concurs with this view. “If you see someone in your office, your fee includes all the overhead for your office, and it’s a substantial cost,” he says. “For many procedures, it’s more than half of the cost. If you have a telemedicine visit and you’re at home, why would you pay the same amount? The visit may take the same amount of time, but all the money that goes for overhead is not accounted for.”
 

Telemedicine across state lines

The report’s contention about the difficulty of conducting telehealth encounters across most state lines seems to be at odds with the growth in the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, which makes it easier for physicians in one compact member state to get licensed in others. Currently, 35 states belong to the compact, Joe Knickrehm, vice president of communications for the Federation of State Medical Boards, told this news organization.

In addition, he says, “12 state boards issue a special purpose license, telemedicine license or certificate, or license to practice medicine across state lines to allow for the practice of telemedicine.”

The catch, Dr. Mehrotra says, is that, despite the streamlining of license applications in compact member states, the fees charged by the state boards are still very high – a point that the report also makes. “If I want to have broad scope of practice, I’d have to pay thousands of dollars to many states. The license fees start to add up. Also, I have to keep track of each state’s CME requirements, which are all different. Keeping up with all of that is an administration burden, and it’s a pain.”

Mr. Knickrehm contends that obtaining multiple licenses via the compact “is generally less expensive for physicians than the cost of requesting transcripts, fingerprints, and other necessary paperwork each time they apply for licensure in a new state. Physicians are seeing the benefits of an expedited process that allows them to begin practicing more quickly [in other states].”

Dr. Mehrotra says he has seen the same retrenchment in state telehealth regulations that the report references. However, he says, “CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has signaled that at least through 2022 and maybe into 2023, they’ll continue their extensions of telemedicine [pandemic regulations].” After that, Congress would have to decide whether to make the changes permanent.

“Right now, it’s hard for me to see how a payer is going to pull back on telehealth, unless there’s ample evidence of overuse of telehealth,” he argues. “With the public and providers liking telehealth, it’s hard to say on theoretical grounds that we should stop using it. That’s why Medicare and others have extended it and why Congress will too.”

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

Acute flares of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis have a mortality rate as high as 90% or more, depending on their severity. But an experimental regimen that includes autoantibody reduction was found to improve survival significantly, as well as oxygen levels and walk distances, according to a small preliminary study published in PLOS ONE.

“It’s a preliminary study, but it’s very exciting,” Amit Gaggar, MD, PhD, an endowed professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), said in an interview. “We don’t really have a treatment for acute exacerbations of pulmonary fibrosis, and the mortality is extremely high, so it’s really critical that we start thinking outside the box a little bit for therapeutics.” Dr. Gaggar isn’t affiliated with the study.

Study leader Steven R. Duncan, MD, also of UAB, acknowledged that the experimental therapy has its detractors. “There’s been a tremendous bias against the role of immunologic therapy in idiopathic fibrosis, although it seems to be lessening,” he said.

The preliminary study treated 24 patients who had acute exacerbations of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) with a 19-day regimen called triple-modality autoantibody reduction. The three contributing modalities are therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), rituximab, and intravenous immunoglobulin treatments. The standard treatment for AE-IPF consists of antibiotics and corticosteroids.

Dr. Duncan led the only other study of autoantibody reduction for AE-IPF, published in PLOS ONE in 2015. The latest preliminary study is a precursor to a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute–funded phase 2 randomized clinical trial, called STRIVE-IPF, currently enrolling AE-IPF patients at six sites.

In the preliminary study, 10 patients survived at least a year, an overall survival rate of 42%. Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 6 months were 67%, 63%, and 46%. The study couldn’t identify characteristics of survivors versus nonsurvivors, although the latter had a trend toward greater initial oxygen requirements. Among the 10 patients who needed less than 25 L/min supplemental O2, the survival rate was 57%. In patients who needed more than 25 L/min, the survival rate was 20% (P = .07). Only 1 of 5 patients who needed greater than 40 L/min survived a year (P = .36).

