MDedge Emergency Medicine

Misinformation about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is feeding misunderstanding among prescribers and patients, two experts from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have said.

They briefed reporters on potential drug interactions and uncommon cases of a “rebound” effect with the drug, which was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration last December for patients at least 12 years old.

The drug combination works “like a pair of scissors chopping up proteins that are made as the virus replicates inside of cells. Inhibiting that enzyme leads to the cessation of replication,” said Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia.

That’s important because other treatments that target the spike protein, such as monoclonal antibodies, can lose their efficacy as the virus changes. He said that while that’s not impossible for Paxlovid, “we have not seen variants emerging that are resistant to it.”
 

Potential drug interactions

IDSA recently published updated guidance on potential interactions between Paxlovid and the top 100 drugs, and important considerations for prescribing.

“There is a concern that people have not been prescribing it because of fear of these interactions,” Dr. Gallagher said, explaining that, while in some cases those fears may be valid, in many instances the interaction is manageable.

One example is in two popular statins for heart disease, lovastatin and simvastatin.

“That’s an interaction that can be managed by holding [those drugs] for the 5 days that someone receives Paxlovid,” he said.

Misinformation also is circulating about distribution status of Paxlovid, Dr. Gallagher said.

“We’re in a very different state from that standpoint than we were a month or 2 months ago,” he said, adding that it is widely available in not all but a large number of pharmacies throughout the United States.

He emphasized the importance of drug reconciliation, as many patients will go to a different pharmacy for Paxlovid than they might for their usual prescriptions, so without a full accounting of prescriptions and supplements potential interactions may be missed.
 

Important interactions to watch

Melanie Thompson, MD, cochair of the HIVMA/IDSA HIV Primary Care Guidance Panel, highlighted some classes of drugs to watch, among them the antiarrhythmics, most of which are contraindicated with Paxlovid.

There are also important interactions with a number of cancer drugs, and consults with oncologists will be critical, she said.

“Likewise, people who have had transplants are likely to be on drugs that have significant ritonavir interactions,” Dr. Thompson said.

People on ergot drugs for migraine cannot take Paxlovid, she said, and “people who take colchicine for gout have to be very careful.”

She said it’s better not to use colchicine while taking Paxlovid, as it is contraindicated, “but it can be managed in certain circumstances with substantial dose reduction.”

A number of mental health drugs can be managed with Paxlovid, Dr. Thompson said. For the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, (Seroquel), a “substantial decrease in dose is required.”
 

Viagra for ED can be managed

Use of Viagra depends on why it’s being used, Dr. Thompson said. If it’s used for pulmonary hypertension, it is used at a very high dose and that is contraindicated. But if used for erectile dysfunction, the dose needs to be managed when people are on Paxlovid.

She said prescribers must know the kidney function of patients.

“There is a dose reduction that is required if people have impaired kidney function but below a certain level of function, which is 30 mL/min, it’s not recommended to give Paxlovid.”

Dr. Thompson highlighted two other websites for thorough, printable information on drug-drug interactions with Paxlovid: the University of Liverpool’s drug interaction checker and a printable handout from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“We need a 24/7 clinician hotline for Paxlovid to really make it accessible,” she said.
 

No data yet on ‘rebound’ effect

As to a few recent reports of a “rebound” effect, of people developing COVID-19 symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid, there are not enough data yet to determine a clear pattern or cause.

“All we have are anecdotal data,” Dr. Thompson said. Current questions for study include whether the 5-day course is not long enough, she said, and whether people more at risk should be given a second course of Paxlovid if they do rebound.

Dr. Gallagher said it’s important to remember that the therapy goal of the drug is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and while any rebound is problematic, “it’s possible the use of the medication has already saved a life.”

Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Thompson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misinformation about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is feeding misunderstanding among prescribers and patients, two experts from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have said.

They briefed reporters on potential drug interactions and uncommon cases of a “rebound” effect with the drug, which was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration last December for patients at least 12 years old.

The drug combination works “like a pair of scissors chopping up proteins that are made as the virus replicates inside of cells. Inhibiting that enzyme leads to the cessation of replication,” said Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia.

