Clinical Psychiatry News

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many people are spending endless hours at home looking at computer, phone, and television screens. Our population has turned to Internet use and television watching as a coping mechanism to deal with their isolation, boredom, stress, and fear of the virus. Indeed, some people have become addicted to watching television and binge-watching entire series in a single sitting on subscription streaming services.

A U.K. study showed that, during the lockdown, adults averaged spending 40% of their waking hours in front of a screen. After a long binge-watch, folks often forget what happened in the episodes or even the name of the program they viewed. When someone finds himself in this situation and can’t remember very much about what he actually watched, he feels as though he has wasted his own time and might become dysphoric and depressed. This type of viewer feels disconnected and forgets what he watched because he is experiencing passive enjoyment, rather than actively relating to the world.

So should television binge-watching give people feelings of guilt?

Fortunately, there are some positive factors about spending excessive time engrossed in these screens during a pandemic; some people use television viewing as a coping mechanism to deal with the reality and the fear of the coronavirus. Some beneficial aspects of television watching include:

• Escaping from the reality and stress of the pandemic in an emotionally safe, isolated cocoon.
• Experiencing safety from contracting COVID-19 by sheltering in place, isolating, and physical distancing from other people in the outside world.
• Experiencing a subdued, private, and mentally relaxing environment.
• Being productive and multitasking while watching television, for example, knit, sew, fold clothes, pay bills, write a letter, etc.

Despite many beneficial aspects of excessive television watching during the pandemic, we have to ask: Can too much television prove detrimental to our mental or physical well-being?
 

Associated mental, and physical problems

Cause and effect between excessive screen time and sleep disturbances is scientifically unproven, but there is an association between those factors.

Excessive screen time is associated with a sleep deficit, and a proper amount of sleep is necessary for optimal brain function, a healthy immune system, good memory, and overall well-being. Sleep cleans out the short-term memory stage from the information learned that day to make room for new memories. This allows us to store memories every day. An inadequate amount of sleep causes memory problems and cognitive deficits because we are not storing as many memories from days when we are sleep deprived. A good night’s sleep will prevent stress from one day to be carried over to the next day.

Lack of sleep affects people differently, but in some cases, a shortage of sleep can cause feelings of depression and isolation. Television, computer, and phone screens convey excessive damaging LED and blue light, detrimentally affecting our melatonin production and circadian rhythm. Blue light has wavelengths between 380 nm and 500 nm, and although blue wavelengths are beneficial in the day and increase positive mental mood, attention, and reaction times, blue wavelengths are destructive at night. Blue-light exposure suppresses the secretion of melatonin, which, as we know, is a hormone that influences circadian rhythms. The negative disruption of circadian rhythm throws the body’s biological clock in disarray and makes it more difficult for the mind to shut down at night.

Unfortunately, electronics with LED screens increase the amount of exposure to these blue wavelengths. In addition, the U.S. National Toxicology Program has suggested that a link exists between blue-light exposure at night to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and obesity (Sci Tot Environ. 2017 Dec 31;[607-8]:1073-84).
 

Advice for patients and clinicians

Time spent watching television and using the Internet should be done in moderation. Make sure that patients understand that they should not feel guilty about watching television during these periods of isolation.

Encourage patients to be selective in their television viewing and to research available programs on streaming services and TV – and limit their screen time only to programs that truly interest them. Discourage them from watching television endlessly, hour after hour. Also, discourage patients from watching too much news. Instead, tell them to limit news to 1 hour per day, because news they perceive as bad might increase their overall anxiety.

Tell patients to engage in physical exercise every day; walk or run outside if possible. When inside, advise them to get up and walk around at least once per hour. Other advice we would like to offer patients and clinicians alike are:

• Put yourself on a schedule and go to sleep the same time each night and try to get 8 hours of sleep in a 24-hour period.
• Put away your devices 1 hour before going to bed or at least use dark mode, and wear blue-block glasses, since they are easier on the eyes and brain. Do not use television to put yourself to sleep. Spending too much time reading news stories is not a good idea, either, because doing so is mentally stimulating and can cause more uncertainty – making it difficult to sleep.
• Protect your eye health by purchasing and installing light bulbs with more internal red coating than blue. These bulbs will produce a warmer tone than the blue, and warmer tones will be less likely to shift circadian rhythm and suppress melatonin, thus reducing blue-light exposure. Blink your eyes often, and use eye solution for dry eyes.
• Sleep in total darkness to reduce your exposure to blue light. Take supplements with lutein and zeaxanthin, which may reduce the oxidative effects of blue light.

Encouraging patients to follow these guidelines – and adhering to them ourselves – should help us emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic mentally and physically healthy.

Dr. Cohen is board certified in psychiatry and has had a private practice in Philadelphia for more than 35 years. His areas of specialty include sports psychiatry, agoraphobia, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, Dr. Cohen is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest.

Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Temple University, Philadelphia, with a focus on health care administration. Previously, Ms. Cohen was an associate administrator at Hahnemann University Hospital and an executive at the Health Services Council, both in Philadelphia. She currently writes biographical summaries of notable 18th- and 19th-century women. Ms. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many people are spending endless hours at home looking at computer, phone, and television screens. Our population has turned to Internet use and television watching as a coping mechanism to deal with their isolation, boredom, stress, and fear of the virus. Indeed, some people have become addicted to watching television and binge-watching entire series in a single sitting on subscription streaming services.

A U.K. study showed that, during the lockdown, adults averaged spending 40% of their waking hours in front of a screen. After a long binge-watch, folks often forget what happened in the episodes or even the name of the program they viewed. When someone finds himself in this situation and can’t remember very much about what he actually watched, he feels as though he has wasted his own time and might become dysphoric and depressed. This type of viewer feels disconnected and forgets what he watched because he is experiencing passive enjoyment, rather than actively relating to the world.

So should television binge-watching give people feelings of guilt?

Fortunately, there are some positive factors about spending excessive time engrossed in these screens during a pandemic; some people use television viewing as a coping mechanism to deal with the reality and the fear of the coronavirus. Some beneficial aspects of television watching include:

• Escaping from the reality and stress of the pandemic in an emotionally safe, isolated cocoon.
• Experiencing safety from contracting COVID-19 by sheltering in place, isolating, and physical distancing from other people in the outside world.
• Experiencing a subdued, private, and mentally relaxing environment.
• Being productive and multitasking while watching television, for example, knit, sew, fold clothes, pay bills, write a letter, etc.

Despite many beneficial aspects of excessive television watching during the pandemic, we have to ask: Can too much television prove detrimental to our mental or physical well-being?
 

Associated mental, and physical problems

Cause and effect between excessive screen time and sleep disturbances is scientifically unproven, but there is an association between those factors.

Excessive screen time is associated with a sleep deficit, and a proper amount of sleep is necessary for optimal brain function, a healthy immune system, good memory, and overall well-being. Sleep cleans out the short-term memory stage from the information learned that day to make room for new memories. This allows us to store memories every day. An inadequate amount of sleep causes memory problems and cognitive deficits because we are not storing as many memories from days when we are sleep deprived. A good night’s sleep will prevent stress from one day to be carried over to the next day.

Lack of sleep affects people differently, but in some cases, a shortage of sleep can cause feelings of depression and isolation. Television, computer, and phone screens convey excessive damaging LED and blue light, detrimentally affecting our melatonin production and circadian rhythm. Blue light has wavelengths between 380 nm and 500 nm, and although blue wavelengths are beneficial in the day and increase positive mental mood, attention, and reaction times, blue wavelengths are destructive at night. Blue-light exposure suppresses the secretion of melatonin, which, as we know, is a hormone that influences circadian rhythms. The negative disruption of circadian rhythm throws the body’s biological clock in disarray and makes it more difficult for the mind to shut down at night.

Unfortunately, electronics with LED screens increase the amount of exposure to these blue wavelengths. In addition, the U.S. National Toxicology Program has suggested that a link exists between blue-light exposure at night to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and obesity (Sci Tot Environ. 2017 Dec 31;[607-8]:1073-84).
 

Advice for patients and clinicians

Time spent watching television and using the Internet should be done in moderation. Make sure that patients understand that they should not feel guilty about watching television during these periods of isolation.

Encourage patients to be selective in their television viewing and to research available programs on streaming services and TV – and limit their screen time only to programs that truly interest them. Discourage them from watching television endlessly, hour after hour. Also, discourage patients from watching too much news. Instead, tell them to limit news to 1 hour per day, because news they perceive as bad might increase their overall anxiety.

Tell patients to engage in physical exercise every day; walk or run outside if possible. When inside, advise them to get up and walk around at least once per hour. Other advice we would like to offer patients and clinicians alike are:

• Put yourself on a schedule and go to sleep the same time each night and try to get 8 hours of sleep in a 24-hour period.
• Put away your devices 1 hour before going to bed or at least use dark mode, and wear blue-block glasses, since they are easier on the eyes and brain. Do not use television to put yourself to sleep. Spending too much time reading news stories is not a good idea, either, because doing so is mentally stimulating and can cause more uncertainty – making it difficult to sleep.
• Protect your eye health by purchasing and installing light bulbs with more internal red coating than blue. These bulbs will produce a warmer tone than the blue, and warmer tones will be less likely to shift circadian rhythm and suppress melatonin, thus reducing blue-light exposure. Blink your eyes often, and use eye solution for dry eyes.
• Sleep in total darkness to reduce your exposure to blue light. Take supplements with lutein and zeaxanthin, which may reduce the oxidative effects of blue light.

Encouraging patients to follow these guidelines – and adhering to them ourselves – should help us emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic mentally and physically healthy.

Dr. Cohen is board certified in psychiatry and has had a private practice in Philadelphia for more than 35 years. His areas of specialty include sports psychiatry, agoraphobia, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, Dr. Cohen is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest.

Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Temple University, Philadelphia, with a focus on health care administration. Previously, Ms. Cohen was an associate administrator at Hahnemann University Hospital and an executive at the Health Services Council, both in Philadelphia. She currently writes biographical summaries of notable 18th- and 19th-century women. Ms. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

During the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many people are spending endless hours at home looking at computer, phone, and television screens. Our population has turned to Internet use and television watching as a coping mechanism to deal with their isolation, boredom, stress, and fear of the virus. Indeed, some people have become addicted to watching television and binge-watching entire series in a single sitting on subscription streaming services.

A U.K. study showed that, during the lockdown, adults averaged spending 40% of their waking hours in front of a screen. After a long binge-watch, folks often forget what happened in the episodes or even the name of the program they viewed. When someone finds himself in this situation and can’t remember very much about what he actually watched, he feels as though he has wasted his own time and might become dysphoric and depressed. This type of viewer feels disconnected and forgets what he watched because he is experiencing passive enjoyment, rather than actively relating to the world.

So should television binge-watching give people feelings of guilt?

Fortunately, there are some positive factors about spending excessive time engrossed in these screens during a pandemic; some people use television viewing as a coping mechanism to deal with the reality and the fear of the coronavirus. Some beneficial aspects of television watching include:

• Escaping from the reality and stress of the pandemic in an emotionally safe, isolated cocoon.
• Experiencing safety from contracting COVID-19 by sheltering in place, isolating, and physical distancing from other people in the outside world.
• Experiencing a subdued, private, and mentally relaxing environment.
• Being productive and multitasking while watching television, for example, knit, sew, fold clothes, pay bills, write a letter, etc.

Despite many beneficial aspects of excessive television watching during the pandemic, we have to ask: Can too much television prove detrimental to our mental or physical well-being?
 

Associated mental, and physical problems

Cause and effect between excessive screen time and sleep disturbances is scientifically unproven, but there is an association between those factors.

Excessive screen time is associated with a sleep deficit, and a proper amount of sleep is necessary for optimal brain function, a healthy immune system, good memory, and overall well-being. Sleep cleans out the short-term memory stage from the information learned that day to make room for new memories. This allows us to store memories every day. An inadequate amount of sleep causes memory problems and cognitive deficits because we are not storing as many memories from days when we are sleep deprived. A good night’s sleep will prevent stress from one day to be carried over to the next day.

Lack of sleep affects people differently, but in some cases, a shortage of sleep can cause feelings of depression and isolation. Television, computer, and phone screens convey excessive damaging LED and blue light, detrimentally affecting our melatonin production and circadian rhythm. Blue light has wavelengths between 380 nm and 500 nm, and although blue wavelengths are beneficial in the day and increase positive mental mood, attention, and reaction times, blue wavelengths are destructive at night. Blue-light exposure suppresses the secretion of melatonin, which, as we know, is a hormone that influences circadian rhythms. The negative disruption of circadian rhythm throws the body’s biological clock in disarray and makes it more difficult for the mind to shut down at night.

Unfortunately, electronics with LED screens increase the amount of exposure to these blue wavelengths. In addition, the U.S. National Toxicology Program has suggested that a link exists between blue-light exposure at night to diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and obesity (Sci Tot Environ. 2017 Dec 31;[607-8]:1073-84).
 

