CHEST Physician

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.

Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.

In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.

To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).

Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.

“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.

The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).

In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.

Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV₁ improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.

“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.

Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.

Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.

In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.

To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).

Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.

“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.

The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).

In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.

Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV₁ improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.

“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.

Adults with asthma who were newly prescribed mepolizumab showed significant improvement in symptoms after 1 year regardless of comorbidities, based on data from 822 individuals.

Comorbidities including chronic rhinosinusitis with polyps (CRSwNP), gastroesophageal reflux disease GERD), anxiety and depression, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD) are common in patients with severe asthma and add to the disease burden, wrote Mark C. Liu, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

“Some comorbidities, such as CRSwNP, share pathophysiological mechanisms with severe asthma, with interleukin-5 (IL-5),” and treatments targeting IL-5 could improve outcomes, they said.

In the real-world REALITI-A study, mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets IL-5, significantly reduced asthma exacerbation and oral corticosteroid use in severe asthma patients, they said.

To assess the impact of mepolizumab on patients with comorbidities, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of 822 adults with severe asthma, including 321 with CRSwNP, 309 with GERD, 203 with depression/anxiety, and 81 with COPD. The findings were published in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice.

The main outcomes were the rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (CSEs) between the 12 months before and after mepolizumab initiation, and the changes from baseline in the daily maintenance use of oral corticosteroids (OCS).

Across all comorbidities, the rate of CSEs decreased significantly from the pretreatment period to the follow-up period, from 4.28 events per year to 1.23 events per year.

“A numerically greater reduction in the rate of CSEs was reported for patients with versus without CRSwNP, whereas the reverse was reported for patients with versus without COPD and depression/anxiety, although the confidence intervals were large for the with COPD subgroup,” the researchers wrote.

The median maintenance dose of oral corticosteroids decreased by at least 50% across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment; patients with CRSwNP had the greatest reduction (83%).

In addition, scores on the Asthma Control Questionnaire–5 decreased by at least 0.63 points, and least squared (LS) mean changes in forced expiratory volume per second (FEV₁) increased from baseline across all comorbidities after mepolizumab treatment by at least 74 mL.

Although patients with versus without CRSwNP had greater improvements, patients without GERD, depression/anxiety, and COPD had greater improvements than did those without the respective conditions with the exception of greater FEV₁ improvement in patients with vs. without COPD.

“Patients with severe asthma and comorbid CRSwNP are recognized as having a high disease burden, as demonstrated by more frequent exacerbations,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Mepolizumab may serve to reduce the disease burden of this high-risk group by targeting the common pathophysiological pathway of IL-5 and eosinophilic-driven inflammation because it has proven clinical benefits in treating asthma and CRSwNP separately and together,” and the current study findings support the use of mepolizumab for this population in particular, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for voluntary assessments, the post hoc design and relatively small numbers of patients in various subgroups, notably COPD, and the potential inaccurate diagnosis of COPD, the researchers noted.

“Nevertheless, because the amount of improvement in each outcome following mepolizumab treatment differed depending on the comorbidity in question, our findings highlight the impact that comorbidities and their prevalence and severity have on outcomes,” and the overall success of mepolizumab across clinical characteristics and comorbidities supports the generalizability of the findings to the larger population of adults with severe asthma, they concluded.

The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Liu disclosed research funding from GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gossamer Bio, and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Gossamer Bio.

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

AMSTERDAM – Systematic screening by primary care physicians for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in high-risk adults – those with type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or both – more than doubled the rate of incident CVD diagnosed, compared with usual care, in a Dutch study involving more than 1,200 people and 25 primary care practices.

Scaling up this program to larger populations could potentially uncover huge numbers of currently unrecognized people with CVD given the large number of adults with type 2 diabetes plus those with COPD, Amy Groenewegen, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“I think this screening is ready for routine use, but it could be followed by prospective studies that investigate whether it produces more benefits in patient-centered outcomes,” Dr. Groenewegen said in a press briefing. She stressed that it has not yet been clearly proven that patients with these chronic diseases are better off long term when their CVD is detected sooner using the tested approach.