That’s important because other treatments that target the spike protein, such as monoclonal antibodies, can lose their efficacy as the virus changes. He said that while that’s not impossible for Paxlovid, “we have not seen variants emerging that are resistant to it.”
 

Potential drug interactions

IDSA recently published updated guidance on potential interactions between Paxlovid and the top 100 drugs, and important considerations for prescribing.

“There is a concern that people have not been prescribing it because of fear of these interactions,” Dr. Gallagher said, explaining that, while in some cases those fears may be valid, in many instances the interaction is manageable.

One example is in two popular statins for heart disease, lovastatin and simvastatin.

“That’s an interaction that can be managed by holding [those drugs] for the 5 days that someone receives Paxlovid,” he said.

Misinformation also is circulating about distribution status of Paxlovid, Dr. Gallagher said.

“We’re in a very different state from that standpoint than we were a month or 2 months ago,” he said, adding that it is widely available in not all but a large number of pharmacies throughout the United States.

He emphasized the importance of drug reconciliation, as many patients will go to a different pharmacy for Paxlovid than they might for their usual prescriptions, so without a full accounting of prescriptions and supplements potential interactions may be missed.
 

Important interactions to watch

Melanie Thompson, MD, cochair of the HIVMA/IDSA HIV Primary Care Guidance Panel, highlighted some classes of drugs to watch, among them the antiarrhythmics, most of which are contraindicated with Paxlovid.

There are also important interactions with a number of cancer drugs, and consults with oncologists will be critical, she said.

“Likewise, people who have had transplants are likely to be on drugs that have significant ritonavir interactions,” Dr. Thompson said.

People on ergot drugs for migraine cannot take Paxlovid, she said, and “people who take colchicine for gout have to be very careful.”

She said it’s better not to use colchicine while taking Paxlovid, as it is contraindicated, “but it can be managed in certain circumstances with substantial dose reduction.”

A number of mental health drugs can be managed with Paxlovid, Dr. Thompson said. For the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, (Seroquel), a “substantial decrease in dose is required.”
 

Viagra for ED can be managed

Use of Viagra depends on why it’s being used, Dr. Thompson said. If it’s used for pulmonary hypertension, it is used at a very high dose and that is contraindicated. But if used for erectile dysfunction, the dose needs to be managed when people are on Paxlovid.

She said prescribers must know the kidney function of patients.

“There is a dose reduction that is required if people have impaired kidney function but below a certain level of function, which is 30 mL/min, it’s not recommended to give Paxlovid.”

Dr. Thompson highlighted two other websites for thorough, printable information on drug-drug interactions with Paxlovid: the University of Liverpool’s drug interaction checker and a printable handout from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“We need a 24/7 clinician hotline for Paxlovid to really make it accessible,” she said.
 

No data yet on ‘rebound’ effect

As to a few recent reports of a “rebound” effect, of people developing COVID-19 symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid, there are not enough data yet to determine a clear pattern or cause.

“All we have are anecdotal data,” Dr. Thompson said. Current questions for study include whether the 5-day course is not long enough, she said, and whether people more at risk should be given a second course of Paxlovid if they do rebound.

Dr. Gallagher said it’s important to remember that the therapy goal of the drug is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and while any rebound is problematic, “it’s possible the use of the medication has already saved a life.”

Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Thompson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misinformation about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is feeding misunderstanding among prescribers and patients, two experts from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have said.

They briefed reporters on potential drug interactions and uncommon cases of a “rebound” effect with the drug, which was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration last December for patients at least 12 years old.

The drug combination works “like a pair of scissors chopping up proteins that are made as the virus replicates inside of cells. Inhibiting that enzyme leads to the cessation of replication,” said Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia.

That’s important because other treatments that target the spike protein, such as monoclonal antibodies, can lose their efficacy as the virus changes. He said that while that’s not impossible for Paxlovid, “we have not seen variants emerging that are resistant to it.”
 

Potential drug interactions

IDSA recently published updated guidance on potential interactions between Paxlovid and the top 100 drugs, and important considerations for prescribing.

“There is a concern that people have not been prescribing it because of fear of these interactions,” Dr. Gallagher said, explaining that, while in some cases those fears may be valid, in many instances the interaction is manageable.

