Cardiology News

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

Ransomware attacks are driving some small practices out of business.

Michigan-based Brookside ENT and Hearing Center, a two-physician practice, closed its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack. The criminals locked their computer system and files and then demanded a $6,500 ransom to restore access. The practice took the advice of law enforcement and refused to pay. The attackers wiped the computer systems clean – destroying all patient records, appointment schedules, and financial information. Rather than rebuild the entire practice, the two doctors took early retirement.

Wood Ranch Medical, in Simi, Calif., a small primary care practice, decided to shut its doors in 2019 after a ransomware attack damaged its servers and backup files, which affected more than 5,000 patient records. The criminals demanded a ransom to restore the technology and records, but the owners refused to pay. They couldn’t rebuild the system without the backup files, so they shuttered their business.

Several large practices have also been attacked by ransomware, including Imperial Health in Louisiana in 2019, that may have compromised more than 110,000 records. The practice didn’t pay the ransom and had access to its backup files and the resources to rebuild its computer systems and stay in business.

Medical practices of all sizes have experienced ransomware attacks. More than 551 health care ransomware attacks were reported to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights in 2021 (as of Nov. 30), and over 40 million individuals faced exposure of their protected health information.

All it takes is one employee clicking on a link or embedded file in an email to launch malware. A vicious code locks the electronic health record (EHR) system, and your practice grinds to a halt.

Cyber criminals demand a ransom in bitcoin to unlock the files. They may even threaten to post private patient data publicly or sell it on the dark web to get you to pay up.

But, is paying a ransom necessary or wise? What other steps should you take? Here’s what cyber security experts say criminals look for in targets, how they infiltrate and attack, and how you should respond and prevent future attacks.
 

How does it happen?

Email is a popular way for criminals to hack into a system. Criminals often research company websites and impersonate a company executive and send a legitimate-looking “phishing” email to employees hoping that someone will click on it and launch a malware attack.

Recently, cyber criminals found an easier way to infiltrate that doesn’t require identifying targets to gain access, said Drex DeFord, executive health care strategist at CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity technology company in Sunnyvale, Calif.

“Instead of hacking into the system, cyber criminals are just logging in. Most likely, they have acquired a user’s credentials (username/password) from another source – possibly purchasing it from the dark web, the part of the Internet that criminals use, through an ‘access broker,’ an organization that specializes in collecting and selling these kinds of credentials,” said Mr. DeFord.

After a ransomware attack last August on Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis, forensic investigators discovered that the criminals had logged into the IT system in May and had disabled security protections that could have detected their presence before they launched their cyber attack, according to a statement.
 

Responding to a ransomware attack

When employees or the IT department suspect a ransomware attack is underway, cyber experts recommend isolating the “infected” part of the network, shutting down the computer system to prevent further damage, and securing backups.

Soon afterward, cyber criminals typically communicate their ransom demands electronically with instructions for payment. One practice described seeing a “skull and bones image” on its laptops with a link to instructions to pay the ransom demand in bitcoin.

Although you never want to pay criminals, it’s ultimately a business decision that every organization that’s affected by ransomware has to make, said Kathy Hughes, chief information security officer at Northwell Health in New York. “They need to weigh the cost and impact from paying a ransom against what they are able to recover, how long will it take, and how much will it cost,” she said.

While it may be tempting to pay a small ransom, such as $5,000, cyber experts warn that it doesn’t guarantee full access to the original data. About one-third (34%) of health care organizations whose data were encrypted paid the ransom to get their data back, according to a June 2021 HHS Report on Ransomware Trends. However, only 69% of the encrypted data was restored, the report states.

Criminals may also demand another payment, called “double extortion,” by threatening to post any extracted private patient or employee data on the dark web, said Ms. Hughes.

Practices sometimes choose not to pay the ransom when they know they can restore the backup files and rebuild the system for less than the ransom amount. However, it can take weeks to rebuild a fully operational IT system; meanwhile, the organization is losing thousands of dollars in patient revenue.

Criminals may retaliate against a practice that doesn’t pay the ransom by wiping the hard drives clean or posting the extracted medical, financial, and demographic data of patients on the dark web. Patients whose information has been extracted have filed class-action lawsuits against medical practices and organizations such as Scripps Health, in San Diego, claiming that they should have done more to keep their private information safe.

Experts also advise reporting the attack to local law enforcement officials, who may have cyber security experts on staff who will come on site and investigate the nature of the attack. They may also request help from the FBI’s professional cyber security team.