Advice for patients and clinicians

Time spent watching television and using the Internet should be done in moderation. Make sure that patients understand that they should not feel guilty about watching television during these periods of isolation.

Encourage patients to be selective in their television viewing and to research available programs on streaming services and TV – and limit their screen time only to programs that truly interest them. Discourage them from watching television endlessly, hour after hour. Also, discourage patients from watching too much news. Instead, tell them to limit news to 1 hour per day, because news they perceive as bad might increase their overall anxiety.

Tell patients to engage in physical exercise every day; walk or run outside if possible. When inside, advise them to get up and walk around at least once per hour. Other advice we would like to offer patients and clinicians alike are:

• Put yourself on a schedule and go to sleep the same time each night and try to get 8 hours of sleep in a 24-hour period.
• Put away your devices 1 hour before going to bed or at least use dark mode, and wear blue-block glasses, since they are easier on the eyes and brain. Do not use television to put yourself to sleep. Spending too much time reading news stories is not a good idea, either, because doing so is mentally stimulating and can cause more uncertainty – making it difficult to sleep.
• Protect your eye health by purchasing and installing light bulbs with more internal red coating than blue. These bulbs will produce a warmer tone than the blue, and warmer tones will be less likely to shift circadian rhythm and suppress melatonin, thus reducing blue-light exposure. Blink your eyes often, and use eye solution for dry eyes.
• Sleep in total darkness to reduce your exposure to blue light. Take supplements with lutein and zeaxanthin, which may reduce the oxidative effects of blue light.

Encouraging patients to follow these guidelines – and adhering to them ourselves – should help us emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic mentally and physically healthy.

Dr. Cohen is board certified in psychiatry and has had a private practice in Philadelphia for more than 35 years. His areas of specialty include sports psychiatry, agoraphobia, depression, and substance abuse. In addition, Dr. Cohen is a former professor of psychiatry, family medicine, and otolaryngology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. He has no conflicts of interest.

Ms. Cohen holds an MBA from Temple University, Philadelphia, with a focus on health care administration. Previously, Ms. Cohen was an associate administrator at Hahnemann University Hospital and an executive at the Health Services Council, both in Philadelphia. She currently writes biographical summaries of notable 18th- and 19th-century women. Ms. Cohen has no conflicts of interest.

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

The United States is nearly 6 weeks into its historic campaign to vaccinate Americans against the virus that causes COVID-19, and so far, the two vaccines in use look remarkably low risk, according to new data presented today at a meeting of vaccine experts that advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

With 23.5 million doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines now given, there have been very few serious side effects. In addition, deaths reported after people got the vaccine do not seem to be related to it.

The most common symptoms reported after vaccination were pain where people got the shot, fatigue, headache, and muscle soreness. These were more common after the second dose. In addition, about one in four people reported fever and chills after the second shot.

“On the whole, I thought it was very reassuring,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert with Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who listened to the presentations.

The CDC is collecting safety information through multiple channels. These include a new smartphone-based app called V-Safe, which collects daily information from people who’ve been vaccinated; the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, which accepts reports from anyone; and the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is a collaboration between the CDC and nine major hospital systems. There’s also the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Project, a collaboration between the CDC and vaccine safety experts.

After surveying these systems, experts heading the safety committee for the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices said there have been few serious side effects reported.

Very rarely, severe allergic reactions – called anaphylaxis – have occurred after vaccination. There have been 50 of these cases reported after the Pfizer vaccine and 21 cases reported after the Moderna vaccine to date. Nearly all of them – 94% of the anaphylaxis cases after Pfizer vaccines and 100% of those after Moderna’s vaccine – have been in women, though it’s not clear why.

That translates to a rate of about five cases of anaphylaxis for every million doses of the Pfizer vaccine and about three for every million doses of the Moderna vaccine. Most of these occur within 15 minutes after getting a vaccine dose, with one reported as long as 20 hours after the shot.

The CDC suspects these may be related to an ingredient called polyethylene glycol (PEG). PEG is a part of the particles that slip the vaccines’ mRNA into cells with instructions to make the spike protein of the virus. Cells then express these spikes on their surfaces so the immune system can learn to recognize them and make defenses against them. PEG is a common ingredient in many drugs and occasionally triggers anaphylaxis.
 

Reported deaths seem unrelated to vaccines

Through Jan. 18, 196 people have died after getting a vaccine.

Most of these deaths (129) were in patients in long term care facilities. These deaths are still being investigated, but when they were compared with the number of deaths that might be expected over the same period because of natural causes, they seemed to be coincidental and not caused by the vaccine, said Tom Shimabukuro, MD, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC, who studied the data.

In fact, death rates were lower among vaccinated nursing home residents, compared with those who had not been vaccinated.

“These findings suggest that short-term mortality rates appear unrelated to vaccination for COVID-19,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

This also appeared to be true for younger adults who died after their shots.

There were 28 people aged under 65 years who died after being vaccinated. Most of these deaths were heart related, according to autopsy reports. When investigators compared the number of sudden cardiac deaths expected to occur in this population naturally, they found people who were vaccinated had a lower rate than would have been expected without vaccination. This suggests that these deaths were also unrelated to the vaccine.
 

More vaccines on the horizon

The panel also heard an update from drug company AstraZeneca on its vaccine. It’s being used in 18 countries but has not yet been authorized in the United States.

That vaccine is currently in phase 3 of its U.S. clinical trials, and more than 26,000 people who have volunteered to get the shot had received their second dose as of Jan. 21, the company said.

The Food and Drug Administration requires at least 2 months of follow-up before it will evaluate a vaccine for an emergency-use authorization, which means the company would be ready to submit by the end of March, with a possible approval by April.

The AstraZeneca vaccine uses a more traditional method to create immunity, slipping a key part of the virus that causes COVID-19 into the shell of an adenovirus – a virus that causes cold-like symptoms – that normally infects monkeys. When the immune system sees the virus, it generates protective defenses against it.

The two-dose vaccine can be stored in a regular refrigerator for up to 6 months, which makes it easier to handle than the mRNA vaccines, which require much colder storage. Another advantage appears to be that it’s less likely to trigger severe allergic reactions. So far, there have been no cases of anaphylaxis reported after this shot.

In total, four serious side effects have been reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine, including two cases of transverse myelitis, a serious condition that causes swelling of the spinal cord, leading to pain, muscle weakness, and paralysis. One of these was in the group that got the placebo. The reports paused the trial, but it was allowed to continue after a safety review.

This vaccine also appears to be less effective than the mRNA shots. Data presented to the panel show it appears to cut the risk of developing a COVID infection that has symptoms by 62%. That’s over the 50% threshold the FDA set for approval but less than seen with the mRNA vaccines, which are more than 90% effective at preventing infections.

“Is the average person going to want to take the AstraZeneca shot? What role is this going to play in our vaccination program?” Dr. Schaffner said.

Johnson & Johnson will have enough data from its clinical trials to submit it to the FDA within the next week, the company said in a call with shareholders on Tuesday. So far, its one-dose shots looks to be about as effective as both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

“It could be that we wind up with four vaccines: Three that can run very fast, and one that’s not so fast,” Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

A follow-up look at an international registry suggests that some people may have persistent, long-lasting dermatologic manifestations – especially so-called “COVID toes” – as a result of infection with or exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, but some dermatologists question if the skin signs and symptoms are truly related.

In their commentary in the Lancet Infectious Diseases, Esther P. Freeman, MD, PhD, and colleagues who lead and participate in the American Academy of Dermatology’s international registry said their analysis “revealed a previously unreported subset of patients who experience long-haul symptoms in dermatology-dominant COVID-19.”

Some of the data was presented at the 29th European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in late October 2020, but has since been updated with more cases.

Dermatologists who spoke with this news organization said it has not been settled that some skin manifestations – such as pernio/chilblains rashes, seen primarily in nonhospitalized patients, and described in the registry – are definitively caused by COVID. They also noted that in some cases, patients who initially test negative for COVID-19 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) sometimes do not ever develop antibodies, which could mean they were never actually exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

“I still question whether the perniosis is directly related to infection with SARS-CoV-2 or not,” said Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical and inpatient dermatology and assistant professor of dermatopathology at the Cleveland Clinic. His uncertainty is driven by the lack of seroconversion and that few cases were seen over the summer in the United States – suggesting that it may still be a result of cold temperatures.

“I’m not sure there is a definitive correct answer, definitely not that everyone would agree on,” said Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

Dr. Freeman, however, believed that pernio and especially persistent lesions are caused by an immune response to COVID.

In an interview, she noted the multiple cases of patients in the registry who did seroconvert and that, while a registry is not a perfect means of getting an answer, it is good for generating questions. Taken collectively, the cases in the registry can “tell a story for further hypotheses,” said Dr. Freeman, who is director of global health dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of dermatology at Harvard University, both in Boston.

“We were noticing this signal across the world” that patients “developed these toe lesions and they never got better,” said Dr. Freeman. Generally, people who experience pernio, also described as COVID toes or “COVID fingers,” recover in 4-8 weeks. But in the registry, “we did have this subset of patients who really were experiencing these very longstanding symptoms,” she added.

Two patients with lab-confirmed COVID have had long-lasting pernio of 133 days and 150 days. “I’m caring for a cohort in Boston who have had long COVID of the skin and symptoms for over 10 months,” Dr. Freeman said.
 

Pernio dominates

The registry – a collaboration between the AAD and the International League of Dermatological Societies – was launched in April 2020. Any medical professional can enter case information. From April to October, 1,030 total cases and 331 laboratory-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 cases with dermatological manifestations were entered from 41 countries.

Most of the cases were just recorded at a single time point, which is an acknowledged limitation of the study.

Dr. Freeman and colleagues reached out to registry participants in June and August to get updates on COVID lab test results and sign and symptom duration. Overall, 234 total and 96 lab-confirmed COVID infections had more lengthy data about sign and symptom duration.

Pernio lasted a median of 15 days in patients with suspected disease and 12 days for those with lab-confirmed COVID, compared with a median of 7 days for morbilliform eruptions, 4 days for urticarial eruptions, and 20 days for papulosquamous eruptions – all in patients with lab-confirmed disease.

Of the 103 cases of pernio, 7 had symptoms lasting more than 60 days. Only two of those seven patients had lab-confirmed COVID. Initially, the one patient tested negative with nasopharyngeal PCR, and serum IgM and IgG. Six weeks after pernio onset, the patient – still experiencing fatigue and pernio – seroconverted to anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgM positivity.

The other long-haul patient, after a negative PCR, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG 1 month after pernio onset.

Robust immune response?

Dr. Freeman said these patients might have a very high interferon response initially to the virus, which makes for a mild to nonexistent disease, but could create inflammation elsewhere. “I almost view the toes as an innocent bystander of a robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2.”

Although he has not seen extended pernio or other skin manifestations in his patients, Dr. Fernandez said the interferon hypothesis is “fair,” and “the best that’s out there.” Dr. Fernandez is currently studying cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 as a principal investigator of a trial sponsored by the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland.

Dr. Ko said in an interview that she has not observed long-haul skin issues in her patients, but Yale colleagues have.

In a study, she and Yale colleagues published in September, SARS-CoV-2 spike protein was detected in perniotic lesions, but not nuclear protein or viral RNA. The test they used – immunohistochemistry – can be nonspecific, which muddied results.

She does not think there is replicating virus in the skin or the lesions. Instead, said Dr. Ko, “either there is viral spike protein that has somehow become disassociated from actively replicating virus that somehow got deposited in endothelial cells,” or the staining “was spurious,” or some other protein is cross-reacting. “And the people who are unlucky enough to have that protein in their endothelial cells can manifest this COVID-toe, COVID-finger phenomenon.”

To her, it’s an unsolved mystery. “The weird thing is, we’ve never before had this much perniosis,” Dr. Ko said.

Dr. Fernandez is not convinced yet, noting that, in Cleveland, more pernio cases were observed in March and April than in the summer. “If it is a manifestation of the infection then you also need the right environment, the cold weather for this manifestation to present,” he said. “Or, it really isn’t a direct manifestation of COVID-19 but may be more related to other factors,” such as lifestyle changes related to limitations implemented to help mitigate the spread of the disease.

“To me the jury is still out whether or not the perniotic lesions really can tell us something about a patient’s exposure and infection with SARS-CoV-2,” he said.

Dr. Freeman reported receiving a grant from the International League of Dermatological Societies and nonfinancial support from the AAD for the study. Dr. Ko reported no conflicts. Dr. Fernadnez had no disclosures.

Naltrexone reduces the risk for hospitalization for alcohol use disorder (AUD), regardless of whether it is used alone or in conjunction with disulfiram or acamprosate, research suggests.