One example is in two popular statins for heart disease, lovastatin and simvastatin.

“That’s an interaction that can be managed by holding [those drugs] for the 5 days that someone receives Paxlovid,” he said.

Misinformation also is circulating about distribution status of Paxlovid, Dr. Gallagher said.

“We’re in a very different state from that standpoint than we were a month or 2 months ago,” he said, adding that it is widely available in not all but a large number of pharmacies throughout the United States.

He emphasized the importance of drug reconciliation, as many patients will go to a different pharmacy for Paxlovid than they might for their usual prescriptions, so without a full accounting of prescriptions and supplements potential interactions may be missed.
 

Important interactions to watch

Melanie Thompson, MD, cochair of the HIVMA/IDSA HIV Primary Care Guidance Panel, highlighted some classes of drugs to watch, among them the antiarrhythmics, most of which are contraindicated with Paxlovid.

There are also important interactions with a number of cancer drugs, and consults with oncologists will be critical, she said.

“Likewise, people who have had transplants are likely to be on drugs that have significant ritonavir interactions,” Dr. Thompson said.

People on ergot drugs for migraine cannot take Paxlovid, she said, and “people who take colchicine for gout have to be very careful.”

She said it’s better not to use colchicine while taking Paxlovid, as it is contraindicated, “but it can be managed in certain circumstances with substantial dose reduction.”

A number of mental health drugs can be managed with Paxlovid, Dr. Thompson said. For the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, (Seroquel), a “substantial decrease in dose is required.”
 

Viagra for ED can be managed

Use of Viagra depends on why it’s being used, Dr. Thompson said. If it’s used for pulmonary hypertension, it is used at a very high dose and that is contraindicated. But if used for erectile dysfunction, the dose needs to be managed when people are on Paxlovid.

She said prescribers must know the kidney function of patients.

“There is a dose reduction that is required if people have impaired kidney function but below a certain level of function, which is 30 mL/min, it’s not recommended to give Paxlovid.”

Dr. Thompson highlighted two other websites for thorough, printable information on drug-drug interactions with Paxlovid: the University of Liverpool’s drug interaction checker and a printable handout from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“We need a 24/7 clinician hotline for Paxlovid to really make it accessible,” she said.
 

No data yet on ‘rebound’ effect

As to a few recent reports of a “rebound” effect, of people developing COVID-19 symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid, there are not enough data yet to determine a clear pattern or cause.

“All we have are anecdotal data,” Dr. Thompson said. Current questions for study include whether the 5-day course is not long enough, she said, and whether people more at risk should be given a second course of Paxlovid if they do rebound.

Dr. Gallagher said it’s important to remember that the therapy goal of the drug is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and while any rebound is problematic, “it’s possible the use of the medication has already saved a life.”

Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Thompson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Over-the-counter medications, food supplements, and other drugs may interact with antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people living with HIV and be harmful, an industry-sponsored clinical survey from Denmark reports.

“Our study confirms that polypharmacy and being on a protease inhibitor–based regimen increase the risk of potential drug-drug interactions [PDDIs] considerably and highlights the importance of questioning people living with HIV [PLWH] about dietary supplement intake,” the authors, led by Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Copenhagen University Hospital, wrote in HIV Medicine.

“Potential drug-drug interactions were common among our study population. Although the clinical significance of the majority of the identified PDDIs may be low, most of them were avoidable through a change or discontinuation of the comedication, a change in ART or by spacing drugs,” they added.

Senior author Thomas Benfield, MD, DTMH, DMSc, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues collected information on prescription medication, over-the-counter medication, and dietary supplements from adults living with HIV who received ART from two outpatient clinics.

The researchers estimated the prevalence of non-HIV comedications, and they used the University of Liverpool HIV Drug Interactions database to identify potential drug-drug interactions. They evaluated PDDIs and used logistic regression models to investigate links between PDDIs and relevant variables.

The study included 337 people living with HIV receiving ART. The median age was 53 years, 77% of them were male, and 96% were virally suppressed, with HIV-RNA viral load less than 50 copies/mL.

Overall, 26% of participants received five or more comedications, and 56% took dietary supplements.