Having a cyber insurance policy may help offset some of the costs of an attack. However, make sure you have a good cyber security program, advised Mr. DeFord.

He suggests that small practices partner with large health systems that can donate their cyber security technology and related services legally under the updated Stark safe harbor rules. Otherwise, they may not meet the insurer’s requirements, or they may have to pay significantly higher rates.
 

Who is an easy target?

Cyber criminals look for easy targets, said Ms. Hughes. “A lot of threat actors are not targeting a specific practice – they’re simply throwing out a net and looking for vulnerable systems on the Internet.”

Small medical practices are particularly vulnerable to ransomware attacks because they lack the resources to pay for dedicated IT or cyber security staff, said Ms. Hughes, who oversees security for more than 800 outpatient practices. They’re not replacing outdated or unsupported equipment, applying regular “patches” that fix, update, or improve operating systems, application software, and Internet browsers, or using password controls.

As large practices or health systems acquire medical practices with different EHR systems, security can be more challenging. “Our goal at Northwell is always to get them onto our standard platform, where we use best practices for technology and security controls,” Ms. Hughes said. “In the world of security, having fewer EHR systems is better so there are fewer things to watch, fewer systems to patch, and fewer servers to monitor. From our point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized and streamlined system.”

Still, some practices may feel strongly about using their EHR system, she said. When that happens, “We at least bring them up to our security standards by having them implement password controls and regular patches. We communicate and collaborate with them constantly to get them to a more secure posture.”

Cyber security lapses may have increased during the pandemic when practices had to pivot rapidly to allow administrative staff to work remotely and clinical staff to use telehealth with patients.

“In the rush to get people out of the building during the pandemic, health care organizations bent many of their own rules on remote access. As they moved quickly to new telehealth solutions, they skipped steps like auditing new vendors and cyber-testing new equipment and software. Many organizations are still cleaning up the security ‘exceptions’ they made earlier in the pandemic,” said Mr. DeFord.
 

Hackers are sophisticated criminals

“The version of a hacker a lot of us grew up with – someone in a basement hacking into your environment and possibly deploying ransomware – isn’t accurate,” said Mr. DeFord. What experts know now is that these cyber criminals operate more like companies that have hired, trained, and developed people to be stealth-like – getting inside your network without being detected.

“They are more sophisticated than the health care organizations they often target,” added Mr. DeFord. “Their developers write the encryption software; they use chatbots to make paying the ransom easy and refer to the people they ransom as clients, because it’s a lucrative business,” he said.

These groups also have specialized roles – one may come in and map your network’s vulnerabilities and sell that information to another group that is good at extracting data and that sells that information to another group that is good at setting off ransomware and negotiation, said Mr. DeFord. “By the time a ransomware attack occurs, we often find that the bad guys have owned the network for at least 6 months.”

Patient records are attractive targets because the information can be sold on the dark web, the part of the Internet that’s unavailable to search engines and requires an anonymous browser called Tor to gain access, said Ms. Hughes.

Criminals steal patient identifiers such as Social Security numbers and birth dates, payment or insurance information, as well as medical histories and prescription data. Other people buy the information for fraudulent purposes, such as filing false tax returns, obtaining medical services, and opening credit cards, said Ms. Hughes.

Lately, criminal gangs appear to be targeting the IT or EHR systems that practices rely on for clinical care and making them unavailable. By locking EHR files or databases and holding them for ransom, criminals hope practices will be more likely to pay, said Ms. Hughes.

They also don’t want to get caught, and this tactic “gets them in and out faster” than extracting and posting patient data, although criminals may use that as a threat to extort a ransom payment, she said.
 

Fines for lax privacy/security

Breaches of patient records have consequences that include being investigated by federal or state authorities for potential HIPAA privacy and security violations and fines. Recently, the HHS announced a $1.5 million settlement – the largest to date – with Athens Orthopedic Clinic, PA, in Georgia, for not complying with the HIPAA rules.

When breaches of 500 or more patient records occur, medical groups are required to notify the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) within 60 days, as well as all the affected patients and the media. Some organizations offer free credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to their patients.

Information about the breaches, including company names and the number of affected individuals, is posted publicly on what cyber experts often call “OCR’s wall of shame.”
 

Strengthen your defenses

The FBI and the HHS warned health care professionals and organizations in 2020 about the threat of increasing cyber attacks and urged them to take precautions to protect their networks.