“We need simple ways to identify relevant patients for additional screening and potential treatment” of CVD, commented Lars Kober, MD, designated discussant at the Congress and a cardiologist and professor at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital.
 

A ‘very simple’ symptom questionnaire

The study is important because it tested a “very simple” symptom questionnaire as the initial screening phase, yet resulted in a CVD diagnostic rate that was two- to threefold higher than in the control patients managed with usual care, Dr. Kober noted.

The Reviving the Early Diagnosis of CVD (RED-CVD) trial randomized 14 primary care practices in the Netherlands to apply a structured screening protocol to adults with type 2 diabetes or COPD, and another 11 practices that served as controls and provided their patients with usual care.

The study included 624 people in the screening arm and 592 in the usual-care arm. Their average age was about 68 years. In the screening arm, 87% had type 2 diabetes and 20% had COPD, including 6.3% with both. In the usual-care arm, 86% had type 2 diabetes, 21% had COPD, with 7.4% having both.

About a quarter of the study cohort had a history of a CVD diagnosis, but they were included for their potential for developing another form of CVD. The study considered three types of CVD: coronary artery disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation.

The CVD screening protocol began with an 11-question survey, completed by patients, that asked about their symptoms. The survey was devised by a research team at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, who collaborated on the study.

The second phase for people who had suggestive symptoms was a physical examination, measurement of serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (elevated levels signal incident heart failure), and an ECG. People who continued to show findings consistent with CVD in this phase were then referred on a discretionary basis by the attending physician to a specialist.
 

More than doubling the CVD diagnosis rate

The screening program produced a total of 50 new CVD diagnoses in the screening cohort (8%) and 18 in the control, usual-care arm (3%), for the study’s primary endpoint. The greatest number of events involved heart failure, followed by coronary disease.

The screening questionnaire identified 70% of the people who completed it with suggestive symptoms, such as shortness of breath, claudication, or palpitations. The follow-up assessments of phase two narrowed the group with possible new CVD down to 44% of the people in this arm, and the participating physicians referred 39% to a specialist.

An analysis that adjusted for several demographic and clinical variables and excluded nonobstructive coronary disease as a new CVD diagnosis showed that the systematic screening approach resulted in 2.4-fold more new diagnoses than usual care, reported Dr. Groenewegen, an epidemiologist at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands.

RED-CVD received no commercial funding. Dr. Groenewegen disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kober has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

The American College of Rheumatology has released a summary of upcoming guidelines on screening, monitoring, and treatment for interstitial lung disease (ILD) in patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease.

The recommendations apply to adults with rheumatic diseases at greater risk for ILD: rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis (SSc), mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), Sjögren’s disease (SjD), and idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM).

“Interstitial lung disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality across several systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases,” Sindhu R. Johnson, MD, PhD, lead author of the new guidelines and director of the clinical epidemiology and health care research program at the University of Toronto, said in an ACR press release. “Guidance was needed for which tests to use for screening and monitoring this particular disease.”

The two documents are summaries of part of a larger manuscript currently awaiting peer review, according to the ACR, and the final guidelines are anticipated to be published by early 2024.

The recommendations were developed using “the best available evidence and consensus across a range of expert opinions and incorporated patient values and preferences,” according to the press release.

Highlights of recommendations for screening and monitoring ILD are:

• Providers can screen patients at higher risk for ILD with pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high-resolution CT of the chest.
• PFTs, chest high-resolution CT, and ambulatory desaturation testing are conditionally recommended for monitoring ILD progression.
• It is conditionally recommended that providers do not use 6-minute walk test distance, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy for screening or monitoring disease.
• It is suggested that patients with IIM-ILD and SSc-ILD receive PFTs for monitoring every 3-6 months during the first year, then less frequently once stable.
• It is suggested that patients with RA-ILD, SjD-ILD, and MCTD-ILD receive PFTs every 3-12 months for the first year, then less frequently once stable.