In the medication lists of 52% of patients, the authors identified coadministration of drugs that required dose adjustment or monitoring; 4.5% of patients were taking drugs that should not be coadministered.

The researchers detected several factors that independently predicted PDDIs:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.4)
• Being on a protease inhibitor (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.7)
• Receiving five or more comedications (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.2)
• Taking over-the-counter medications (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3)
• Taking dietary supplements (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3)

Comorbidities and OTC medications increase in aging people with HIV

Indira Brar, MD, an infectious diseases senior staff physician and the medical director of HIV services at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, called the study and important resource for educating providers and patients about over-the-counter drugs.

“The main strength of the study is that it includes a decent number of aging patients living with HIV, the age group in which we worry about drug interactions,” she said in an interview.

“As patients get older, they have increased comorbidities. As comorbidities increase, the number of medications increases. As the number of medications increases, the drug interactions increase,” said Dr. Brar, who was not involved in the study. “Also, as patients get older, they tend to take more over-the-counter drugs.”

Dr. Brar explained how drug-drug interactions can harm patients.

“Drugs added to a patient who is already on ART could decrease the level of the ART and cause the patient to develop a drug-resistant HIV infection,” she said. “Or the ART the patient is on can increase the levels of the new drugs that have been added, and that could have potential toxicity and side effects.

“Food supplements, including multivitamins, calcium, and magnesium, are often overlooked because we think they’re benign. But these drugs can bind our new antiretrovirals, the integrase inhibitors. They can decrease their levels in the patient and cause drug-resistant HIV infection.

“In our clinic, we always tell our patients to please call us before they take any medication, so we can make sure there is no drug interaction,” Dr. Brar said.

Nan Wang, PharmD, a clinical pharmacy specialist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, noted in an email that drug-drug interactions with ARTs are common.

“Understanding the prevalence of antiretroviral drug interactions in a patient population can help identify certain medications that require enhanced vigilance and can guide our clinical interventions,” said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with the research.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist and oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said that this is “a methodologically sound and well-designed study that’s a timely, important reminder that providers need to think carefully and comprehensively when caring for their patients living with HIV.”

Dr. Alvarnas, who was not involved in the study, said that, with the widespread availability of ART, HIV has become a chronic, manageable condition in an aging population.

“ART agents, particularly the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors, increase the likelihood of patients having a potentially significant drug-drug interaction with one of their chronic care medications,” he added. “Even seemingly low-risk supplements such as multivitamins may result in a negative impact upon effective ART treatment of PLWH.”

“The essential next step is that these findings are integrated carefully into decision-support systems, electronic health record prescribing systems, and pharmacy safety-check systems to ensure that we reduce the risk of patient harm,” Dr. Alvarnas advised.

Dr. Benfield and several study coauthors reported financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors, as well as Dr. Alvarnas, Dr. Brar, and Dr. Wang, reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Over-the-counter medications, food supplements, and other drugs may interact with antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people living with HIV and be harmful, an industry-sponsored clinical survey from Denmark reports.

“Our study confirms that polypharmacy and being on a protease inhibitor–based regimen increase the risk of potential drug-drug interactions [PDDIs] considerably and highlights the importance of questioning people living with HIV [PLWH] about dietary supplement intake,” the authors, led by Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Copenhagen University Hospital, wrote in HIV Medicine.

“Potential drug-drug interactions were common among our study population. Although the clinical significance of the majority of the identified PDDIs may be low, most of them were avoidable through a change or discontinuation of the comedication, a change in ART or by spacing drugs,” they added.

Senior author Thomas Benfield, MD, DTMH, DMSc, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues collected information on prescription medication, over-the-counter medication, and dietary supplements from adults living with HIV who received ART from two outpatient clinics.

The researchers estimated the prevalence of non-HIV comedications, and they used the University of Liverpool HIV Drug Interactions database to identify potential drug-drug interactions. They evaluated PDDIs and used logistic regression models to investigate links between PDDIs and relevant variables.

The study included 337 people living with HIV receiving ART. The median age was 53 years, 77% of them were male, and 96% were virally suppressed, with HIV-RNA viral load less than 50 copies/mL.