Katarzyna Bialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Investigators analyzed 10-year data on more than 125,000 Swedish residents with AUD and found that naltrexone, used as monotherapy or combined with acamprosate or disulfiram, was associated with significantly lower risk for AUD hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization in comparison with patients who did not use AUD medication. The patients ranged in age from 16 to 64 years.

By contrast, benzodiazepines and acamprosate monotherapy were associated with increased risk for AUD hospitalization.

“The take-home message for practicing clinicians would be that especially naltrexone use is associated with favorable treatment outcomes and should be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for AUD,” study investigator Milja Heikkinen, MD, specialist in forensic psychiatry and addiction medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, told this news organization.

On the other hand, “benzodiazepines should be avoided and should not be administered other than for alcohol withdrawal symptoms,” she said.

The study was published online Jan. 4 in Addiction.
 

Real-world data

Previous research has shown that disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene are efficacious in treating AUD, but most studies have been randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses, the authors write.

“Very little is known about overall health outcomes (such as risks of hospitalization and mortality) associated with specific treatments in real-world circumstances,” they write.

“The study was motivated by the fact that, although AUD is a significant public health concern, very little is known, especially about the comparative effectiveness of medications indicated in AUD,” said Dr. Heikkinen.

To investigate, the researchers drew on data from several large nationwide Swedish registers that encompassed 125,556 patients who had been diagnosed with AUD (62.5% men; mean [standard deviation] age, 38.1 [15.9] years). They followed the cohort over a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-.2 years).

During the follow-up period, roughly one-fourth of patients (25.6) underwent treatment with one or more drugs.

AUD pharmacotherapy ‘underutilized’

Close to one-fourth of patients (23.9%) experienced the main outcome event (AUD-related hospitalization) during the follow-up period.

The within-individual analysis showed that naltrexone – whether used as monotherapy or adjunctively with disulfiram or acamprosate – “was associated with a significantly lower risk of AUD-related hospitalization, compared to those time periods in which the same individual did not use any AUD medication,” the authors report.

By contrast, they state, acamprosate monotherapy and benzodiazepines were associated with a significantly higher risk for AUD-related hospitalization.

‘Ravages’ of benzodiazepines

Commenting on the study in an interview, John Krystal, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry and director of the Center for the Translational Neuroscience of Alcoholism, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said, “The main message from the study for practicing clinicians is that treatment works.”

Dr. Krystal, who was not involved with the study, noted that “many practicing clinicians are discouraged by the course of their patients with AUD, and this study highlights that naltrexone, perhaps in combination with other medications, may be effective in preventing hospitalization and, presumably, other hospitalization-related complications of AUD.”

Also commenting on the study, Raymond Anton, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, suggested that the “clinical knowledge of the harm of benzodiazepines in those with AUD is reinforced by these findings.”

In fact, the harm of benzodiazepines might be the study’s “most important message ... [a message that was] recently highlighted by the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit”, which shows the ravages of using both together, or how one leads to potential addiction with the other,” said Dr. Anton, who was not involved with the study.

The other “big take-home message is that naltrexone should be used more frequently,” said Dr. Anton, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the university and scientific director of the Charleston Alcohol Research Center. He noted that there are “recent data suggesting some clinical and genetic indicators that predict responsiveness to these medications, improving efficacy.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Dr. Heikkinen reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Krystal consults for companies currently developing other treatments for AUDs and receives medications to test from AstraZeneca and Novartis for NIAAA-funded research programs. Dr. Anton has consulted for Alkermes, Lipha, and Lundbeck in the past. He is also chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which is a public-private partnership partially sponsored by several companies and has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to study pharmacotherapies, including naltrexone, nalmefene, and acamprosate.

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

Naltrexone reduces the risk for hospitalization for alcohol use disorder (AUD), regardless of whether it is used alone or in conjunction with disulfiram or acamprosate, research suggests.

Katarzyna Bialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Investigators analyzed 10-year data on more than 125,000 Swedish residents with AUD and found that naltrexone, used as monotherapy or combined with acamprosate or disulfiram, was associated with significantly lower risk for AUD hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization in comparison with patients who did not use AUD medication. The patients ranged in age from 16 to 64 years.

By contrast, benzodiazepines and acamprosate monotherapy were associated with increased risk for AUD hospitalization.

“The take-home message for practicing clinicians would be that especially naltrexone use is associated with favorable treatment outcomes and should be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for AUD,” study investigator Milja Heikkinen, MD, specialist in forensic psychiatry and addiction medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, told this news organization.

On the other hand, “benzodiazepines should be avoided and should not be administered other than for alcohol withdrawal symptoms,” she said.

The study was published online Jan. 4 in Addiction.
 

Real-world data

Previous research has shown that disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene are efficacious in treating AUD, but most studies have been randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses, the authors write.

“Very little is known about overall health outcomes (such as risks of hospitalization and mortality) associated with specific treatments in real-world circumstances,” they write.

“The study was motivated by the fact that, although AUD is a significant public health concern, very little is known, especially about the comparative effectiveness of medications indicated in AUD,” said Dr. Heikkinen.

To investigate, the researchers drew on data from several large nationwide Swedish registers that encompassed 125,556 patients who had been diagnosed with AUD (62.5% men; mean [standard deviation] age, 38.1 [15.9] years). They followed the cohort over a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-.2 years).

During the follow-up period, roughly one-fourth of patients (25.6) underwent treatment with one or more drugs.

AUD pharmacotherapy ‘underutilized’

Close to one-fourth of patients (23.9%) experienced the main outcome event (AUD-related hospitalization) during the follow-up period.

The within-individual analysis showed that naltrexone – whether used as monotherapy or adjunctively with disulfiram or acamprosate – “was associated with a significantly lower risk of AUD-related hospitalization, compared to those time periods in which the same individual did not use any AUD medication,” the authors report.

By contrast, they state, acamprosate monotherapy and benzodiazepines were associated with a significantly higher risk for AUD-related hospitalization.

‘Ravages’ of benzodiazepines

Commenting on the study in an interview, John Krystal, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry and director of the Center for the Translational Neuroscience of Alcoholism, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said, “The main message from the study for practicing clinicians is that treatment works.”

Dr. Krystal, who was not involved with the study, noted that “many practicing clinicians are discouraged by the course of their patients with AUD, and this study highlights that naltrexone, perhaps in combination with other medications, may be effective in preventing hospitalization and, presumably, other hospitalization-related complications of AUD.”

Also commenting on the study, Raymond Anton, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, suggested that the “clinical knowledge of the harm of benzodiazepines in those with AUD is reinforced by these findings.”

In fact, the harm of benzodiazepines might be the study’s “most important message ... [a message that was] recently highlighted by the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit”, which shows the ravages of using both together, or how one leads to potential addiction with the other,” said Dr. Anton, who was not involved with the study.

The other “big take-home message is that naltrexone should be used more frequently,” said Dr. Anton, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the university and scientific director of the Charleston Alcohol Research Center. He noted that there are “recent data suggesting some clinical and genetic indicators that predict responsiveness to these medications, improving efficacy.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Dr. Heikkinen reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Krystal consults for companies currently developing other treatments for AUDs and receives medications to test from AstraZeneca and Novartis for NIAAA-funded research programs. Dr. Anton has consulted for Alkermes, Lipha, and Lundbeck in the past. He is also chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which is a public-private partnership partially sponsored by several companies and has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to study pharmacotherapies, including naltrexone, nalmefene, and acamprosate.

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

Naltrexone reduces the risk for hospitalization for alcohol use disorder (AUD), regardless of whether it is used alone or in conjunction with disulfiram or acamprosate, research suggests.

Katarzyna Bialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Investigators analyzed 10-year data on more than 125,000 Swedish residents with AUD and found that naltrexone, used as monotherapy or combined with acamprosate or disulfiram, was associated with significantly lower risk for AUD hospitalization or all-cause hospitalization in comparison with patients who did not use AUD medication. The patients ranged in age from 16 to 64 years.

By contrast, benzodiazepines and acamprosate monotherapy were associated with increased risk for AUD hospitalization.

“The take-home message for practicing clinicians would be that especially naltrexone use is associated with favorable treatment outcomes and should be utilized as part of the treatment protocol for AUD,” study investigator Milja Heikkinen, MD, specialist in forensic psychiatry and addiction medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, told this news organization.

On the other hand, “benzodiazepines should be avoided and should not be administered other than for alcohol withdrawal symptoms,” she said.

The study was published online Jan. 4 in Addiction.
 

Real-world data

Previous research has shown that disulfiram, acamprosate, naltrexone, and nalmefene are efficacious in treating AUD, but most studies have been randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses, the authors write.

“Very little is known about overall health outcomes (such as risks of hospitalization and mortality) associated with specific treatments in real-world circumstances,” they write.

“The study was motivated by the fact that, although AUD is a significant public health concern, very little is known, especially about the comparative effectiveness of medications indicated in AUD,” said Dr. Heikkinen.

To investigate, the researchers drew on data from several large nationwide Swedish registers that encompassed 125,556 patients who had been diagnosed with AUD (62.5% men; mean [standard deviation] age, 38.1 [15.9] years). They followed the cohort over a median of 4.6 years (interquartile range, 2.1-.2 years).

During the follow-up period, roughly one-fourth of patients (25.6) underwent treatment with one or more drugs.

AUD pharmacotherapy ‘underutilized’

Close to one-fourth of patients (23.9%) experienced the main outcome event (AUD-related hospitalization) during the follow-up period.

The within-individual analysis showed that naltrexone – whether used as monotherapy or adjunctively with disulfiram or acamprosate – “was associated with a significantly lower risk of AUD-related hospitalization, compared to those time periods in which the same individual did not use any AUD medication,” the authors report.

By contrast, they state, acamprosate monotherapy and benzodiazepines were associated with a significantly higher risk for AUD-related hospitalization.

‘Ravages’ of benzodiazepines

Commenting on the study in an interview, John Krystal, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry and director of the Center for the Translational Neuroscience of Alcoholism, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said, “The main message from the study for practicing clinicians is that treatment works.”

Dr. Krystal, who was not involved with the study, noted that “many practicing clinicians are discouraged by the course of their patients with AUD, and this study highlights that naltrexone, perhaps in combination with other medications, may be effective in preventing hospitalization and, presumably, other hospitalization-related complications of AUD.”

Also commenting on the study, Raymond Anton, MD, professor, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, suggested that the “clinical knowledge of the harm of benzodiazepines in those with AUD is reinforced by these findings.”

In fact, the harm of benzodiazepines might be the study’s “most important message ... [a message that was] recently highlighted by the Netflix series “The Queen’s Gambit”, which shows the ravages of using both together, or how one leads to potential addiction with the other,” said Dr. Anton, who was not involved with the study.

The other “big take-home message is that naltrexone should be used more frequently,” said Dr. Anton, distinguished professor of psychiatry at the university and scientific director of the Charleston Alcohol Research Center. He noted that there are “recent data suggesting some clinical and genetic indicators that predict responsiveness to these medications, improving efficacy.”

The study was funded by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Dr. Heikkinen reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Krystal consults for companies currently developing other treatments for AUDs and receives medications to test from AstraZeneca and Novartis for NIAAA-funded research programs. Dr. Anton has consulted for Alkermes, Lipha, and Lundbeck in the past. He is also chair of the Alcohol Clinical Trials Initiative, which is a public-private partnership partially sponsored by several companies and has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to study pharmacotherapies, including naltrexone, nalmefene, and acamprosate.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Step 2 Clinical Skills (CS) test for medical school students and graduates has been permanently canceled, cosponsors of the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) announced in a press release this afternoon.

As previously reported by this news organization, the USMLE cosponsors, the Federation of State Medical Boards and the National Board of Medical Examiners, had announced in May that they would take the following 12-18 months to revamp the required test.

COVID-19 had forced a suspension of the all-day test, which requires test takers to have physical contact with standardized patients. It’s designed to gauge how soon-to-be doctors gather information from patients, perform physical exams, and communicate their findings to patients and colleagues.

However, the cosponsors said today, “we have no plans to bring back Step 2 CS, but we intend to take this opportunity to focus on working with our colleagues in medical education and at the state medical boards to determine innovative ways to assess clinical skills.”

David Johnson, FSMB’s chief assessment officer, said in an interview that, after months of study, “it became clear that the relaunch of a modified Step 2 CS exam would not meet our expectations to be appreciably better than the prior exam.”
 

Only weeks ago, NBME was hiring for the revamp

The news came as a huge surprise. Just weeks earlier, NBME was advertising for a position key to modifying the exam. The description for the position read: “This role will focus on operational planning and coordination both within the NBME and with ECFMG [Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates] to effectively deliver a modified Step 2 Clinical Skills exam.”

Bryan Carmody, MD, MPH, an assistant professor at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, noted in a Jan. 15 tweet that the position requires extensive information technology experience, “suggesting plans for a virtual test remain intact.”

Dr. Johnson said that, although the opportunities for helping lead the revamp of the test were posted until the announcement, no one had been hired for the position.