After the 19-day regimen, 15 patients, or 63%, had significant drops in supplemental O2 requirements, from an average of 15 L/min to 3 L/min (P = .0007). Thirteen (87%) of the patients who were taking an antifibrotic medication (either pirfenidone or nintedanib) at baseline needed less O2 and/or had increased walking distances, compared with five who weren’t prescribed either of the agents (P = .15), although 1-year survival didn’t vary significantly with antifibrotic use.

The mechanism of antibody reduction is to filter out B-cells, infiltrates of which are typically found in lungs of AE-IPF patients, Dr. Duncan said. The regimen involves nine TPEs over 15 days, two IV rituximab 1-gm treatments over that course, and IV Ig 0.5-gm/kg treatments daily on days 16 through 19.

“Plasma exchange rapidly gets rid of the antibodies,” Dr. Duncan said in an interview. “It’s the basis for a number of autoantibody-mediated diseases, such as myasthenia gravis.”

While the TPE removes the B-cells, they have a proclivity to re-emerge, hence the rituximab treatment, he said. IV Ig further inhibits B-cell activity. “The IV Ig probably works in large part by feedback inhibition of the B-cells that have survived the rituximab,” Dr. Duncan said.

He added that with the TPE and rituximab patients had “sometimes amazing response” but then would relapse. “Since we added IV Ig, we see far fewer relapses,” he said. “And interestingly, if they do relapse, we can salvage them by giving them this treatment again.”

The preliminary study doesn’t make clear what patients would benefit most from the triple-modality therapy, but it did provide some clues. “We found that patients who have higher levels of antibodies against epithelial cells tend to do the best, and patients who had less severe disease – that is, less disturbance of gas exchange requiring less O2 – tend to do better,” Dr. Duncan said. The STRIVE trial should serve to identify specific biomarkers, he said.

Dr. Gaggar, the UAB professor who’s not affiliated with the study, concurred that it’s “too early to tell” which patients would benefit. “Certainly, these patients that undergo exacerbations would be of high interest,” he said, “but the potential is there that the other chronic lung diseases that have exacerbations may also benefit from this kind of therapy.”

He noted that the preliminary study focused on one type of autoantibody generating from epithelial cells. “In many of these studies where we limit ourselves to a single autoantibody population, we might be at the tip of iceberg,” Dr. Gaggar said. “There might be autoantibodies generated from other cells in the lung or the body that might be also pathogenic. This is really powerful because this is a subgroup of autoantibodies, but they still had that kind of impact in this small study.”

The STRIVE study is scheduled for completion in September 2022.

Dr. Duncan disclosed relationships with Novartis and Tyr Pharma outside the study subject. Dr. Gaggar has no relevant disclosures.

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

The Mayo Clinic fired 700 employees this week who didn’t comply with its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The medical center, which is Minnesota’s largest employer, has major campuses in Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota and operates hospitals in Iowa and Wisconsin.

Employees had until Jan. 3 to get vaccinated or receive approval for an exemption. On Jan. 4, the hospital fired those who didn’t meet the requirement, according to Action News Jax, a CBS affiliate in Florida.

The 700 employees make up about 1% of Mayo Clinic’s 73,000-person workforce. So far, none of the employees at the campus in Jacksonville, Fla., have been affected, the news outlet reported.

“Florida staff who are not in compliance with our vaccination program remain employed pending the outcome of litigation related to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services requirements,” a Mayo Clinic spokesperson told Action News Jax.

The federal government and Florida remain at odds over vaccine mandates, and several lawsuits are winding through the court system. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in November that bans private Florida employers from requiring all employees to get vaccinated and calls for various exemption options, according to The Florida Times-Union. The state law clashes with a federal rule that requires vaccinations for all health care workers at hospitals that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding.

The Mayo Clinic mandate required employees to receive at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose and not be “overdue” for a second dose, according to the statement. Only medical and religious exemptions were allowed, and most medical and religious exemptions were approved.