Overall, 26% of participants received five or more comedications, and 56% took dietary supplements.

In the medication lists of 52% of patients, the authors identified coadministration of drugs that required dose adjustment or monitoring; 4.5% of patients were taking drugs that should not be coadministered.

The researchers detected several factors that independently predicted PDDIs:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.4)
• Being on a protease inhibitor (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.7)
• Receiving five or more comedications (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.2)
• Taking over-the-counter medications (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3)
• Taking dietary supplements (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3)

Comorbidities and OTC medications increase in aging people with HIV

Indira Brar, MD, an infectious diseases senior staff physician and the medical director of HIV services at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, called the study and important resource for educating providers and patients about over-the-counter drugs.

“The main strength of the study is that it includes a decent number of aging patients living with HIV, the age group in which we worry about drug interactions,” she said in an interview.

“As patients get older, they have increased comorbidities. As comorbidities increase, the number of medications increases. As the number of medications increases, the drug interactions increase,” said Dr. Brar, who was not involved in the study. “Also, as patients get older, they tend to take more over-the-counter drugs.”

Dr. Brar explained how drug-drug interactions can harm patients.

“Drugs added to a patient who is already on ART could decrease the level of the ART and cause the patient to develop a drug-resistant HIV infection,” she said. “Or the ART the patient is on can increase the levels of the new drugs that have been added, and that could have potential toxicity and side effects.

“Food supplements, including multivitamins, calcium, and magnesium, are often overlooked because we think they’re benign. But these drugs can bind our new antiretrovirals, the integrase inhibitors. They can decrease their levels in the patient and cause drug-resistant HIV infection.

“In our clinic, we always tell our patients to please call us before they take any medication, so we can make sure there is no drug interaction,” Dr. Brar said.

Nan Wang, PharmD, a clinical pharmacy specialist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, noted in an email that drug-drug interactions with ARTs are common.

“Understanding the prevalence of antiretroviral drug interactions in a patient population can help identify certain medications that require enhanced vigilance and can guide our clinical interventions,” said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with the research.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist and oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said that this is “a methodologically sound and well-designed study that’s a timely, important reminder that providers need to think carefully and comprehensively when caring for their patients living with HIV.”

Dr. Alvarnas, who was not involved in the study, said that, with the widespread availability of ART, HIV has become a chronic, manageable condition in an aging population.

“ART agents, particularly the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors, increase the likelihood of patients having a potentially significant drug-drug interaction with one of their chronic care medications,” he added. “Even seemingly low-risk supplements such as multivitamins may result in a negative impact upon effective ART treatment of PLWH.”

“The essential next step is that these findings are integrated carefully into decision-support systems, electronic health record prescribing systems, and pharmacy safety-check systems to ensure that we reduce the risk of patient harm,” Dr. Alvarnas advised.

Dr. Benfield and several study coauthors reported financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors, as well as Dr. Alvarnas, Dr. Brar, and Dr. Wang, reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Over-the-counter medications, food supplements, and other drugs may interact with antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people living with HIV and be harmful, an industry-sponsored clinical survey from Denmark reports.

“Our study confirms that polypharmacy and being on a protease inhibitor–based regimen increase the risk of potential drug-drug interactions [PDDIs] considerably and highlights the importance of questioning people living with HIV [PLWH] about dietary supplement intake,” the authors, led by Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Copenhagen University Hospital, wrote in HIV Medicine.

“Potential drug-drug interactions were common among our study population. Although the clinical significance of the majority of the identified PDDIs may be low, most of them were avoidable through a change or discontinuation of the comedication, a change in ART or by spacing drugs,” they added.

Senior author Thomas Benfield, MD, DTMH, DMSc, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Copenhagen, and colleagues collected information on prescription medication, over-the-counter medication, and dietary supplements from adults living with HIV who received ART from two outpatient clinics.

The researchers estimated the prevalence of non-HIV comedications, and they used the University of Liverpool HIV Drug Interactions database to identify potential drug-drug interactions. They evaluated PDDIs and used logistic regression models to investigate links between PDDIs and relevant variables.