Today’s announcement stated that the USMLE still believes independent standardized tests for medical knowledge and clinical skills are important; however, it now feels clinical reasoning and communication skills will be able to be assessed in other steps.

“Computer-based case simulations in Step 3 and communication content recently bolstered in Step 1 are examples of these efforts that will continue,” the press release stated. “While not a replacement for Step 2 CS, these formats continue to contribute positively, e.g., measuring critical knowledge of medical communication.”

Critics ‘thrilled’ by test termination

Lydia Flier, MD, from the department of internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston – who wrote an editorial for this news organization in August 2020 advocating that Step 2 CS be changed completely or ended entirely – said in an interview that she was “surprised and thrilled” by the announcement.

She said the cosponsors hadn’t initially appeared to agree with the growing sentiment that disruption from the pandemic had “proven the test was unnecessary and it looked like they really were going to try and keep it.”

“I’m thrilled for future generations,” she said. “It is proof of what many people have known all along, which is that the test is a no-value-add proposition that did not actually help determine people’s clinical skills.”

The test “met a breaking point” during the pandemic, she said, “from which CS could not recover.”

She noted in her editorial that the test costs $1,300 plus travel fees, as the test had been offered at only five sites. She agreed that the skills assessed by the Step 2 CS are already covered in medical school and through other Steps.

“It seems as though they could not justify it anymore. It’s the obvious right answer,” said Dr. Flier, who in 2016 cofounded #EndStep2CS, a nationwide movement demanding an end to the exam.

Another cofounder in that movement, Christopher Henderson, MD, a staff physician with Kaiser Permanente in Seattle, said in an interview that “this decision represents tremendous progress in the fight to reduce unnecessary costs in medical education, and is a win for future students. Credit goes to the many women and men who organized and voiced their desire for change.” He added that his views are his own and “do not reflect or imply the views of my organization.”

For the FSMB’s part, Dr. Johnson acknowledged that “the consideration of cost and value were two of many important factors for the Step 2 CS revitalization work.”

Dr. Johnson, Dr. Flier, and Dr. Henderson have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Just as Brazil surpassed 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 on Jan. 7, news from Bahia added another layer of concern: A platform case report in a preprint detailed the first case of reinfection in that state, apparently caused by a new strain, one having the E484K mutation.

That variant, now called Brazil P.1, has migrated to the United States. The Minnesota Department of Health announced on Jan. 25 the nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with it.

The mutation is located in the protein gene of the virus’ spike, which forms the crown structure of coronaviruses and is responsible for the virus’ binding to human cells. The E484K mutation is now the focus because it’s associated with mutations that escape the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies.

“This mutation is at the center of worldwide concern, and it is the first time that it has appeared in a reinfection,” the study’s first author, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, MD, a researcher at the Salvador regional unit of Instituto D’Or of Teaching and Research, based at Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil, explained in an interview.

“We will wait for the sample from Bahia to confirm the case from the perspective of the Ministry of Health’s surveillance network,” said Fernando Motta, PhD, deputy head of the Laboratory for Respiratory Virus and Measles at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de Janeiro, which acts as a national reference center for respiratory viruses with the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS) and as a reference for the World Health Organization.
 

A case of reinfection

The case patient that led to the alarm was a 45-year-old woman who is a health care executive. She had no comorbidities. The team had been following health care professionals and patients who had tested positive on reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing more than once to understand whether they represented cases of prolonged viral persistence or new infections.

The woman had symptoms of viral infection on two occasions (May 26 and Oct. 26). On both occasions, results of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal samples were positive. In the first episode, the patient had diarrhea, myalgia, asthenia, and odynophagia for about 7 days. She returned to activities 21 days later. In the second episode, she had more severe symptoms that lasted longer, but she still did not require hospitalization.

“It was the first confirmed case of reinfection in Bahia, and in the second episode, we observed a mutation that could have an impact on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus,” Dr. Souza said. “The research continues with the investigation of cases in which the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR more than once in an interval greater than 45 days, to have a higher level of evidence.”

He stressed that “it is very important to reinforce measures to control the pandemic, social distance, use of masks, and speed up vaccination to be able to control the circulation of the virus, while monitoring the evolution of it.”
 

On alert for more cases

A person who twice tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR is suspected of having been reinfected, provided 90 or more days have elapsed between the two episodes, regardless of the condition observed. To confirm the suspected case, the samples must be sent to reference laboratories according to a plan established by the Ministry of Health in Brazil.

A health professional living in the Brazilian city of Natal represented the first confirmed case of reinfection by the new coronavirus in Brazil. That case was announced on Dec. 10, 2020.

“We communicated this case of reinfection to the MS in early December 2020. And the second sample already had the E484K mutation on the spike, as in the case of Bahia,” said Dr. Motta.

The first step in differentiating reinfection from persistence is to observe differences in the genotyping of the virus. For the technique to be successful, Dr. Souza said, researchers need a large amount of viral genetic material, which usually cannot be obtained.

“That is why there are many more suspected than confirmed cases,” Dr. Souza explained. He admitted that, although there are few cases, “it is increasingly clear that reinfection is a reality.”
 

Markers of mutations

What worried the researchers most was not only the possibility of reinfection but also the fact that preliminary analyses showed a specific mutation.

“The E484K mutation is present in a group of variants identified in South Africa that have been associated with increased infectivity and has been observed in a strain recently described in Brazil,” Dr. Souza said.

Mutations are expected, appear spontaneously, and in most cases have no effects on transmission or clinical outcome – they are simply used as markers and are useful for contact tracing or studying transmission routes. But some mutations can last because they provide an advantage for the pathogen, even if only momentary. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, mutations in the protein spike gene (S) are relevant because they may give clues to that advantage – as well as to changes in infectivity, transmission potential, antibodies, and response to vaccines.

A variant of the virus that has eight changes that affect the protein S gene – and several others in different genes – is behind the increase in the number of cases in London and southeastern England. Researchers from the University of São Paulo identified one of the factors that made this new variant – classified as B.1.1.7 – more infectious.

With bioinformatics tools, they found that the protein S gene in the new viral strain has a stronger molecular interaction with the ACE2 receptor, which is on the surface of human cells and to which the virus binds, making infection possible. The variant has already spread to the rest of the world, and the first two cases have been confirmed in Brazil by the Adolf Lutz Institute.

The alert for a new variant in Africa – similar to B.1.1.7 in the United Kingdom in that it carries nine changes in protein S at position 501 – was made by the Brazilian virologist Tulio de Oliveira, PhD.

“We found that this strain seems to be spreading much faster,” Dr. Oliveira, who is with the University of KwaZulu Natal, told the journal Science. His work first alerted British scientists to the importance of the position N501Y.

“The new variants just described in the United Kingdom and South Africa are slightly more transmissible and have already been identified in cases imported into Brazil,” Dr. Motta said. “Unfortunately, we believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes indigenous.”
 

The viral family grows

Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are classified into strains on the basis of small differences in their genetic material. Since Dec. 26, 2020, in addition to the British and South African variants, it appears the Carioca lineage also is a player.

In a preprint article, researchers analyzed the evolution of the epidemic in Rio de Janeiro from April 2020 until just before the new increase in incidence in December. They compared the complete sequences of the viral genome of 180 patients from different municipalities. The study, which is being jointly conducted by members of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing, identified a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has five unique mutations (from one of the predominant strains). Concern arose because, in addition to those five genetic changes, many of the samples had a sixth – the well-known E484K mutation.

“The three lines – the U.K., South Africa, and Brazil – were almost synchronous publications, but there is no clear evidence that they have any kind of common ancestry,” Carolina M. Voloch, PhD, the article’s first author and a biologist and researcher at the Molecular Virology Laboratory and associate professor in the department of genetics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said in an interview.

Dr. Voloch’s research focuses on the use of bioinformatics tools to study the molecular, phylogenetic, and genomic evolution of viruses.

“The emergence of new strains is common for viruses,” she said. “It can be happening anywhere in the world at any time.”

She stressed that identifying when mutations emerge will help to define the new Brazilian lineage. Researchers are working to determine whether the neutralizing antibodies of patients who have been infected with other strains respond to this Rio de Janeiro strain.

“We hope to soon be sharing these results,” Dr. Voloch said.

The article’s authors estimated that the new strain likely appeared in early July. They say more analysis is needed to predict whether the changes have a major effect on viral infectivity, the host’s immune response, or the severity of the disease. Asked about the lineage that caused the reinfection in Bahia, Dr. Voloch said she hadn’t yet contacted the authors to conduct a joint analysis but added that the data disclosed in the preprint would not represent the same variant.

“There are only two of the five mutations that characterize the Rio de Janeiro lineage. However, it has the E484K mutation that is present in more than 94% of the samples of the new variant of Rio,” she said.

She added that there’s a possibility of reinfection by the lineage that’s circulating in Rio de Janeiro and in other states, as well as countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

“The Carioca virus is being exported to the rest of the world,” Dr. Voloch said.
 

Virus’ diversity still unknown

Researchers now know that SARS-CoV-2 probably circulated silently in Brazil as early as February 2020 and reached all the nation’s regions before air travel was restricted. Since the first half of 2020, there have been two predominant strains.

“More than a dozen strains have been identified in Brazil, but more important than counting strains to identify the speed with which they arise – which is directly associated with the rate of infection, which is very high in the country,” said Dr. Motta.

The so-called variant of Rio de Janeiro, he said, has also been detected in other states in four regions of Brazil. The key to documenting variants is to get a more representative sample with genomes from other parts of the country.

As of Jan. 10, a total of 347,000 complete genome sequences had been shared globally through open databases since SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, but the contribution of countries is uneven. Although the cost and complexity of genetic sequencing has dropped significantly over time, effective sequencing programs still require substantial investments in personnel, equipment, reagents, and bioinformatics infrastructure.

According to Dr. Voloch, it will only be possible to combat the new coronavirus by knowing its diversity and understanding how it evolves. The Fiocruz Genomic Network has made an infographic available so researchers can track the strains circulating in Brazil. It›s the result of collaboration between researchers from Fiocruz and the GISAID Initiative, an international partnership that promotes rapid data sharing.

As of Jan. 5, researchers in Brazil had studied 1,897 genomes – not nearly enough.

“In Brazil, there is little testing and even less sequencing,” lamented Dr. Souza.

“In the U.K., 1 in 600 cases is sequenced. In Brazil it is less than 1 in 10 million cases,” Dr. Voloch added.

So far, no decisive factors for public health, such as greater virulence or greater transmissibility, have been identified in any of the strains established in Brazil. The million-dollar question is whether the emergence of new strains could have an impact on the effectiveness of vaccines being administered today.

“In one way or another, the vaccine is our best bet ever, even if in the future we identify escapist mutants and have to modify it,” Dr. Motta said. “It is what we do annually with influenza.”

Dr. Voloch, Dr. Motta, and Dr. Souza disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on the Portuguese edition of Medscape.com.

Just as Brazil surpassed 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 on Jan. 7, news from Bahia added another layer of concern: A platform case report in a preprint detailed the first case of reinfection in that state, apparently caused by a new strain, one having the E484K mutation.

That variant, now called Brazil P.1, has migrated to the United States. The Minnesota Department of Health announced on Jan. 25 the nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with it.

The mutation is located in the protein gene of the virus’ spike, which forms the crown structure of coronaviruses and is responsible for the virus’ binding to human cells. The E484K mutation is now the focus because it’s associated with mutations that escape the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies.

“This mutation is at the center of worldwide concern, and it is the first time that it has appeared in a reinfection,” the study’s first author, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, MD, a researcher at the Salvador regional unit of Instituto D’Or of Teaching and Research, based at Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil, explained in an interview.

“We will wait for the sample from Bahia to confirm the case from the perspective of the Ministry of Health’s surveillance network,” said Fernando Motta, PhD, deputy head of the Laboratory for Respiratory Virus and Measles at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de Janeiro, which acts as a national reference center for respiratory viruses with the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS) and as a reference for the World Health Organization.
 

A case of reinfection

The case patient that led to the alarm was a 45-year-old woman who is a health care executive. She had no comorbidities. The team had been following health care professionals and patients who had tested positive on reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing more than once to understand whether they represented cases of prolonged viral persistence or new infections.

The woman had symptoms of viral infection on two occasions (May 26 and Oct. 26). On both occasions, results of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal samples were positive. In the first episode, the patient had diarrhea, myalgia, asthenia, and odynophagia for about 7 days. She returned to activities 21 days later. In the second episode, she had more severe symptoms that lasted longer, but she still did not require hospitalization.

“It was the first confirmed case of reinfection in Bahia, and in the second episode, we observed a mutation that could have an impact on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus,” Dr. Souza said. “The research continues with the investigation of cases in which the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR more than once in an interval greater than 45 days, to have a higher level of evidence.”