“While Mayo Clinic is saddened to lose valuable employees, we need to take all steps necessary to keep our patients, workforce, visitors, and communities safe,” Mayo Clinic wrote in its statement. “If individuals released from employment choose to get vaccinated at a later date, the opportunity exists for them to apply and return to Mayo Clinic for future job openings.”

With the latest surge in COVID-19 cases from the Omicron variant, the Mayo Clinic also encouraged unvaccinated people to get a shot and those who are eligible for a booster to get one “as soon as possible.”

“Based on science and data, it’s clear that vaccination keeps people out of the hospital and saves lives,” according to the statement. “That’s true for everyone in our communities – and it’s especially true for the many patients with serious or complex diseases who seek care at Mayo Clinic each day.”

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Health authorities in California, Texas, and Kansas have reported cases of “flurona,” in which people have seasonal flu and COVID-19 at the same time.

The first known case was detected in Israel, but until the first week of January no cases had been reported in the United States.

In Los Angeles, a teenaged boy tested positive for both illnesses at a COVID testing site in Brentwood, the Los Angeles Times reported. The child’s mother tested positive for COVID the next day.

“This is the first one that we’re aware of,” Steve Farzam, chief operating officer of 911 COVID Testing, told the LA Times. “In and of itself, it’s not overly concerning; however, it is concerning and can be problematic for someone who has pre-existing medical conditions, anyone who is immunocompromised.”

The teen and his family of five had just returned from vacation in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. All said they tested negative before the trip, but they tested again when they got home because one of the children had a runny nose, Mr. Farzam said.

The boy, who had not been vaccinated for COVID or the flu, doesn’t have serious symptoms and is recovering at home.

In Houston, a 17-year-old boy, his siblings, and his father felt sick a few days before Christmas and went in for testing, TV station KTRK reported. The teen tested positive for both the flu and COVID.

“I ended up getting tested the day before Christmas for strep throat, flu and COVID,” the teenager, Alec Zierlein, told KTRK. “I didn’t think I had any of the three. It felt like a mild cold.”

Health officials reported Jan. 5 that a flurona case was detected in Hays, Kan., TV station WIBW reported. The patient was being treated in the ICU. No other details were provided. In Israel, flurona was first found in an unvaccinated pregnant woman at Rabin Medical Center in Petach Tikva, according to the Times of Israel. She tested positive for both viruses when she arrived at the medical center, and doctors double-checked to confirm her diagnosis. The woman had mild symptoms and was released in good condition, the news outlet reported.

Public health officials in Israel said they are concerned that an increase in both viruses at the same time could lead to many hospitalizations.

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

Preschoolers who experienced community-acquired pneumonia in infancy were significantly more likely than were those with no history of pneumonia to develop chronic respiratory disorders, based on data from approximately 7,000 individuals.

“Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) during the first years of life cause injury to the rapidly developing lung at its most critical stage,” wrote Rotem Lapidot, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. Previous research has linked pneumonia with subsequent chronic cough, bronchitis, and recurrent pneumonia in children, but data are needed to assess the impact of early community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on respiratory health in otherwise healthy infants, the researchers said.

In a retrospective matched cohort study published in Respiratory Medicine , the researchers identified 1,343 infants who had CAP in the first 2 years of life, and 6,715 controls, using a large electronic health records dataset (Optum EHR dataset) for the period from Jan. 2011 through June 2018.

The primary outcomes were the development of any chronic respiratory disorders, reactive airway disease, and CAP hospitalizations between ages 2 and 5 years. Infants in the CAP group were otherwise healthy; those with congenital or other conditions that might predispose them to pneumonia were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the CAP patients and controls.
 

Future risk

Overall, the rates per 100 patient-years for any chronic respiratory disorder were 11.6 for CAP patients versus 4.9 for controls (relative risk, 2.4). Rates for reactive airway disease and CAP hospitalization were 6.1 versus 1.9 per 100 patient-years (RR, 3.2) and 1.0 versus 0.2 per 100 patient-years (RR, 6.3) for the CAP patients and controls, respectively.