Here are five actions you can take:

• Back-up your files to the cloud or off-site services and test that the restoration works.
• Implement user training with simulated phishing attacks so the staff will recognize suspicious emails and avoid actions that could launch malware attacks.
• Ensure strong password controls and that systems are regularly patched.
• Require multifactor authentication for remote access to IT networks.
• Set anti-virus/anti-malware programs to conduct regular scans of IT network assets using up-to-date signatures.

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

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

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

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A hastening to herd immunity?

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

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

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A shorter, more intense surge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A hastening to herd immunity?

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

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

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A shorter, more intense surge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infectious disease experts weigh in on these possibilities.
 

An endemic eventuality?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A hastening to herd immunity?

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

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

Dr. Mylonakis was more skeptical regarding herd immunity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A shorter, more intense surge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In more than 15% of people with benign adrenal tumors, the growths produce clinically relevant levels of serum cortisol that are significantly linked with an increased prevalence of hypertension and, in 5% of those with Cushing syndrome (CS), an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, based on data from more than 1,300 people with benign adrenal tumors, the largest reported prospective study of the disorder.

The study results showed that mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) from benign adrenal tumors “is very frequent and is an important risk condition for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, especially in older women,” said Alessandro Prete, MD, lead author of the study which was published online Jan. 3, 2022, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

SEBASTIAN KAULITZKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

“The impact of MACS on high blood pressure and risk for type 2 diabetes has been underestimated until now,” said Dr. Prete, an endocrinologist at the University of Birmingham (England), in a written statement. 

Results from previous studies “suggested that MACS is associated with poor health. Our study is the largest to establish conclusively the extent of the risk and severity of high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in patients with MACS,” said Wiebke Arlt, MD, DSc, senior author and director of the Institute of Metabolism & Systems Research at the University of Birmingham.

All patients found to have a benign adrenal tumor should undergo testing for MACS and have their blood pressure and glucose levels measured regularly, Dr. Arlt advised in the statement released by the University of Birmingham.
 

MACS more common than previously thought

The new findings show that MACS “is more common and may have a more negative impact on health than previously thought, including increasing the risk for type 2 diabetes,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK. “The findings suggest that screening for MACS could help identify people – particularly women, in whom the condition was found to be more common – who may benefit from support to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes.”

The study included 1,305 people with newly diagnosed, benign adrenal tumors greater than 1 cm, a subset of patients prospectively enrolled in a study with the primary purpose of validating a novel way to diagnose adrenocortical carcinomas. Patients underwent treatment in 2011-2016 at any of 14 tertiary centers in 11 countries.

Researchers used a MACS definition of failure to suppress morning serum cortisol concentration to less than 50 nmol/L after treatment with 1 mg oral dexamethasone at 11 p.m. the previous evening in those with no clinical features of CS.

Roughly half of patients (n = 649) showed normal cortisol suppression with dexamethasone, identifying them as having nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, and about 35% showed possible MACS based on having moderate levels of excess cortisol.

Nearly 11% (n = 140) showed definitive MACS with more robust cortisol levels, and 5% (n = 65) received a diagnosis of clinically overt CS despite selection criteria meant to exclude people with clinical signs of CS.

There was a clear relationship between patient sex and severity of autonomous cortisol production. Among those with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, 64% were women, which rose to 74% women in those with definitive MACS and 86% women among those with CS. The median age of participants was 60 years old.
 

Increasing cortisol levels linked with cardiometabolic disease

Analysis of the prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index showed that, compared with people with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, those with definitive MACS had a significant 15% higher rate of hypertension and those with overt CS had a 37% higher rate. 

Higher levels of excess cortisol were also directly linked with an increased need for treatment with three or more antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure. Those with definitive MACS had a significant 31% higher rate of being on three or more drugs, and those with overt CS had a greater than twofold higher rate.

People with overt CS also had a significant 62% higher rate of type 2 diabetes, compared with those with a nonfunctioning tumor, but in those with definitive MACS the association was not significant. However, people with definitive MACS or overt CS who had type 2 diabetes and also had significantly increased rates of requiring insulin treatment.

The findings show that “people with definitive MACS carry an increased cardiometabolic burden similar to that seen in CS even if they do not display typical features of clinically overt cortisol excess,” the authors wrote in the report.

Even among those with apparently nonfunctioning tumors, each 10 nmol/L rise in cortisol level during a dexamethasone-suppression test was associated with a higher cardiometabolic disease burden. This observation suggests that current diagnostic cutoffs for the suppression test may miss some people with clinically relevant autonomous cortisol secretion, the report said. The study findings also suggest that people with benign adrenal tumors show a progressive continuum of excess cortisol with clinical consequences that increase as levels increase.
 