Suggestions on how often to screen for ILD were not present in the summary documents, but will be made available in the larger manuscript, said Elana Bernstein, MD, director of the Columbia University Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital scleroderma program, New York. She is co–first author of the guidelines.

Nearly all recommendations are conditional, primarily because the certainty of evidence behind many of these recommendations is low or very low, she said in an interview. More clinical data on ILD in patients with rheumatic disease would help strengthen evidence, she said, particularly for best practices in frequency of testing. “We need more research on how often patients should be screened for ILD and how often they should be monitored for ILD progression,” she said. “That would enable us to provide recommendations, rather than just suggestions.”

Highlights of recommendations for ILD treatment are:

• The guidelines strongly recommend against using glucocorticoids for first-line ILD treatment in patients with SSc-ILD.
• Short-term glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended as a first-line ILD treatment for patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease–related ILD (SARD-ILD), excluding SSc-ILD.
• Mycophenolate, azathioprine, rituximab, and cyclophosphamide are all potential first-line ILD treatment options for patients with SARD-ILD.
• It is conditionally recommended that patients with SARD-ILD do not receive leflunomide, methotrexate, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, or abatacept as first-line ILD treatment.
• If SARD-ILD progresses despite first-line therapy, mycophenolate, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and nintedanib are potential secondary treatment options.
• If RA-ILD progresses following initial therapy, pirfenidone is a treatment option.
• The guidelines conditionally recommend against pirfenidone as a secondary treatment option for SARD-ILD other than RA-ILD.

These summary guidelines appear “comprehensive,” but there has yet to be information published on the basis of these recommendations, Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, said in an interview.

“It’s important to understand that we don’t know whether most of these recommendations were just driven by expert opinion versus actual evidence from randomized, controlled clinical trials,” said Dr. Volkmann, who codirects the connective tissue disease–related interstitial lung disease program at the University of California, Los Angeles. She was not involved with creating the guidelines.

She expects that many of the recommendations for first- and second-line ILD treatment options were based on expert opinion, as there have been no randomized clinical trials looking at that specific topic, she said. For example, nintedanib is conditionally recommended as a first-line treatment option for SSc-ILD, but as a second-line treatment for SjD-ILD, IIM-ILD, and MCTD-ILD. “There’s no literature to support one or the other – whether nintedanib is first-line or second-line [treatment].”

The decision to publish the summary recommendations online prior to peer review is unusual, she said, as these recommendations could be altered during that process; however, Dr. Bernstein noted that was not likely.

By releasing the summary guideline now, the ACR can “get the needed information to clinicians earlier as the manuscript goes through its remaining stages and is finalized,” an ACR representative explained.

Prior to the expected publication of these guidelines in early 2024, Dr. Volkmann noted that the American Thoracic Society will be publishing guidelines on the treatment of SSc-ILD in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in September.

Dr. Bernstein reported grants/contracts with the Department of Defense, the Scleroderma Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Eicos, Boehringer Ingelheim, Kadmon, and Pfizer. Dr. Volkmann has received consulting and speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline and institutional support for performing studies on systemic sclerosis for Kadmon, Boehringer Ingelheim, Horizon, and Prometheus.

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

People on Medicare may in 2026 see prices drop for 10 medicines, including pricey diabetes, cancer, blood clot, and arthritis treatments, if advocates for federal drug-price negotiations can implement their plans amid tough opposition.

The Biden administration on Aug. 29 revealed the first 10 drugs selected for direct Medicare price negotiations in accordance with a process mandated by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

It’s unclear at this time, though, how these negotiations will play out. The Chamber of Commerce has sided with pharmaceutical companies in bids to block direct Medicare negotiation of drug prices. Many influential Republicans in Congress oppose this plan, which has deep support from both Democrats and AARP.

While facing strong opposition to negotiations, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sought in its announcement to illustrate the high costs of the selected medicines.