The distribution of CAP etiology of CAP in infants at the first hospitalization was 20% bacterial, 27% viral, and 53% unspecified. The relative rates of later respiratory illness were similar across etiologies of the initial hospitalization for CAP, which support the association between infant CAP and later respiratory disease, the researchers said.

Nearly all (97%) of the CAP patients had only one qualifying hospitalization for CAP before 2 years of age, and the mean age at the first hospitalization was 8.9 months. “Rates and relative rates of any chronic respiratory disorder, and our composite for reactive airway disease, increased with age at which the initial CAP hospitalization occurred,” and were highest for children hospitalized at close to 2 years of age, the researchers noted.
 

Persistent inflammation?

“Our findings add to the evolving hypothesis that persistent inflammation following pneumonia creates an increased risk for subsequent respiratory disease and exacerbations of underlying disease,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for misclassification of some infants with and without underlying conditions, reliance on discharge information for etiology, and possible lack of generalizability to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results indicate an increased risk for respiratory illness in early childhood among infants with CAP, and support the need for greater attention to CAP prevention and for strategies to reduce inflammation after pneumonia, they said. “Further study is needed to confirm the long-term consequences of infant CAP and the underlying mechanisms that lead to such long-term sequelae,” they concluded.

Dr. Lapidot and several coauthors disclosed ties with Pfizer, the study sponsor.

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

Preschoolers who experienced community-acquired pneumonia in infancy were significantly more likely than were those with no history of pneumonia to develop chronic respiratory disorders, based on data from approximately 7,000 individuals.

“Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) during the first years of life cause injury to the rapidly developing lung at its most critical stage,” wrote Rotem Lapidot, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. Previous research has linked pneumonia with subsequent chronic cough, bronchitis, and recurrent pneumonia in children, but data are needed to assess the impact of early community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on respiratory health in otherwise healthy infants, the researchers said.

In a retrospective matched cohort study published in Respiratory Medicine , the researchers identified 1,343 infants who had CAP in the first 2 years of life, and 6,715 controls, using a large electronic health records dataset (Optum EHR dataset) for the period from Jan. 2011 through June 2018.

The primary outcomes were the development of any chronic respiratory disorders, reactive airway disease, and CAP hospitalizations between ages 2 and 5 years. Infants in the CAP group were otherwise healthy; those with congenital or other conditions that might predispose them to pneumonia were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the CAP patients and controls.
 

Future risk

Overall, the rates per 100 patient-years for any chronic respiratory disorder were 11.6 for CAP patients versus 4.9 for controls (relative risk, 2.4). Rates for reactive airway disease and CAP hospitalization were 6.1 versus 1.9 per 100 patient-years (RR, 3.2) and 1.0 versus 0.2 per 100 patient-years (RR, 6.3) for the CAP patients and controls, respectively.

The distribution of CAP etiology of CAP in infants at the first hospitalization was 20% bacterial, 27% viral, and 53% unspecified. The relative rates of later respiratory illness were similar across etiologies of the initial hospitalization for CAP, which support the association between infant CAP and later respiratory disease, the researchers said.

Nearly all (97%) of the CAP patients had only one qualifying hospitalization for CAP before 2 years of age, and the mean age at the first hospitalization was 8.9 months. “Rates and relative rates of any chronic respiratory disorder, and our composite for reactive airway disease, increased with age at which the initial CAP hospitalization occurred,” and were highest for children hospitalized at close to 2 years of age, the researchers noted.
 

Persistent inflammation?

“Our findings add to the evolving hypothesis that persistent inflammation following pneumonia creates an increased risk for subsequent respiratory disease and exacerbations of underlying disease,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for misclassification of some infants with and without underlying conditions, reliance on discharge information for etiology, and possible lack of generalizability to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results indicate an increased risk for respiratory illness in early childhood among infants with CAP, and support the need for greater attention to CAP prevention and for strategies to reduce inflammation after pneumonia, they said. “Further study is needed to confirm the long-term consequences of infant CAP and the underlying mechanisms that lead to such long-term sequelae,” they concluded.