Determine the consequences of cortisol secretion

“These data clearly support the European Society of Endocrinology guideline recommendations that clinicians should determine precisely the cardiometabolic consequences of mild cortisol secretion in patients with adrenal lesions,” André Lacroix, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

But Dr. Lacroix included some caveats. He noted the “potential pitfalls in relying on a single total serum cortisol value after the 1-mg dexamethasone test.” He also wondered whether the analysis used optimal cortisol values to distinguish patient subgroups.

Plus, “even in patients with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension is higher than in the general population, raising concerns about the cardiometabolic consequences of barely detectable cortisol excess,” wrote Dr. Lacroix, an endocrinologist at the CHUM Research Center and professor of medicine at the University of Montreal.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Prete, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Lacroix have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Arlt is listed as an inventor on a patent on the use of steroid profiling as a biomarker tool for the differential diagnosis of adrenal tumors.

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

In more than 15% of people with benign adrenal tumors, the growths produce clinically relevant levels of serum cortisol that are significantly linked with an increased prevalence of hypertension and, in 5% of those with Cushing syndrome (CS), an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, based on data from more than 1,300 people with benign adrenal tumors, the largest reported prospective study of the disorder.

The study results showed that mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) from benign adrenal tumors “is very frequent and is an important risk condition for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, especially in older women,” said Alessandro Prete, MD, lead author of the study which was published online Jan. 3, 2022, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

SEBASTIAN KAULITZKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

“The impact of MACS on high blood pressure and risk for type 2 diabetes has been underestimated until now,” said Dr. Prete, an endocrinologist at the University of Birmingham (England), in a written statement. 

Results from previous studies “suggested that MACS is associated with poor health. Our study is the largest to establish conclusively the extent of the risk and severity of high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in patients with MACS,” said Wiebke Arlt, MD, DSc, senior author and director of the Institute of Metabolism & Systems Research at the University of Birmingham.

All patients found to have a benign adrenal tumor should undergo testing for MACS and have their blood pressure and glucose levels measured regularly, Dr. Arlt advised in the statement released by the University of Birmingham.
 

MACS more common than previously thought

The new findings show that MACS “is more common and may have a more negative impact on health than previously thought, including increasing the risk for type 2 diabetes,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK. “The findings suggest that screening for MACS could help identify people – particularly women, in whom the condition was found to be more common – who may benefit from support to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes.”

The study included 1,305 people with newly diagnosed, benign adrenal tumors greater than 1 cm, a subset of patients prospectively enrolled in a study with the primary purpose of validating a novel way to diagnose adrenocortical carcinomas. Patients underwent treatment in 2011-2016 at any of 14 tertiary centers in 11 countries.

Researchers used a MACS definition of failure to suppress morning serum cortisol concentration to less than 50 nmol/L after treatment with 1 mg oral dexamethasone at 11 p.m. the previous evening in those with no clinical features of CS.

Roughly half of patients (n = 649) showed normal cortisol suppression with dexamethasone, identifying them as having nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, and about 35% showed possible MACS based on having moderate levels of excess cortisol.

Nearly 11% (n = 140) showed definitive MACS with more robust cortisol levels, and 5% (n = 65) received a diagnosis of clinically overt CS despite selection criteria meant to exclude people with clinical signs of CS.

There was a clear relationship between patient sex and severity of autonomous cortisol production. Among those with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, 64% were women, which rose to 74% women in those with definitive MACS and 86% women among those with CS. The median age of participants was 60 years old.
 

Increasing cortisol levels linked with cardiometabolic disease

Analysis of the prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index showed that, compared with people with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, those with definitive MACS had a significant 15% higher rate of hypertension and those with overt CS had a 37% higher rate. 

Higher levels of excess cortisol were also directly linked with an increased need for treatment with three or more antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure. Those with definitive MACS had a significant 31% higher rate of being on three or more drugs, and those with overt CS had a greater than twofold higher rate.

People with overt CS also had a significant 62% higher rate of type 2 diabetes, compared with those with a nonfunctioning tumor, but in those with definitive MACS the association was not significant. However, people with definitive MACS or overt CS who had type 2 diabetes and also had significantly increased rates of requiring insulin treatment.