He stressed that “it is very important to reinforce measures to control the pandemic, social distance, use of masks, and speed up vaccination to be able to control the circulation of the virus, while monitoring the evolution of it.”
 

On alert for more cases

A person who twice tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR is suspected of having been reinfected, provided 90 or more days have elapsed between the two episodes, regardless of the condition observed. To confirm the suspected case, the samples must be sent to reference laboratories according to a plan established by the Ministry of Health in Brazil.

A health professional living in the Brazilian city of Natal represented the first confirmed case of reinfection by the new coronavirus in Brazil. That case was announced on Dec. 10, 2020.

“We communicated this case of reinfection to the MS in early December 2020. And the second sample already had the E484K mutation on the spike, as in the case of Bahia,” said Dr. Motta.

The first step in differentiating reinfection from persistence is to observe differences in the genotyping of the virus. For the technique to be successful, Dr. Souza said, researchers need a large amount of viral genetic material, which usually cannot be obtained.

“That is why there are many more suspected than confirmed cases,” Dr. Souza explained. He admitted that, although there are few cases, “it is increasingly clear that reinfection is a reality.”
 

Markers of mutations

What worried the researchers most was not only the possibility of reinfection but also the fact that preliminary analyses showed a specific mutation.

“The E484K mutation is present in a group of variants identified in South Africa that have been associated with increased infectivity and has been observed in a strain recently described in Brazil,” Dr. Souza said.

Mutations are expected, appear spontaneously, and in most cases have no effects on transmission or clinical outcome – they are simply used as markers and are useful for contact tracing or studying transmission routes. But some mutations can last because they provide an advantage for the pathogen, even if only momentary. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, mutations in the protein spike gene (S) are relevant because they may give clues to that advantage – as well as to changes in infectivity, transmission potential, antibodies, and response to vaccines.

A variant of the virus that has eight changes that affect the protein S gene – and several others in different genes – is behind the increase in the number of cases in London and southeastern England. Researchers from the University of São Paulo identified one of the factors that made this new variant – classified as B.1.1.7 – more infectious.

With bioinformatics tools, they found that the protein S gene in the new viral strain has a stronger molecular interaction with the ACE2 receptor, which is on the surface of human cells and to which the virus binds, making infection possible. The variant has already spread to the rest of the world, and the first two cases have been confirmed in Brazil by the Adolf Lutz Institute.

The alert for a new variant in Africa – similar to B.1.1.7 in the United Kingdom in that it carries nine changes in protein S at position 501 – was made by the Brazilian virologist Tulio de Oliveira, PhD.

“We found that this strain seems to be spreading much faster,” Dr. Oliveira, who is with the University of KwaZulu Natal, told the journal Science. His work first alerted British scientists to the importance of the position N501Y.

“The new variants just described in the United Kingdom and South Africa are slightly more transmissible and have already been identified in cases imported into Brazil,” Dr. Motta said. “Unfortunately, we believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes indigenous.”
 

The viral family grows

Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are classified into strains on the basis of small differences in their genetic material. Since Dec. 26, 2020, in addition to the British and South African variants, it appears the Carioca lineage also is a player.

In a preprint article, researchers analyzed the evolution of the epidemic in Rio de Janeiro from April 2020 until just before the new increase in incidence in December. They compared the complete sequences of the viral genome of 180 patients from different municipalities. The study, which is being jointly conducted by members of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing, identified a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has five unique mutations (from one of the predominant strains). Concern arose because, in addition to those five genetic changes, many of the samples had a sixth – the well-known E484K mutation.

“The three lines – the U.K., South Africa, and Brazil – were almost synchronous publications, but there is no clear evidence that they have any kind of common ancestry,” Carolina M. Voloch, PhD, the article’s first author and a biologist and researcher at the Molecular Virology Laboratory and associate professor in the department of genetics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said in an interview.

Dr. Voloch’s research focuses on the use of bioinformatics tools to study the molecular, phylogenetic, and genomic evolution of viruses.

“The emergence of new strains is common for viruses,” she said. “It can be happening anywhere in the world at any time.”

She stressed that identifying when mutations emerge will help to define the new Brazilian lineage. Researchers are working to determine whether the neutralizing antibodies of patients who have been infected with other strains respond to this Rio de Janeiro strain.

“We hope to soon be sharing these results,” Dr. Voloch said.

The article’s authors estimated that the new strain likely appeared in early July. They say more analysis is needed to predict whether the changes have a major effect on viral infectivity, the host’s immune response, or the severity of the disease. Asked about the lineage that caused the reinfection in Bahia, Dr. Voloch said she hadn’t yet contacted the authors to conduct a joint analysis but added that the data disclosed in the preprint would not represent the same variant.

“There are only two of the five mutations that characterize the Rio de Janeiro lineage. However, it has the E484K mutation that is present in more than 94% of the samples of the new variant of Rio,” she said.

She added that there’s a possibility of reinfection by the lineage that’s circulating in Rio de Janeiro and in other states, as well as countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

“The Carioca virus is being exported to the rest of the world,” Dr. Voloch said.
 

Virus’ diversity still unknown

Researchers now know that SARS-CoV-2 probably circulated silently in Brazil as early as February 2020 and reached all the nation’s regions before air travel was restricted. Since the first half of 2020, there have been two predominant strains.

“More than a dozen strains have been identified in Brazil, but more important than counting strains to identify the speed with which they arise – which is directly associated with the rate of infection, which is very high in the country,” said Dr. Motta.

The so-called variant of Rio de Janeiro, he said, has also been detected in other states in four regions of Brazil. The key to documenting variants is to get a more representative sample with genomes from other parts of the country.

As of Jan. 10, a total of 347,000 complete genome sequences had been shared globally through open databases since SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, but the contribution of countries is uneven. Although the cost and complexity of genetic sequencing has dropped significantly over time, effective sequencing programs still require substantial investments in personnel, equipment, reagents, and bioinformatics infrastructure.

According to Dr. Voloch, it will only be possible to combat the new coronavirus by knowing its diversity and understanding how it evolves. The Fiocruz Genomic Network has made an infographic available so researchers can track the strains circulating in Brazil. It›s the result of collaboration between researchers from Fiocruz and the GISAID Initiative, an international partnership that promotes rapid data sharing.

As of Jan. 5, researchers in Brazil had studied 1,897 genomes – not nearly enough.

“In Brazil, there is little testing and even less sequencing,” lamented Dr. Souza.

“In the U.K., 1 in 600 cases is sequenced. In Brazil it is less than 1 in 10 million cases,” Dr. Voloch added.

So far, no decisive factors for public health, such as greater virulence or greater transmissibility, have been identified in any of the strains established in Brazil. The million-dollar question is whether the emergence of new strains could have an impact on the effectiveness of vaccines being administered today.

“In one way or another, the vaccine is our best bet ever, even if in the future we identify escapist mutants and have to modify it,” Dr. Motta said. “It is what we do annually with influenza.”

Dr. Voloch, Dr. Motta, and Dr. Souza disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on the Portuguese edition of Medscape.com.

Just as Brazil surpassed 200,000 deaths from COVID-19 on Jan. 7, news from Bahia added another layer of concern: A platform case report in a preprint detailed the first case of reinfection in that state, apparently caused by a new strain, one having the E484K mutation.

That variant, now called Brazil P.1, has migrated to the United States. The Minnesota Department of Health announced on Jan. 25 the nation’s first known COVID-19 case associated with it.

The mutation is located in the protein gene of the virus’ spike, which forms the crown structure of coronaviruses and is responsible for the virus’ binding to human cells. The E484K mutation is now the focus because it’s associated with mutations that escape the immune system’s neutralizing antibodies.

“This mutation is at the center of worldwide concern, and it is the first time that it has appeared in a reinfection,” the study’s first author, Bruno Solano de Freitas Souza, MD, a researcher at the Salvador regional unit of Instituto D’Or of Teaching and Research, based at Hospital São Rafael, Salvador, Brazil, explained in an interview.

“We will wait for the sample from Bahia to confirm the case from the perspective of the Ministry of Health’s surveillance network,” said Fernando Motta, PhD, deputy head of the Laboratory for Respiratory Virus and Measles at the Oswaldo Cruz Institute in Rio de Janeiro, which acts as a national reference center for respiratory viruses with the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MS) and as a reference for the World Health Organization.
 

A case of reinfection

The case patient that led to the alarm was a 45-year-old woman who is a health care executive. She had no comorbidities. The team had been following health care professionals and patients who had tested positive on reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing more than once to understand whether they represented cases of prolonged viral persistence or new infections.

The woman had symptoms of viral infection on two occasions (May 26 and Oct. 26). On both occasions, results of RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 on nasopharyngeal samples were positive. In the first episode, the patient had diarrhea, myalgia, asthenia, and odynophagia for about 7 days. She returned to activities 21 days later. In the second episode, she had more severe symptoms that lasted longer, but she still did not require hospitalization.

“It was the first confirmed case of reinfection in Bahia, and in the second episode, we observed a mutation that could have an impact on the ability of antibodies to neutralize the virus,” Dr. Souza said. “The research continues with the investigation of cases in which the patient has a positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR more than once in an interval greater than 45 days, to have a higher level of evidence.”

He stressed that “it is very important to reinforce measures to control the pandemic, social distance, use of masks, and speed up vaccination to be able to control the circulation of the virus, while monitoring the evolution of it.”
 

On alert for more cases

A person who twice tests positive for SARS-CoV-2 on real-time RT-PCR is suspected of having been reinfected, provided 90 or more days have elapsed between the two episodes, regardless of the condition observed. To confirm the suspected case, the samples must be sent to reference laboratories according to a plan established by the Ministry of Health in Brazil.

A health professional living in the Brazilian city of Natal represented the first confirmed case of reinfection by the new coronavirus in Brazil. That case was announced on Dec. 10, 2020.

“We communicated this case of reinfection to the MS in early December 2020. And the second sample already had the E484K mutation on the spike, as in the case of Bahia,” said Dr. Motta.

The first step in differentiating reinfection from persistence is to observe differences in the genotyping of the virus. For the technique to be successful, Dr. Souza said, researchers need a large amount of viral genetic material, which usually cannot be obtained.

“That is why there are many more suspected than confirmed cases,” Dr. Souza explained. He admitted that, although there are few cases, “it is increasingly clear that reinfection is a reality.”
 

Markers of mutations

What worried the researchers most was not only the possibility of reinfection but also the fact that preliminary analyses showed a specific mutation.

“The E484K mutation is present in a group of variants identified in South Africa that have been associated with increased infectivity and has been observed in a strain recently described in Brazil,” Dr. Souza said.

Mutations are expected, appear spontaneously, and in most cases have no effects on transmission or clinical outcome – they are simply used as markers and are useful for contact tracing or studying transmission routes. But some mutations can last because they provide an advantage for the pathogen, even if only momentary. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, mutations in the protein spike gene (S) are relevant because they may give clues to that advantage – as well as to changes in infectivity, transmission potential, antibodies, and response to vaccines.

A variant of the virus that has eight changes that affect the protein S gene – and several others in different genes – is behind the increase in the number of cases in London and southeastern England. Researchers from the University of São Paulo identified one of the factors that made this new variant – classified as B.1.1.7 – more infectious.

With bioinformatics tools, they found that the protein S gene in the new viral strain has a stronger molecular interaction with the ACE2 receptor, which is on the surface of human cells and to which the virus binds, making infection possible. The variant has already spread to the rest of the world, and the first two cases have been confirmed in Brazil by the Adolf Lutz Institute.

The alert for a new variant in Africa – similar to B.1.1.7 in the United Kingdom in that it carries nine changes in protein S at position 501 – was made by the Brazilian virologist Tulio de Oliveira, PhD.

“We found that this strain seems to be spreading much faster,” Dr. Oliveira, who is with the University of KwaZulu Natal, told the journal Science. His work first alerted British scientists to the importance of the position N501Y.

“The new variants just described in the United Kingdom and South Africa are slightly more transmissible and have already been identified in cases imported into Brazil,” Dr. Motta said. “Unfortunately, we believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes indigenous.”
 

The viral family grows

Viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 are classified into strains on the basis of small differences in their genetic material. Since Dec. 26, 2020, in addition to the British and South African variants, it appears the Carioca lineage also is a player.

In a preprint article, researchers analyzed the evolution of the epidemic in Rio de Janeiro from April 2020 until just before the new increase in incidence in December. They compared the complete sequences of the viral genome of 180 patients from different municipalities. The study, which is being jointly conducted by members of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and the National Laboratory for Scientific Computing, identified a new variant of SARS-CoV-2 that has five unique mutations (from one of the predominant strains). Concern arose because, in addition to those five genetic changes, many of the samples had a sixth – the well-known E484K mutation.

“The three lines – the U.K., South Africa, and Brazil – were almost synchronous publications, but there is no clear evidence that they have any kind of common ancestry,” Carolina M. Voloch, PhD, the article’s first author and a biologist and researcher at the Molecular Virology Laboratory and associate professor in the department of genetics at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, said in an interview.