Dr. Lapidot and several coauthors disclosed ties with Pfizer, the study sponsor.

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

Preschoolers who experienced community-acquired pneumonia in infancy were significantly more likely than were those with no history of pneumonia to develop chronic respiratory disorders, based on data from approximately 7,000 individuals.

“Lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) during the first years of life cause injury to the rapidly developing lung at its most critical stage,” wrote Rotem Lapidot, MD, of Boston University, and colleagues. Previous research has linked pneumonia with subsequent chronic cough, bronchitis, and recurrent pneumonia in children, but data are needed to assess the impact of early community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on respiratory health in otherwise healthy infants, the researchers said.

In a retrospective matched cohort study published in Respiratory Medicine , the researchers identified 1,343 infants who had CAP in the first 2 years of life, and 6,715 controls, using a large electronic health records dataset (Optum EHR dataset) for the period from Jan. 2011 through June 2018.

The primary outcomes were the development of any chronic respiratory disorders, reactive airway disease, and CAP hospitalizations between ages 2 and 5 years. Infants in the CAP group were otherwise healthy; those with congenital or other conditions that might predispose them to pneumonia were excluded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the CAP patients and controls.
 

Future risk

Overall, the rates per 100 patient-years for any chronic respiratory disorder were 11.6 for CAP patients versus 4.9 for controls (relative risk, 2.4). Rates for reactive airway disease and CAP hospitalization were 6.1 versus 1.9 per 100 patient-years (RR, 3.2) and 1.0 versus 0.2 per 100 patient-years (RR, 6.3) for the CAP patients and controls, respectively.

The distribution of CAP etiology of CAP in infants at the first hospitalization was 20% bacterial, 27% viral, and 53% unspecified. The relative rates of later respiratory illness were similar across etiologies of the initial hospitalization for CAP, which support the association between infant CAP and later respiratory disease, the researchers said.

Nearly all (97%) of the CAP patients had only one qualifying hospitalization for CAP before 2 years of age, and the mean age at the first hospitalization was 8.9 months. “Rates and relative rates of any chronic respiratory disorder, and our composite for reactive airway disease, increased with age at which the initial CAP hospitalization occurred,” and were highest for children hospitalized at close to 2 years of age, the researchers noted.
 

Persistent inflammation?

“Our findings add to the evolving hypothesis that persistent inflammation following pneumonia creates an increased risk for subsequent respiratory disease and exacerbations of underlying disease,” the researchers wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for misclassification of some infants with and without underlying conditions, reliance on discharge information for etiology, and possible lack of generalizability to other populations, the researchers noted.

However, the results indicate an increased risk for respiratory illness in early childhood among infants with CAP, and support the need for greater attention to CAP prevention and for strategies to reduce inflammation after pneumonia, they said. “Further study is needed to confirm the long-term consequences of infant CAP and the underlying mechanisms that lead to such long-term sequelae,” they concluded.

Dr. Lapidot and several coauthors disclosed ties with Pfizer, the study sponsor.

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

The record-setting surge in COVID-19 cases nationwide – including more than one million new infections reported on Jan. 3 – raises questions about whether the higher Omicron variant transmissibility will accelerate a transition from pandemic to endemic disease.

Furthermore, does the steep increase in number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 mean the United States could finally be achieving a meaningful level of “herd immunity”?

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

Whether the current surge will mean the predicted switch to endemic COVID-19 will come sooner “is very hard to predict,” Michael Lin, MD, MPH, told this news organization.

“It’s an open question,” he said, “if another highly transmissible variant will emerge.”

On a positive note, “at this point many more people have received their vaccinations or been infected. And over time, repeated infections have led to milder symptoms,” added Dr. Lin, hospital epidemiologist at Rush Medical College, Chicago.

“It could end up being a seasonal variant,” he said.