The findings show that “people with definitive MACS carry an increased cardiometabolic burden similar to that seen in CS even if they do not display typical features of clinically overt cortisol excess,” the authors wrote in the report.

Even among those with apparently nonfunctioning tumors, each 10 nmol/L rise in cortisol level during a dexamethasone-suppression test was associated with a higher cardiometabolic disease burden. This observation suggests that current diagnostic cutoffs for the suppression test may miss some people with clinically relevant autonomous cortisol secretion, the report said. The study findings also suggest that people with benign adrenal tumors show a progressive continuum of excess cortisol with clinical consequences that increase as levels increase.
 

Determine the consequences of cortisol secretion

“These data clearly support the European Society of Endocrinology guideline recommendations that clinicians should determine precisely the cardiometabolic consequences of mild cortisol secretion in patients with adrenal lesions,” André Lacroix, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

But Dr. Lacroix included some caveats. He noted the “potential pitfalls in relying on a single total serum cortisol value after the 1-mg dexamethasone test.” He also wondered whether the analysis used optimal cortisol values to distinguish patient subgroups.

Plus, “even in patients with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension is higher than in the general population, raising concerns about the cardiometabolic consequences of barely detectable cortisol excess,” wrote Dr. Lacroix, an endocrinologist at the CHUM Research Center and professor of medicine at the University of Montreal.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Prete, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Lacroix have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Arlt is listed as an inventor on a patent on the use of steroid profiling as a biomarker tool for the differential diagnosis of adrenal tumors.

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

In more than 15% of people with benign adrenal tumors, the growths produce clinically relevant levels of serum cortisol that are significantly linked with an increased prevalence of hypertension and, in 5% of those with Cushing syndrome (CS), an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, based on data from more than 1,300 people with benign adrenal tumors, the largest reported prospective study of the disorder.

The study results showed that mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) from benign adrenal tumors “is very frequent and is an important risk condition for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, especially in older women,” said Alessandro Prete, MD, lead author of the study which was published online Jan. 3, 2022, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

SEBASTIAN KAULITZKI/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images

“The impact of MACS on high blood pressure and risk for type 2 diabetes has been underestimated until now,” said Dr. Prete, an endocrinologist at the University of Birmingham (England), in a written statement. 

Results from previous studies “suggested that MACS is associated with poor health. Our study is the largest to establish conclusively the extent of the risk and severity of high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in patients with MACS,” said Wiebke Arlt, MD, DSc, senior author and director of the Institute of Metabolism & Systems Research at the University of Birmingham.

All patients found to have a benign adrenal tumor should undergo testing for MACS and have their blood pressure and glucose levels measured regularly, Dr. Arlt advised in the statement released by the University of Birmingham.
 

MACS more common than previously thought

The new findings show that MACS “is more common and may have a more negative impact on health than previously thought, including increasing the risk for type 2 diabetes,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK. “The findings suggest that screening for MACS could help identify people – particularly women, in whom the condition was found to be more common – who may benefit from support to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes.”

The study included 1,305 people with newly diagnosed, benign adrenal tumors greater than 1 cm, a subset of patients prospectively enrolled in a study with the primary purpose of validating a novel way to diagnose adrenocortical carcinomas. Patients underwent treatment in 2011-2016 at any of 14 tertiary centers in 11 countries.

Researchers used a MACS definition of failure to suppress morning serum cortisol concentration to less than 50 nmol/L after treatment with 1 mg oral dexamethasone at 11 p.m. the previous evening in those with no clinical features of CS.

Roughly half of patients (n = 649) showed normal cortisol suppression with dexamethasone, identifying them as having nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, and about 35% showed possible MACS based on having moderate levels of excess cortisol.

Nearly 11% (n = 140) showed definitive MACS with more robust cortisol levels, and 5% (n = 65) received a diagnosis of clinically overt CS despite selection criteria meant to exclude people with clinical signs of CS.

There was a clear relationship between patient sex and severity of autonomous cortisol production. Among those with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, 64% were women, which rose to 74% women in those with definitive MACS and 86% women among those with CS. The median age of participants was 60 years old.
 

Increasing cortisol levels linked with cardiometabolic disease

Analysis of the prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index showed that, compared with people with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, those with definitive MACS had a significant 15% higher rate of hypertension and those with overt CS had a 37% higher rate. 

Higher levels of excess cortisol were also directly linked with an increased need for treatment with three or more antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure. Those with definitive MACS had a significant 31% higher rate of being on three or more drugs, and those with overt CS had a greater than twofold higher rate.