Dr. Voloch’s research focuses on the use of bioinformatics tools to study the molecular, phylogenetic, and genomic evolution of viruses.

“The emergence of new strains is common for viruses,” she said. “It can be happening anywhere in the world at any time.”

She stressed that identifying when mutations emerge will help to define the new Brazilian lineage. Researchers are working to determine whether the neutralizing antibodies of patients who have been infected with other strains respond to this Rio de Janeiro strain.

“We hope to soon be sharing these results,” Dr. Voloch said.

The article’s authors estimated that the new strain likely appeared in early July. They say more analysis is needed to predict whether the changes have a major effect on viral infectivity, the host’s immune response, or the severity of the disease. Asked about the lineage that caused the reinfection in Bahia, Dr. Voloch said she hadn’t yet contacted the authors to conduct a joint analysis but added that the data disclosed in the preprint would not represent the same variant.

“There are only two of the five mutations that characterize the Rio de Janeiro lineage. However, it has the E484K mutation that is present in more than 94% of the samples of the new variant of Rio,” she said.

She added that there’s a possibility of reinfection by the lineage that’s circulating in Rio de Janeiro and in other states, as well as countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

“The Carioca virus is being exported to the rest of the world,” Dr. Voloch said.
 

Virus’ diversity still unknown

Researchers now know that SARS-CoV-2 probably circulated silently in Brazil as early as February 2020 and reached all the nation’s regions before air travel was restricted. Since the first half of 2020, there have been two predominant strains.

“More than a dozen strains have been identified in Brazil, but more important than counting strains to identify the speed with which they arise – which is directly associated with the rate of infection, which is very high in the country,” said Dr. Motta.

The so-called variant of Rio de Janeiro, he said, has also been detected in other states in four regions of Brazil. The key to documenting variants is to get a more representative sample with genomes from other parts of the country.

As of Jan. 10, a total of 347,000 complete genome sequences had been shared globally through open databases since SARS-CoV-2 was first identified, but the contribution of countries is uneven. Although the cost and complexity of genetic sequencing has dropped significantly over time, effective sequencing programs still require substantial investments in personnel, equipment, reagents, and bioinformatics infrastructure.

According to Dr. Voloch, it will only be possible to combat the new coronavirus by knowing its diversity and understanding how it evolves. The Fiocruz Genomic Network has made an infographic available so researchers can track the strains circulating in Brazil. It›s the result of collaboration between researchers from Fiocruz and the GISAID Initiative, an international partnership that promotes rapid data sharing.

As of Jan. 5, researchers in Brazil had studied 1,897 genomes – not nearly enough.

“In Brazil, there is little testing and even less sequencing,” lamented Dr. Souza.

“In the U.K., 1 in 600 cases is sequenced. In Brazil it is less than 1 in 10 million cases,” Dr. Voloch added.

So far, no decisive factors for public health, such as greater virulence or greater transmissibility, have been identified in any of the strains established in Brazil. The million-dollar question is whether the emergence of new strains could have an impact on the effectiveness of vaccines being administered today.

“In one way or another, the vaccine is our best bet ever, even if in the future we identify escapist mutants and have to modify it,” Dr. Motta said. “It is what we do annually with influenza.”

Dr. Voloch, Dr. Motta, and Dr. Souza disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on the Portuguese edition of Medscape.com.

Seven days into his presidency, Joe Biden announced that he is taking new steps to speed vaccines to Americans.

The president said he would increase the supply of vaccines to states from 8.6 million doses to 10 million doses per week, a 16% increase, for at least the next 3 weeks.

He said he was working to give states more advanced notice of their allotments so they could better plan their campaigns. He also said doses would be doled out based on population.

“We will both increase the supply and give our state and local partners more certainty about when doses will arrive,” he said Tuesday.

Finally, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would “soon be able to confirm” the purchase of 200 million more doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – 100 million of each – to effectively double the nation’s supply by “early summer.” That would increase the nation’s supply enough to fully vaccinate 300 million Americans by fall.

Mr. Biden said he was also working to shift the focus to getting more doses to economically disadvantaged communities and rural areas, which have fallen further behind as the vaccine rollout has faltered.

Even with these steps, Mr. Biden stressed that it would take months for vaccines to curb infections and deaths. He said, for the time being, masks, not vaccines, are the best way to save lives.

“The brutal truth is its going to take months before we get the majority of Americans vaccinated. Months,” he said, adding that wearing masks until at least April could save to save 50,000 lives.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Biden said, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get into this mess overnight. It’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear we’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic,” he said.

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

Seven days into his presidency, Joe Biden announced that he is taking new steps to speed vaccines to Americans.

The president said he would increase the supply of vaccines to states from 8.6 million doses to 10 million doses per week, a 16% increase, for at least the next 3 weeks.

He said he was working to give states more advanced notice of their allotments so they could better plan their campaigns. He also said doses would be doled out based on population.

“We will both increase the supply and give our state and local partners more certainty about when doses will arrive,” he said Tuesday.

Finally, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would “soon be able to confirm” the purchase of 200 million more doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – 100 million of each – to effectively double the nation’s supply by “early summer.” That would increase the nation’s supply enough to fully vaccinate 300 million Americans by fall.

Mr. Biden said he was also working to shift the focus to getting more doses to economically disadvantaged communities and rural areas, which have fallen further behind as the vaccine rollout has faltered.

Even with these steps, Mr. Biden stressed that it would take months for vaccines to curb infections and deaths. He said, for the time being, masks, not vaccines, are the best way to save lives.

“The brutal truth is its going to take months before we get the majority of Americans vaccinated. Months,” he said, adding that wearing masks until at least April could save to save 50,000 lives.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Biden said, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get into this mess overnight. It’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear we’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic,” he said.

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

Seven days into his presidency, Joe Biden announced that he is taking new steps to speed vaccines to Americans.

The president said he would increase the supply of vaccines to states from 8.6 million doses to 10 million doses per week, a 16% increase, for at least the next 3 weeks.

He said he was working to give states more advanced notice of their allotments so they could better plan their campaigns. He also said doses would be doled out based on population.

“We will both increase the supply and give our state and local partners more certainty about when doses will arrive,” he said Tuesday.

Finally, Mr. Biden announced that the United States would “soon be able to confirm” the purchase of 200 million more doses of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines – 100 million of each – to effectively double the nation’s supply by “early summer.” That would increase the nation’s supply enough to fully vaccinate 300 million Americans by fall.

Mr. Biden said he was also working to shift the focus to getting more doses to economically disadvantaged communities and rural areas, which have fallen further behind as the vaccine rollout has faltered.

Even with these steps, Mr. Biden stressed that it would take months for vaccines to curb infections and deaths. He said, for the time being, masks, not vaccines, are the best way to save lives.

“The brutal truth is its going to take months before we get the majority of Americans vaccinated. Months,” he said, adding that wearing masks until at least April could save to save 50,000 lives.

“Let me be clear,” Mr. Biden said, “Things are going to get worse before they get better.

“We didn’t get into this mess overnight. It’s going to take months for us to turn things around. But let me be equally clear we’re going to get through this. We will defeat this pandemic,” he said.

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

As mutated strains of the coronavirus represent new threats in the pandemic, vaccine makers are racing to respond.

Moderna, whose two-dose vaccine has been authorized for use in the United States since Dec. 18, said on Jan. 25 that it is now investigating whether a third dose of the vaccine will better prevent the spread of a variant first seen in South Africa, while it also tests a new vaccine formula for the same purpose.

“Out of an abundance of caution and leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are advancing an emerging variant booster candidate against the variant first identified in the Republic of South Africa into the clinic to determine if it will be more effective … against this and potentially future variants,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. Pfizer and BioNTech, whose vaccine was also authorized in December, announced on Jan. 20 that their COVID-19 vaccine creates antibodies that could protect vaccine recipients from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7.

Moderna on Jan. 25 said laboratory tests have shown its COVID-19 vaccine could protect against the U.K. strain but that it is less effective – while still meeting efficacy benchmarks – against the strain identified in South Africa. Data from the study were submitted to a preprint server on Jan. 25 but have not yet been peer reviewed.

“This is not a problem yet,” Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC.

“Prepare for it. Sequence these viruses,” he said. “Get ready just in case a variant emerges, which is resistant.”

There were at least 195 confirmed cases of patients infected with the U.K. variant, which is believed to be as much as 70% more transmissible, in the United States as of Jan. 22, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases from the South African variant have been confirmed in the United States. To try to prevent the variant from entering the country, President Joe Biden plans to ban travel from South Africa, except for American citizens and permanent residents.

The U.S. has reported more than 25 million total COVID-19 cases, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, marking another major milestone during the pandemic.

That means about 1 in 13 people have contracted the virus, or about 7.6% of the U.S. population.

“Twenty-five million cases is an incredible scale of tragedy,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The New York Times. She called the pandemic one of the worst public health crises in history.

After the first U.S. case was reported in January 2020, it took more than 9 months to reach 10 million cases in early November. Numbers rose during the holidays, and 10 million more cases were reported by the end of the year.

Following a major surge throughout January 2021, with a peak of more than 300,000 daily cases on some days, the U.S. reached 25 million in about 3 weeks.

Hospitalizations also peaked in early January, with more than 132,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Jan. 24, about 111,000 patients were hospitalized, which is the lowest since mid-December.

The U.S. has also reported nearly 420,000 deaths. As recently as the week starting Jan. 17, more than 4,400 deaths were reported in a single day, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Deaths are beginning to drop but still remain above 3,000 daily.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation released a new projection Jan. 22 that said new cases would decline steadily in coming weeks. New COVID-19 cases had fallen about 21% in 2 weeks prior to Jan. 25, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“We’ve been saying since summer that we thought we’d see a peak in January, and I think that, at the national level, we’re around the peak,” Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, director of the institute, told the newspaper.

At the same time, public health officials are concerned that new coronavirus variants could lead to an increase again. Dr. Murray said the variants could “totally change the story.” If the more transmissible strains spread quickly, cases and deaths will surge once more.

“We’re definitely on a downward slope, but I’m worried that the new variants will throw us a curveball in late February or March,” Ms. Rivers told the newspaper.
 

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

As mutated strains of the coronavirus represent new threats in the pandemic, vaccine makers are racing to respond.

Moderna, whose two-dose vaccine has been authorized for use in the United States since Dec. 18, said on Jan. 25 that it is now investigating whether a third dose of the vaccine will better prevent the spread of a variant first seen in South Africa, while it also tests a new vaccine formula for the same purpose.

“Out of an abundance of caution and leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are advancing an emerging variant booster candidate against the variant first identified in the Republic of South Africa into the clinic to determine if it will be more effective … against this and potentially future variants,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. Pfizer and BioNTech, whose vaccine was also authorized in December, announced on Jan. 20 that their COVID-19 vaccine creates antibodies that could protect vaccine recipients from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7.

Moderna on Jan. 25 said laboratory tests have shown its COVID-19 vaccine could protect against the U.K. strain but that it is less effective – while still meeting efficacy benchmarks – against the strain identified in South Africa. Data from the study were submitted to a preprint server on Jan. 25 but have not yet been peer reviewed.

“This is not a problem yet,” Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC.

“Prepare for it. Sequence these viruses,” he said. “Get ready just in case a variant emerges, which is resistant.”

There were at least 195 confirmed cases of patients infected with the U.K. variant, which is believed to be as much as 70% more transmissible, in the United States as of Jan. 22, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases from the South African variant have been confirmed in the United States. To try to prevent the variant from entering the country, President Joe Biden plans to ban travel from South Africa, except for American citizens and permanent residents.

The U.S. has reported more than 25 million total COVID-19 cases, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, marking another major milestone during the pandemic.

That means about 1 in 13 people have contracted the virus, or about 7.6% of the U.S. population.

“Twenty-five million cases is an incredible scale of tragedy,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The New York Times. She called the pandemic one of the worst public health crises in history.

After the first U.S. case was reported in January 2020, it took more than 9 months to reach 10 million cases in early November. Numbers rose during the holidays, and 10 million more cases were reported by the end of the year.

Following a major surge throughout January 2021, with a peak of more than 300,000 daily cases on some days, the U.S. reached 25 million in about 3 weeks.

Hospitalizations also peaked in early January, with more than 132,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Jan. 24, about 111,000 patients were hospitalized, which is the lowest since mid-December.

The U.S. has also reported nearly 420,000 deaths. As recently as the week starting Jan. 17, more than 4,400 deaths were reported in a single day, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Deaths are beginning to drop but still remain above 3,000 daily.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation released a new projection Jan. 22 that said new cases would decline steadily in coming weeks. New COVID-19 cases had fallen about 21% in 2 weeks prior to Jan. 25, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“We’ve been saying since summer that we thought we’d see a peak in January, and I think that, at the national level, we’re around the peak,” Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, director of the institute, told the newspaper.