CMS provided data on total Part D costs for selected medicines for the period from June 2022 to May 2023, along with tallies of the number of people taking these drugs. The 10 selected medicines are as follows:
 

• Eliquis (generic name: apixaban), used to prevent and treat serious blood clots. It is taken by about 3.7 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $16.4 billion.
• Jardiance (generic name: empagliflozin), used for diabetes and heart failure. It is taken by almost 1.6 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $7.06 billion.
• Xarelto (generic name: rivaroxaban), used for blood clots. It is taken by about 1.3 million people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $6 billion.
• Januvia (generic name: sitagliptin), used for diabetes. It is taken by about 869,00 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $4.1 billion.
• Farxiga (generic name: dapagliflozin), used for diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease. It is taken by about 799,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is almost $3.3 billion.
• Entresto (generic name: sacubitril/valsartan), used to treat heart failure. It is taken by 587,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.9 billion.
• Enbrel( generic name: etanercept), used for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis. It is taken by 48,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.8 billion.
• Imbruvica (generic name: ibrutinib), used to treat some blood cancers. It is taken by about 20,000 people in Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.7 billion.
• Stelara (generic name: ustekinumab), used to treat plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or certain bowel conditions (Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis). It is used by about 22,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.
• Fiasp; Fiasp FlexTouch; Fiasp PenFill; NovoLog; NovoLog FlexPen; NovoLog PenFill. These are forms of insulin used to treat diabetes. They are used by about 777,000 people through Part D plans. The estimated cost is $2.6 billion.

A vocal critic of Medicare drug negotiations, Joel White, president of the Council for Affordable Health Coverage, called the announcement of the 10 drugs selected for negotiation “a hollow victory lap.” A former Republican staffer on the House Ways and Means Committee, Mr. White aided with the development of the Medicare Part D plans and has kept tabs on the pharmacy programs since its launch in 2006.

“No one’s costs will go down now or for years because of this announcement” about Part D negotiations, Mr. White said in a statement.

According to its website, CAHC includes among its members the American Academy of Ophthalmology as well as some patient groups, drugmakers, such as Johnson & Johnson, and insurers and industry groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers.

Separately, the influential Chamber of Commerce is making a strong push to at least delay the implementation of the Medicare Part D drug negotiations. On Aug. 28, the chamber released a letter sent to the Biden administration, raising concerns about a “rush” to implement the provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The chamber also has filed suit to challenge the drug negotiation provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction by Oct. 1, 2023.

Other pending legal challenges to direct Medicare drug negotiations include suits filed by Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca, according to an email from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA also said it is a party to a case.

In addition, the three congressional Republicans with most direct influence over Medicare policy issued on Aug. 29 a joint statement outlining their objections to the planned negotiations on drug prices.

This drug-negotiation proposal is “an unworkable, legally dubious scheme that will lead to higher prices for new drugs coming to market, stifle the development of new cures, and destroy jobs,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo (R-Idaho).

Democrats were equally firm and vocal in their support of the negotiations. Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) issued a statement on Aug. 29 that said the release of the list of the 10 drugs selected for Medicare drug negotiations is part of a “seismic shift in the relationship between Big Pharma, the federal government, and seniors who are counting on lower prices.

“I will be following the negotiation process closely and will fight any attempt by Big Pharma to undo or undermine the progress that’s been made,” Mr. Wyden said.

In addition, AARP issued a statement of its continued support for Medicare drug negotiations.

“The No. 1 reason seniors skip or ration their prescriptions is because they can’t afford them. This must stop,” said AARP executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer Nancy LeaMond in the statement. “The big drug companies and their allies continue suing to overturn the Medicare drug price negotiation program to keep up their price gouging. We can’t allow seniors to be Big Pharma’s cash machine anymore.”

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

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis patients with both interstitial lung disease and pulmonary hypertension had worse survival than those without both conditions, based on data from more than 3,000 individuals.

Pulmonary complications are now the most common causes of death in adults with systemic sclerosis (SSc), but the impact of patient characteristics and risk factors such as interstitial lung disease (ILD) and pulmonary hypertension (PH) on SSc outcomes remains unclear, wrote Pia Moinzadeh, MD, of University Hospital Cologne (Germany) and colleagues.