COVID-19 going endemic is “a real possibility, but unfortunately ... it doesn’t seem necessarily that we’re going to have the same predictable pattern we have with the flu,” said Eleftherios Mylonakis, MD, PhD, chief of infectious diseases for Lifespan and its affiliates at Rhode Island Hospital and Miriam Hospital in Providence.

“We have a number of other viruses that don’t follow the same annual pattern,” he said.  

Unknowns include how long individuals’ immune responses, including T-cell defenses, will last going forward.

A transition from pandemic to endemic is “not a light switch, and there are no metrics associated with what endemic means for COVID-19,” said Syra Madad, DHSc., MSc, MCP, an infectious disease epidemiologist at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Boston.

“Instead, we should continue to focus on decreasing transmission rates and preventing our hospitals from getting overwhelmed,” she said.
 

A hastening to herd immunity?

“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Lin said when asked if the increased transmissibility and increased cases linked to the Omicron surge could get the U.S. closer to herd immunity.

“The twist in this whole story,” he said, “is the virus mutated enough to escape first-line immune defenses, specifically antibodies. That is why we are seeing breakthrough infections, even in highly vaccinated populations.”

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

“The concept of herd immunity with a rapidly evolving virus is very difficult” to address, he said.

One reason is the number of unknown factors, Dr. Mylonakis said. He predicted a clearer picture will emerge after the Omicrons surge subsides. Also, with so many people infected by the Omicron variant, immune protection should peak.

“People will have boosted immunity. Not everybody, unfortunately, because there are people who cannot really mount [a full immune response] because of age, because of immunosuppression, etc.,” said Dr. Mylonakis, who is also professor of infectious diseases at Brown University.

“But the majority of the population will be exposed and will mount some degree of immunity.”

Dr. Madad agreed. “The omicron variant will add much more immunity into our population by both the preferred pathway – which is through vaccination – as well as through those that are unvaccinated and get infected with omicron,” she said.

“The pathway to gain immunity from vaccination is the safest option, and already over 1 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine are going into arms per day – this includes first, second, and additional doses like boosters,” added Dr. Madad, who is also senior director of the System-wide Special Pathogens Program at New York City Health and Hospitals.
 

A shorter, more intense surge?

The United Kingdom’s experience with COVID-19 has often served as a bellwether of what is likely to happen in the U.S. If that is the case with the Omicron surge, the peak should last about 4 weeks, Dr. Mylonakis said.

In other words, the accelerated spread of Omicron could mean this surge passes more quickly than Delta.

Furthermore, some evidence suggests neutralizing antibodies produced by Omicron infection remain effective against the Delta variant – thereby reducing the risk of Delta reinfections over time.

The ability to neutralize the Delta variant increased more than fourfold after a median 14 days, according to data from a preprint study posted Dec. 27 on MedRxiv.

At the same time, neutralization of the Omicron variant increased 14-fold as participants mounted an antibody response. The study was conducted in vaccinated and unvaccinated people infected by Omicron in South Africa shortly after symptoms started. It has yet to be peer reviewed.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, described the results as “especially good news” in a tweet.

The current surge could also mean enhanced protection in the future.

“As we look at getting to the other side of this Omicron wave, we will end up with more immunity,” Dr. Madad said. “And with more immunity means we’ll be better guarded against the next emerging variant.”

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

Hospitals across the United States are beginning to fill up with COVID-19 patients again, but a smaller proportion of cases are severe enough to move to intensive care or require mechanical ventilation.

So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.

“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.

Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.

Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.

Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.

In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.

“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.

Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.

In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.

“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”

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

Hospitals across the United States are beginning to fill up with COVID-19 patients again, but a smaller proportion of cases are severe enough to move to intensive care or require mechanical ventilation.

So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.

“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.

Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.

Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.

Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.

In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.

“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.

Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.

In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.

“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”

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

Hospitals across the United States are beginning to fill up with COVID-19 patients again, but a smaller proportion of cases are severe enough to move to intensive care or require mechanical ventilation.

So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.

“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.

“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.

Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.

Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.

Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.

In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.

“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.

Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.

In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.

“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”

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