At the same time, public health officials are concerned that new coronavirus variants could lead to an increase again. Dr. Murray said the variants could “totally change the story.” If the more transmissible strains spread quickly, cases and deaths will surge once more.

“We’re definitely on a downward slope, but I’m worried that the new variants will throw us a curveball in late February or March,” Ms. Rivers told the newspaper.
 

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

As mutated strains of the coronavirus represent new threats in the pandemic, vaccine makers are racing to respond.

Moderna, whose two-dose vaccine has been authorized for use in the United States since Dec. 18, said on Jan. 25 that it is now investigating whether a third dose of the vaccine will better prevent the spread of a variant first seen in South Africa, while it also tests a new vaccine formula for the same purpose.

“Out of an abundance of caution and leveraging the flexibility of our mRNA platform, we are advancing an emerging variant booster candidate against the variant first identified in the Republic of South Africa into the clinic to determine if it will be more effective … against this and potentially future variants,” Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel said in a statement. Pfizer and BioNTech, whose vaccine was also authorized in December, announced on Jan. 20 that their COVID-19 vaccine creates antibodies that could protect vaccine recipients from the U.K. variant B.1.1.7.

Moderna on Jan. 25 said laboratory tests have shown its COVID-19 vaccine could protect against the U.K. strain but that it is less effective – while still meeting efficacy benchmarks – against the strain identified in South Africa. Data from the study were submitted to a preprint server on Jan. 25 but have not yet been peer reviewed.

“This is not a problem yet,” Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNBC.

“Prepare for it. Sequence these viruses,” he said. “Get ready just in case a variant emerges, which is resistant.”

There were at least 195 confirmed cases of patients infected with the U.K. variant, which is believed to be as much as 70% more transmissible, in the United States as of Jan. 22, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. No cases from the South African variant have been confirmed in the United States. To try to prevent the variant from entering the country, President Joe Biden plans to ban travel from South Africa, except for American citizens and permanent residents.

The U.S. has reported more than 25 million total COVID-19 cases, according to data from Johns Hopkins University, marking another major milestone during the pandemic.

That means about 1 in 13 people have contracted the virus, or about 7.6% of the U.S. population.

“Twenty-five million cases is an incredible scale of tragedy,” Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told The New York Times. She called the pandemic one of the worst public health crises in history.

After the first U.S. case was reported in January 2020, it took more than 9 months to reach 10 million cases in early November. Numbers rose during the holidays, and 10 million more cases were reported by the end of the year.

Following a major surge throughout January 2021, with a peak of more than 300,000 daily cases on some days, the U.S. reached 25 million in about 3 weeks.

Hospitalizations also peaked in early January, with more than 132,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the COVID Tracking Project. On Jan. 24, about 111,000 patients were hospitalized, which is the lowest since mid-December.

The U.S. has also reported nearly 420,000 deaths. As recently as the week starting Jan. 17, more than 4,400 deaths were reported in a single day, according to the COVID Tracking Project. Deaths are beginning to drop but still remain above 3,000 daily.

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation released a new projection Jan. 22 that said new cases would decline steadily in coming weeks. New COVID-19 cases had fallen about 21% in 2 weeks prior to Jan. 25, according to an analysis by The New York Times.

“We’ve been saying since summer that we thought we’d see a peak in January, and I think that, at the national level, we’re around the peak,” Christopher J.L. Murray, MD, director of the institute, told the newspaper.

At the same time, public health officials are concerned that new coronavirus variants could lead to an increase again. Dr. Murray said the variants could “totally change the story.” If the more transmissible strains spread quickly, cases and deaths will surge once more.

“We’re definitely on a downward slope, but I’m worried that the new variants will throw us a curveball in late February or March,” Ms. Rivers told the newspaper.
 

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

A systematic review suggests at least one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections occur in people who never develop symptoms, providing strong evidence for the prevalence of asymptomatic infections.

The finding that nearly one in three infected people remain symptom free suggests testing should be changed, the investigators noted.

“To reduce transmission from people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, we need to shift our testing focus to at-home screening,” lead author Daniel Oran, AM, said in an interview. “Inexpensive rapid antigen tests, provided to millions of people for frequent use, could help us significantly reduce the spread of the virus.”

The systematic review was published online Jan. 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The findings come at a dire time when the official number of COVID-19 cases in the United States exceeds 25 million for the first time. Public health officials have raised concerns about more transmissible, and possibly more deadly, variants of SARS-CoV-2, while a new presidential administration tries to meet the challenge of improving vaccine distribution and acceptance rates.

The results also build on earlier findings from the same research team – Mr. Oran and senior author Eric Topol, MD – that published a review article looking at asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Even though initial data were more limited, they likewise suggested a broader scope of testing is warranted, pointing out that asymptomatic individuals can transmit SARS-CoV-2 for up to 14 days. Dr. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

In the current systematic review, the highest-quality evidence comes from large studies in England and Spain. The nationally representative evidence included serologic surveys from more than 365,000 people in England and more than 61,000 in Spain. When analyzed separately, about the same proportion of asymptomatic cases emerged: 32.4% in England and 33% in Spain.

“It was really remarkable to find that nationwide antibody testing studies in England and Spain – including hundreds of thousands of people – produced nearly identical results: About one-third of the SARS-CoV-2 infections were completely asymptomatic,” said Mr. Oran, a researcher at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The systematic review included 43 studies with PCR testing for active SARS-CoV-2 infection and another 18 with antibody results that indicated present or previous infection. The studies were published up until Nov. 17, 2020.

An appreciation for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has come a long way from initial dismissals about its importance, Dr. Topol noted via Twitter. “When Dr. @camilla_rothe reported an asymptomatic transmission a year ago, the @NEJM report was refuted and disparaged. She was later named a TIME 100 Person of the Year.”
 

Not symptomatic vs. never symptomatic

The term “asymptomatic” could be misleading because some people in this group do progress to develop signs of infection. This “presymptomatic” group of patients is likely a minority, the authors noted. Longitudinal studies indicate that about three-quarters of people who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 remain so.

Dr. Topol anticipated the one-third asymptomatic finding could draw some feedback about distinguishing asymptomatic from presymptomatic individuals. He tweeted, “Some will argue that there is admixture with presymptomatic cases, but review of all the data supports this estimate as being a conservative one.”

The heterogeneity of the settings, populations and other features of the studies prevented the authors from performing a meta-analysis of the findings.
 

Home is where the test is

Based on their findings, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol believe “that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They suggested frequent use of inexpensive, rapid home tests to identify people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic, along with programs and housing provided by the government to offer financial assistance and allow this group of people to isolate themselves.

Further research is warranted to determine if and how well vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 prevent asymptomatic infection.

Dr. Topol and Mr. Oran created a short video to highlight the findings from their systematic review.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

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

A systematic review suggests at least one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections occur in people who never develop symptoms, providing strong evidence for the prevalence of asymptomatic infections.

The finding that nearly one in three infected people remain symptom free suggests testing should be changed, the investigators noted.

“To reduce transmission from people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, we need to shift our testing focus to at-home screening,” lead author Daniel Oran, AM, said in an interview. “Inexpensive rapid antigen tests, provided to millions of people for frequent use, could help us significantly reduce the spread of the virus.”

The systematic review was published online Jan. 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The findings come at a dire time when the official number of COVID-19 cases in the United States exceeds 25 million for the first time. Public health officials have raised concerns about more transmissible, and possibly more deadly, variants of SARS-CoV-2, while a new presidential administration tries to meet the challenge of improving vaccine distribution and acceptance rates.

The results also build on earlier findings from the same research team – Mr. Oran and senior author Eric Topol, MD – that published a review article looking at asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Even though initial data were more limited, they likewise suggested a broader scope of testing is warranted, pointing out that asymptomatic individuals can transmit SARS-CoV-2 for up to 14 days. Dr. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

In the current systematic review, the highest-quality evidence comes from large studies in England and Spain. The nationally representative evidence included serologic surveys from more than 365,000 people in England and more than 61,000 in Spain. When analyzed separately, about the same proportion of asymptomatic cases emerged: 32.4% in England and 33% in Spain.

“It was really remarkable to find that nationwide antibody testing studies in England and Spain – including hundreds of thousands of people – produced nearly identical results: About one-third of the SARS-CoV-2 infections were completely asymptomatic,” said Mr. Oran, a researcher at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The systematic review included 43 studies with PCR testing for active SARS-CoV-2 infection and another 18 with antibody results that indicated present or previous infection. The studies were published up until Nov. 17, 2020.

An appreciation for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has come a long way from initial dismissals about its importance, Dr. Topol noted via Twitter. “When Dr. @camilla_rothe reported an asymptomatic transmission a year ago, the @NEJM report was refuted and disparaged. She was later named a TIME 100 Person of the Year.”
 

Not symptomatic vs. never symptomatic

The term “asymptomatic” could be misleading because some people in this group do progress to develop signs of infection. This “presymptomatic” group of patients is likely a minority, the authors noted. Longitudinal studies indicate that about three-quarters of people who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 remain so.

Dr. Topol anticipated the one-third asymptomatic finding could draw some feedback about distinguishing asymptomatic from presymptomatic individuals. He tweeted, “Some will argue that there is admixture with presymptomatic cases, but review of all the data supports this estimate as being a conservative one.”

The heterogeneity of the settings, populations and other features of the studies prevented the authors from performing a meta-analysis of the findings.
 

Home is where the test is

Based on their findings, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol believe “that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They suggested frequent use of inexpensive, rapid home tests to identify people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic, along with programs and housing provided by the government to offer financial assistance and allow this group of people to isolate themselves.

Further research is warranted to determine if and how well vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 prevent asymptomatic infection.

Dr. Topol and Mr. Oran created a short video to highlight the findings from their systematic review.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

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

A systematic review suggests at least one-third of SARS-CoV-2 infections occur in people who never develop symptoms, providing strong evidence for the prevalence of asymptomatic infections.

The finding that nearly one in three infected people remain symptom free suggests testing should be changed, the investigators noted.

“To reduce transmission from people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, we need to shift our testing focus to at-home screening,” lead author Daniel Oran, AM, said in an interview. “Inexpensive rapid antigen tests, provided to millions of people for frequent use, could help us significantly reduce the spread of the virus.”

The systematic review was published online Jan. 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

The findings come at a dire time when the official number of COVID-19 cases in the United States exceeds 25 million for the first time. Public health officials have raised concerns about more transmissible, and possibly more deadly, variants of SARS-CoV-2, while a new presidential administration tries to meet the challenge of improving vaccine distribution and acceptance rates.

The results also build on earlier findings from the same research team – Mr. Oran and senior author Eric Topol, MD – that published a review article looking at asymptomatic COVID-19 cases. Even though initial data were more limited, they likewise suggested a broader scope of testing is warranted, pointing out that asymptomatic individuals can transmit SARS-CoV-2 for up to 14 days. Dr. Topol is also editor in chief of Medscape.

In the current systematic review, the highest-quality evidence comes from large studies in England and Spain. The nationally representative evidence included serologic surveys from more than 365,000 people in England and more than 61,000 in Spain. When analyzed separately, about the same proportion of asymptomatic cases emerged: 32.4% in England and 33% in Spain.

“It was really remarkable to find that nationwide antibody testing studies in England and Spain – including hundreds of thousands of people – produced nearly identical results: About one-third of the SARS-CoV-2 infections were completely asymptomatic,” said Mr. Oran, a researcher at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif.

The systematic review included 43 studies with PCR testing for active SARS-CoV-2 infection and another 18 with antibody results that indicated present or previous infection. The studies were published up until Nov. 17, 2020.

An appreciation for asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection has come a long way from initial dismissals about its importance, Dr. Topol noted via Twitter. “When Dr. @camilla_rothe reported an asymptomatic transmission a year ago, the @NEJM report was refuted and disparaged. She was later named a TIME 100 Person of the Year.”
 

Not symptomatic vs. never symptomatic

The term “asymptomatic” could be misleading because some people in this group do progress to develop signs of infection. This “presymptomatic” group of patients is likely a minority, the authors noted. Longitudinal studies indicate that about three-quarters of people who are asymptomatic with SARS-CoV-2 remain so.

Dr. Topol anticipated the one-third asymptomatic finding could draw some feedback about distinguishing asymptomatic from presymptomatic individuals. He tweeted, “Some will argue that there is admixture with presymptomatic cases, but review of all the data supports this estimate as being a conservative one.”

The heterogeneity of the settings, populations and other features of the studies prevented the authors from performing a meta-analysis of the findings.
 

Home is where the test is

Based on their findings, Mr. Oran and Dr. Topol believe “that COVID-19 control strategies must be altered, taking into account the prevalence and transmission risk of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection.” They suggested frequent use of inexpensive, rapid home tests to identify people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic, along with programs and housing provided by the government to offer financial assistance and allow this group of people to isolate themselves.