Although the role of ILD and PH in different SSc subtypes has been studied, larger studies of the effects of ILD and combining ILD and PH on outcomes are needed, since survival rates can change over time with new classification criteria, diagnostic tools, and improved therapies, they said.

In a study published in the journal Chest, the researchers reviewed data from 3,257 adults aged 18 years and older with SSc over a mean follow-up of 3.45 years. Participants were part of the German Network for Systemic Sclerosis (DNSS) that included 25 clinical centers in Germany. The participants were divided into SSc subsets: 54.2% with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc), 31.4% with diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), and 14.4% SSc overlapping syndromes.

The baseline prevalence of ILD was 34.5%, including 200 patients with ILD-PH and 923 with ILD but without PH. The baseline prevalence of PH without ILD was 4.5%. ILD was defined as SSc associated when other causes were excluded. PH was defined as an increase in mean arterial pressure of at least 25 mm Hg at rest, and also was defined by an estimated right ventricular systolic pressure greater than 35 mm Hg based on echocardiography.

By the end of the study period, 47.6% of SSc patients had ILD, 15.2% had ILD-PH, and 6.5% had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Of the SSc patients with ILD, 57.3% had dcSSc; the prevalence of PAH was not significantly different between the SSc subtypes. Patients with dcSSc were more likely to develop ILD-PH (52.2%) and ILD without PH (52.1%); patients with lcSSc were more likely to have PAH (64.9%) or no pulmonary involvement (64.1%).

“For all subsets, a significant increase in the frequency of SSc-ILD was observed during follow-ups,” the researchers noted.

Overall survival at 5 years was worst for patients with both ILD and PH (79.1%). Five-year OS for patients with PAH was 85.0%. OS at 5 years was significantly better for patients with ILD without PH (92.8%) and those with no pulmonary involvement (96.4%), compared with the ILD and PH patients (P < 0.001).

In a multivariate analysis, the risk of death was more than five times higher for patients with ILD-PH, compared with the reference group of patients without pulmonary involvement (hazard ratio, 5.3). Factors associated with reduced risk of death included female sex (HR, 0.3), higher body mass index (HR, 0.9), and higher diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (HR, 0.98).

The findings were limited by several factors including the incomplete data for patients enrolled early in the registry, lack of complete radiology data, and the inability to determine whether the association between pulmonary involvement and survival was related to ILD or to pulmonary vascular disease, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that a combination of ILD and PH is the main predictor of death in patients with SSc and ILD, although the overall survival for SSc patients with and without pulmonary involvement has improved in recent decades thanks to improved therapies, multidisciplinary care, and greater attention to the disease worldwide, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Moinzadeh disclosed lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Severe COVID infections may lead to lasting damage to the immune system, new research finds.

The small study, published in Cell and funded by the National Institutes of Health, details how immune cells were analyzed through blood samples collected from 38 patients recovering from severe COVID and other critical illnesses, and from 19 healthy people. Researchers from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, and The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Farmington, Conn., found through isolating hematopoietic stem cells that people recovering from severe bouts of COVID had changes to their DNA that were passed down to offspring cells.

The research team, led by Steven Josefowicz, PhD, of Weill Cornell’s pathology department, and Duygu Ucar, PhD, associate professor at The Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, discovered that this chain reaction of stem cell changes caused a boost in the production of monocytes. The authors found that, due to the innate cellular changes from a severe case of COVID, patients in recovery ended up producing a larger amount of inflammatory cytokines, rather than monocytes – distinct from samples collected from healthy patients and those recovering from other critical illnesses.

These changes to patients’ epigenetic landscapes were observed even a year after the initial COVID-19 infection. While the small participant pool meant that the research team could not establish a direct line between these innate changes and any ensuing health outcomes, the research provides us with clues as to why patients continue to struggle with inflammation and long COVID symptoms well after they recover.

While the authors reiterate the study’s limitations and hesitate to make any clear-cut associations between the results and long-term health outcomes, Wolfgang Leitner, PhD, from the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, predicts that long COVID can, at least in part, be explained by the changes in innate immune responses.