People with overt CS also had a significant 62% higher rate of type 2 diabetes, compared with those with a nonfunctioning tumor, but in those with definitive MACS the association was not significant. However, people with definitive MACS or overt CS who had type 2 diabetes and also had significantly increased rates of requiring insulin treatment.

The findings show that “people with definitive MACS carry an increased cardiometabolic burden similar to that seen in CS even if they do not display typical features of clinically overt cortisol excess,” the authors wrote in the report.

Even among those with apparently nonfunctioning tumors, each 10 nmol/L rise in cortisol level during a dexamethasone-suppression test was associated with a higher cardiometabolic disease burden. This observation suggests that current diagnostic cutoffs for the suppression test may miss some people with clinically relevant autonomous cortisol secretion, the report said. The study findings also suggest that people with benign adrenal tumors show a progressive continuum of excess cortisol with clinical consequences that increase as levels increase.
 

Determine the consequences of cortisol secretion

“These data clearly support the European Society of Endocrinology guideline recommendations that clinicians should determine precisely the cardiometabolic consequences of mild cortisol secretion in patients with adrenal lesions,” André Lacroix, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

But Dr. Lacroix included some caveats. He noted the “potential pitfalls in relying on a single total serum cortisol value after the 1-mg dexamethasone test.” He also wondered whether the analysis used optimal cortisol values to distinguish patient subgroups.

Plus, “even in patients with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension is higher than in the general population, raising concerns about the cardiometabolic consequences of barely detectable cortisol excess,” wrote Dr. Lacroix, an endocrinologist at the CHUM Research Center and professor of medicine at the University of Montreal.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Prete, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Lacroix have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Arlt is listed as an inventor on a patent on the use of steroid profiling as a biomarker tool for the differential diagnosis of adrenal tumors.

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

A CDC advisory panel recommended on Jan. 5 that 12- to 17-year-olds in the U.S. should get the Pfizer COVID-19 booster shot 5 months after a primary series of vaccinations.

The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.

The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.

The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.

The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.

The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.

The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.

The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”

Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”

She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.

“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.

Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.

Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.

“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.

Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.

She noted the soaring Omicron cases.

“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.

Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.

“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.

“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”

Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.

Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”

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

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

If a fish can drive …

Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.

In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?

PxHere

No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.

So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”

The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.

That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
 

We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!

So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?

Tumisu/Pixabay

English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.

The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.

The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.

But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?

It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
 

For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come

The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?

ChiemSeherin/Pixabay

People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?

Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.

First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.

“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.

And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.

Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.

Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.

If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
 

To be or not to be … seen

Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.

filadendron/E+

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recently updated guidance on isolating and testing were tied to the public’s increased interest in testing, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.

Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.

Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.

“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”

“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.

But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.

“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”

About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.

“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”

Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.

“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.

Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.

“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.

He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”

Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.

Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.

“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

It’s a true Goldilocks debate: A week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its COVID-19 isolation and quarantine guidelines – lowering isolation time – health care experts continued to debate the changes, with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”

The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.

Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.

As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:

• Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
• If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.

On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.

A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”

In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”

Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”

Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days. 

“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
 

Under debate

Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.

Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.

And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.

However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.

“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.

Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”

Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”

The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.

Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.

Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.

Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
 

Tough decisions

The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.

The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.

Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”

Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.

That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

A COVID-19 outbreak has occurred at one of the most remote places on earth – the Princess Elisabeth Polar Station in Antarctica.

Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.

So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.

The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.

Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.

New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.

“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”

The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.

Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.

Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.

The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.

Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.

Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.

Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.

The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.

Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved inclisiran (Leqvio) as an adjunct to statins for further reduction of LDL cholesterol levels, the drug’s developer, Novartis, announced on Dec. 22, 2021.

The first-in-class small interfering RNA (siRNA) agent is also novel among peer drug therapies for its administration by injection initially, at 3 months, and thereafter twice per year.

Inclisiran is indicated for use atop maximally tolerated statins in adults with clinical cardiovascular disease or in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, the company reported.

Such patients who received inclisiran, compared with placebo, in the ORION-9, ORION-10, and ORION-11 randomized trials on which the FDA approval was based showed LDL-C reductions exceeding 50% over 1-2 years.

The drug works by “silencing” RNA involved in synthesis of PCSK9, which has a role in controlling the number of LDL cholesterol cell-surface receptors, a unique mechanism of action among available treatments for dyslipidemia.

Novartis, the company said, “has obtained global rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize Leqvio under a license and collaboration agreement with Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.”

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