Further research is warranted to determine if and how well vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 prevent asymptomatic infection.

Dr. Topol and Mr. Oran created a short video to highlight the findings from their systematic review.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

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

About 60% of children taking antipsychotic medication do not receive recommended metabolic monitoring, according to an analysis of Medicaid data from two states.

The number and types of providers involved in a child’s care are associated with the likelihood that the child will receive metabolic monitoring, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics.

The results suggest that primary care providers and mental health providers should collaborate to monitor children taking antipsychotics, the researchers said.

“Shared care arrangements between primary care physicians and mental health specialists significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done, compared with care delivered by one provider,” reported Elizabeth A. Shenkman, PhD, chair of the department of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. “The results of our study point to the importance of state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans in identifying all providers caring for the children taking antipsychotic medication and using this information to engage the providers in quality improvement efforts to improve metabolic monitoring rates.”


 

Comparing specialties

Children who take antipsychotic medication are at risk for obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia, but less than 40% receive recommended metabolic monitoring with glucose and cholesterol tests.

To examine how health care provider specialty influences the receipt of metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues analyzed Medicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from Florida and Texas.

They focused on 41,078 children who had an antipsychotic medication dispensed at least twice in 2017 and were eligible for inclusion in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metabolic monitoring measure. The Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics measure is a “priority nationally and is currently on the CMS Child Core Set, which is used to annually assess state-specific performance on pediatric quality measures,” the authors wrote.

About 65% were boys, and the children had an average age of 12 years. The researchers compared metabolic monitoring rates when children received outpatient care from a primary care provider, a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both.

Less than 40% of the children received metabolic monitoring, that is, at least one diabetes test and at least one cholesterol test, during the year.

Most of the children (61%) saw both primary care providers and mental health providers. Approximately one-third had a primary care provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time, and 60% had a mental health provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time.

Patients who saw both types of providers were significantly more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, relative to those who saw primary care providers only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42). Those seeing a mental health provider alone had adjusted odds of metabolic monitoring that were 23% lower than those seeing a primary care provider alone.

Children who had a mental health provider prescribe the medication the majority of the time were 25% more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, compared with those who had a primary care provider prescribing the medication the majority of the time.
 

Slipping through the cracks

Child psychiatrist Fred Volkmar, MD, commented that the results are “sadly” unsurprising and reflect issues that pertain to other psychotropic drugs as well as antipsychotics and to adults as well as children.

The researchers “are quite right to point to it,” and “we really do need to develop better plans for improving” monitoring, said Dr. Volkmar, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Child Study Center and professor of psychology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Increasingly we are asking primary care providers ... to take care of folks who have important either developmental or mental health problems,” Dr. Volkmar said. While they can do a good job, they increasingly are underpaid. Monitoring patients takes work, and they may be less familiar with the medications. “Either they prescribe these medications or they are asked to monitor them in place of the specialist provider who may have started them or suggested them,” he said. Metabolic monitoring may not be prioritized and can easily “slip through the cracks.” At the same time, doctors need to be aware of the risk of serious side effects of antipsychotic medications, such as malignant hyperthermia.

These medications can be overused and inappropriately used, which is a further complication. And when patients are taking multiple medications, there may be a need for additional monitoring and awareness of drug interactions.

“These medications are very complicated to use,” and there needs to be a way to connect primary care providers with child psychiatrists who are best trained in their use, said Dr. Volkmar.

A system with reminders can facilitate effective metabolic monitoring, he suggested. Dr. Volkmar has established a routine while providing care for a group home of adults with autism. Every 3 months, he reviews lab results. “You just have to force yourself to do it.”

Shared care arrangements may be another way to promote metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues said.

“Attributing care back to the multiple providers is important for care coordination and development of strategies to ensure that the evidence-based care is delivered and there is appropriate follow-up with the family and child to be sure care is received,” the study authors wrote. “Formalized shared care arrangements and adaptation of existing care delivery models to support integrated care, which can vary in degree from external coordination to on-site intervention and collaboration, are effective methods to promote partnership between primary and mental health providers.”

It is possible that clinicians in the study ordered metabolic monitoring but families did not take the children for testing, the investigators noted. In addition, it is not clear how much information providers have about other providers their patients are seeing.

The study authors and Dr. Volkmar had no disclosures.

[email protected]

About 60% of children taking antipsychotic medication do not receive recommended metabolic monitoring, according to an analysis of Medicaid data from two states.

The number and types of providers involved in a child’s care are associated with the likelihood that the child will receive metabolic monitoring, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics.

The results suggest that primary care providers and mental health providers should collaborate to monitor children taking antipsychotics, the researchers said.

“Shared care arrangements between primary care physicians and mental health specialists significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done, compared with care delivered by one provider,” reported Elizabeth A. Shenkman, PhD, chair of the department of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. “The results of our study point to the importance of state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans in identifying all providers caring for the children taking antipsychotic medication and using this information to engage the providers in quality improvement efforts to improve metabolic monitoring rates.”


 

Comparing specialties

Children who take antipsychotic medication are at risk for obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia, but less than 40% receive recommended metabolic monitoring with glucose and cholesterol tests.

To examine how health care provider specialty influences the receipt of metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues analyzed Medicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from Florida and Texas.

They focused on 41,078 children who had an antipsychotic medication dispensed at least twice in 2017 and were eligible for inclusion in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metabolic monitoring measure. The Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics measure is a “priority nationally and is currently on the CMS Child Core Set, which is used to annually assess state-specific performance on pediatric quality measures,” the authors wrote.

About 65% were boys, and the children had an average age of 12 years. The researchers compared metabolic monitoring rates when children received outpatient care from a primary care provider, a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both.

Less than 40% of the children received metabolic monitoring, that is, at least one diabetes test and at least one cholesterol test, during the year.

Most of the children (61%) saw both primary care providers and mental health providers. Approximately one-third had a primary care provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time, and 60% had a mental health provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time.

Patients who saw both types of providers were significantly more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, relative to those who saw primary care providers only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42). Those seeing a mental health provider alone had adjusted odds of metabolic monitoring that were 23% lower than those seeing a primary care provider alone.

Children who had a mental health provider prescribe the medication the majority of the time were 25% more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, compared with those who had a primary care provider prescribing the medication the majority of the time.
 

Slipping through the cracks

Child psychiatrist Fred Volkmar, MD, commented that the results are “sadly” unsurprising and reflect issues that pertain to other psychotropic drugs as well as antipsychotics and to adults as well as children.

The researchers “are quite right to point to it,” and “we really do need to develop better plans for improving” monitoring, said Dr. Volkmar, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Child Study Center and professor of psychology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Increasingly we are asking primary care providers ... to take care of folks who have important either developmental or mental health problems,” Dr. Volkmar said. While they can do a good job, they increasingly are underpaid. Monitoring patients takes work, and they may be less familiar with the medications. “Either they prescribe these medications or they are asked to monitor them in place of the specialist provider who may have started them or suggested them,” he said. Metabolic monitoring may not be prioritized and can easily “slip through the cracks.” At the same time, doctors need to be aware of the risk of serious side effects of antipsychotic medications, such as malignant hyperthermia.

These medications can be overused and inappropriately used, which is a further complication. And when patients are taking multiple medications, there may be a need for additional monitoring and awareness of drug interactions.

“These medications are very complicated to use,” and there needs to be a way to connect primary care providers with child psychiatrists who are best trained in their use, said Dr. Volkmar.

A system with reminders can facilitate effective metabolic monitoring, he suggested. Dr. Volkmar has established a routine while providing care for a group home of adults with autism. Every 3 months, he reviews lab results. “You just have to force yourself to do it.”

Shared care arrangements may be another way to promote metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues said.

“Attributing care back to the multiple providers is important for care coordination and development of strategies to ensure that the evidence-based care is delivered and there is appropriate follow-up with the family and child to be sure care is received,” the study authors wrote. “Formalized shared care arrangements and adaptation of existing care delivery models to support integrated care, which can vary in degree from external coordination to on-site intervention and collaboration, are effective methods to promote partnership between primary and mental health providers.”

It is possible that clinicians in the study ordered metabolic monitoring but families did not take the children for testing, the investigators noted. In addition, it is not clear how much information providers have about other providers their patients are seeing.

The study authors and Dr. Volkmar had no disclosures.

[email protected]

About 60% of children taking antipsychotic medication do not receive recommended metabolic monitoring, according to an analysis of Medicaid data from two states.

The number and types of providers involved in a child’s care are associated with the likelihood that the child will receive metabolic monitoring, according to the study, which was published in Pediatrics.

The results suggest that primary care providers and mental health providers should collaborate to monitor children taking antipsychotics, the researchers said.

“Shared care arrangements between primary care physicians and mental health specialists significantly increased the chances that metabolic monitoring would be done, compared with care delivered by one provider,” reported Elizabeth A. Shenkman, PhD, chair of the department of health outcomes and biomedical informatics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and colleagues. “The results of our study point to the importance of state Medicaid agencies and Medicaid managed care plans in identifying all providers caring for the children taking antipsychotic medication and using this information to engage the providers in quality improvement efforts to improve metabolic monitoring rates.”


 

Comparing specialties

Children who take antipsychotic medication are at risk for obesity, impaired glucose metabolism, and hyperlipidemia, but less than 40% receive recommended metabolic monitoring with glucose and cholesterol tests.

To examine how health care provider specialty influences the receipt of metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues analyzed Medicaid enrollment and health care and pharmacy claims data from Florida and Texas.

They focused on 41,078 children who had an antipsychotic medication dispensed at least twice in 2017 and were eligible for inclusion in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metabolic monitoring measure. The Metabolic Monitoring for Children and Adolescents on Antipsychotics measure is a “priority nationally and is currently on the CMS Child Core Set, which is used to annually assess state-specific performance on pediatric quality measures,” the authors wrote.

About 65% were boys, and the children had an average age of 12 years. The researchers compared metabolic monitoring rates when children received outpatient care from a primary care provider, a mental health provider with prescribing privileges, or both.

Less than 40% of the children received metabolic monitoring, that is, at least one diabetes test and at least one cholesterol test, during the year.

Most of the children (61%) saw both primary care providers and mental health providers. Approximately one-third had a primary care provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time, and 60% had a mental health provider prescribe antipsychotic medication the majority of the time.

Patients who saw both types of providers were significantly more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, relative to those who saw primary care providers only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42). Those seeing a mental health provider alone had adjusted odds of metabolic monitoring that were 23% lower than those seeing a primary care provider alone.

Children who had a mental health provider prescribe the medication the majority of the time were 25% more likely to receive metabolic monitoring, compared with those who had a primary care provider prescribing the medication the majority of the time.
 

Slipping through the cracks

Child psychiatrist Fred Volkmar, MD, commented that the results are “sadly” unsurprising and reflect issues that pertain to other psychotropic drugs as well as antipsychotics and to adults as well as children.

The researchers “are quite right to point to it,” and “we really do need to develop better plans for improving” monitoring, said Dr. Volkmar, the Irving B. Harris Professor in the Child Study Center and professor of psychology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“Increasingly we are asking primary care providers ... to take care of folks who have important either developmental or mental health problems,” Dr. Volkmar said. While they can do a good job, they increasingly are underpaid. Monitoring patients takes work, and they may be less familiar with the medications. “Either they prescribe these medications or they are asked to monitor them in place of the specialist provider who may have started them or suggested them,” he said. Metabolic monitoring may not be prioritized and can easily “slip through the cracks.” At the same time, doctors need to be aware of the risk of serious side effects of antipsychotic medications, such as malignant hyperthermia.

These medications can be overused and inappropriately used, which is a further complication. And when patients are taking multiple medications, there may be a need for additional monitoring and awareness of drug interactions.

“These medications are very complicated to use,” and there needs to be a way to connect primary care providers with child psychiatrists who are best trained in their use, said Dr. Volkmar.

A system with reminders can facilitate effective metabolic monitoring, he suggested. Dr. Volkmar has established a routine while providing care for a group home of adults with autism. Every 3 months, he reviews lab results. “You just have to force yourself to do it.”

Shared care arrangements may be another way to promote metabolic monitoring, Dr. Shenkman and colleagues said.

“Attributing care back to the multiple providers is important for care coordination and development of strategies to ensure that the evidence-based care is delivered and there is appropriate follow-up with the family and child to be sure care is received,” the study authors wrote. “Formalized shared care arrangements and adaptation of existing care delivery models to support integrated care, which can vary in degree from external coordination to on-site intervention and collaboration, are effective methods to promote partnership between primary and mental health providers.”

It is possible that clinicians in the study ordered metabolic monitoring but families did not take the children for testing, the investigators noted. In addition, it is not clear how much information providers have about other providers their patients are seeing.

The study authors and Dr. Volkmar had no disclosures.

[email protected]