“Ideally, the authors would have had cells from each patient before they got infected, as a comparator, to see what the epigenetic landscape was before COVID changed it,” said Dr. Leitner. “Clear links between the severity of COVID and genetics were discovered already early in the pandemic and this paper should prompt follow-up studies that link mutations in immune genes with the epigenetic changes described here.”

Dr. Leitner said he had some initial predictions about the long-term impact of COVID-19, but he had not anticipated some of what the study’s findings now show.

“Unlike in the case of, for example, influenza, where the lungs go into ‘repair mode’ after the infection has been resolved – which leaves people susceptible to secondary infections for up to several months – this study shows that after severe COVID, the immune system remains in ‘emergency mode’ and in a heightened state of inflammation,” said Dr. Leitner.

“That further aggravates the problem the initial strong inflammation causes: even higher risk of autoimmune disease, but also, cancer.”

Commenting on the findings, Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape Medical News, said the study presents “evidence that a key line of immune cells are essentially irrevocably, epigenetically altered and activated.

“You do not want to have this [COVID],” he added.

The study also highlights the researchers’ novel approach to isolating hematopoietic stem cells, found largely in bone marrow. This type of research has been limited in the past because of how costly and invasive it can be to analyze cells in bone marrow. But, by isolating and enriching hematopoietic stem cells, the team can decipher the full cellular diversity of the cells’ bone marrow counterparts.

“This revelation opened the doors to study, at single-cell resolution, how stem cells are affected upon infection and vaccination with a simple blood draw,” representatives from the Jackson lab said in a press release.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

A new strain of COVID-19 that was identified only a week ago in the United States has prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take the rare step of issuing a formal message that it could evade vaccines or the protection of natural immunity. 

The strain is called BA.2.86 and is of particular concern because of its more than 30 mutations, which means it may behave very differently than previous versions of the virus. That number of mutations is on par with the difference between variants so serious that they were formally named, such as between Delta and Omicron, the CDC explained in the risk assessment issued Aug. 23.

Worldwide, health agencies are issuing a flurry of updates on BA.2.86. The strain only recently landed on the World Health Organization’s radar when it was named a “variant under monitoring” on Aug. 17. The CDC announced the same day that it had been detected in the United States.

Among the characteristics the CDC monitors for are how contagious a strain is, how well it responds to treatment, and how severely it affects people.

“BA.2.86 may be more capable of causing infection in people who have previously had COVID-19 or who have received COVID-19 vaccines,” the CDC risk assessment stated.

The agency is evaluating how well the forthcoming updated vaccine, due out in September, performs against BA.2.86.

A new forecast also released this week by the CDC predicts hospitalizations due to the virus will continue their upward trend through at least mid-September. Currently, about 1,800 people are hospitalized daily with COVID-19. The new prediction shows that number has a small potential to drop as low as 1,100 daily, but it could also increase by as many as 7,500 per day. The most likely scenario lands somewhere in the middle of that range, with daily hospital admissions of between 2,000 and 4,000 people by Sept. 18.

The CDC said there is “no evidence” that BA.2.86 is causing more severe illness but said that could change as more information becomes available. Health experts typically gauge severity by the rate of COVID hospitalizations.

The journal Nature reported that many scientists see similarities between the emergence of BA.2.86 and that of Omicron, which rapidly spread around the world in late 2021.

“There’s a little bit of déjà vu all over again,” University of Michigan virologist Adam Lauring, MD, PhD, whose lab detected one of the first U.S. cases of BA.2.86, told Nature.

Dr. Lauring, as well as the CDC and the WHO, all caution that more data is needed to truly understand the threat posed by BA.2.86.

“There’s good reason to think it won’t be like the Omicron wave, but it’s early days,” Dr. Lauring said.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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

People who have been infected with the COVID-19 virus have a greater risk of many long-term health conditions, including diabetes, lung problems, fatigue, blood clots, and disorders affecting the gastrointestinal and musculoskeletal systems.

That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.

“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”

The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.

“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”

Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.

“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”

People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.

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