The study included 337 people living with HIV receiving ART. The median age was 53 years, 77% of them were male, and 96% were virally suppressed, with HIV-RNA viral load less than 50 copies/mL.

Overall, 26% of participants received five or more comedications, and 56% took dietary supplements.

In the medication lists of 52% of patients, the authors identified coadministration of drugs that required dose adjustment or monitoring; 4.5% of patients were taking drugs that should not be coadministered.

The researchers detected several factors that independently predicted PDDIs:

• Male sex (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-3.4)
• Being on a protease inhibitor (OR, 4.3; 95% CI, 1.9-9.7)
• Receiving five or more comedications (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.2)
• Taking over-the-counter medications (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.3)
• Taking dietary supplements (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-3.3)

Comorbidities and OTC medications increase in aging people with HIV

Indira Brar, MD, an infectious diseases senior staff physician and the medical director of HIV services at Henry Ford Health in Detroit, called the study and important resource for educating providers and patients about over-the-counter drugs.

“The main strength of the study is that it includes a decent number of aging patients living with HIV, the age group in which we worry about drug interactions,” she said in an interview.

“As patients get older, they have increased comorbidities. As comorbidities increase, the number of medications increases. As the number of medications increases, the drug interactions increase,” said Dr. Brar, who was not involved in the study. “Also, as patients get older, they tend to take more over-the-counter drugs.”

Dr. Brar explained how drug-drug interactions can harm patients.

“Drugs added to a patient who is already on ART could decrease the level of the ART and cause the patient to develop a drug-resistant HIV infection,” she said. “Or the ART the patient is on can increase the levels of the new drugs that have been added, and that could have potential toxicity and side effects.

“Food supplements, including multivitamins, calcium, and magnesium, are often overlooked because we think they’re benign. But these drugs can bind our new antiretrovirals, the integrase inhibitors. They can decrease their levels in the patient and cause drug-resistant HIV infection.

“In our clinic, we always tell our patients to please call us before they take any medication, so we can make sure there is no drug interaction,” Dr. Brar said.

Nan Wang, PharmD, a clinical pharmacy specialist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, noted in an email that drug-drug interactions with ARTs are common.

“Understanding the prevalence of antiretroviral drug interactions in a patient population can help identify certain medications that require enhanced vigilance and can guide our clinical interventions,” said Dr. Wang, who was not associated with the research.

Joseph Alvarnas, MD, a hematologist and oncologist at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center in Duarte, Calif., said that this is “a methodologically sound and well-designed study that’s a timely, important reminder that providers need to think carefully and comprehensively when caring for their patients living with HIV.”

Dr. Alvarnas, who was not involved in the study, said that, with the widespread availability of ART, HIV has become a chronic, manageable condition in an aging population.

“ART agents, particularly the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors, increase the likelihood of patients having a potentially significant drug-drug interaction with one of their chronic care medications,” he added. “Even seemingly low-risk supplements such as multivitamins may result in a negative impact upon effective ART treatment of PLWH.”

“The essential next step is that these findings are integrated carefully into decision-support systems, electronic health record prescribing systems, and pharmacy safety-check systems to ensure that we reduce the risk of patient harm,” Dr. Alvarnas advised.

Dr. Benfield and several study coauthors reported financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline and other pharmaceutical companies. Other coauthors, as well as Dr. Alvarnas, Dr. Brar, and Dr. Wang, reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by GlaxoSmithKline.

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

A study shows that, over a 4-year period, 15 teenagers were injured from exploding e-cigarettes, according to surgeons who have treated young people at nine hospitals in the United States.

“It definitely was an injury we were seeing frequently,” Shannon Acker, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric surgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said in a statement.

Reporting in the Journal of Surgical Research, doctors detail injuries from e-cigarette explosions from January 2016 through December 2019. Ten teens were hospitalized, including three who were admitted to ICUs.

“When we think about e-cigarettes, vaping, and the problems of marketing cigarettes to teenagers, it usually has to do with addiction and lung injury,” said Dr. Acker, a coauthor of the new study. “Whereas we, as trauma surgeons, were seeing these other traumatic injuries.”

Six of the teens had facial burns, five of them lost multiple teeth, five had burns around the thighs and groin, four burned their hands, and four burned their eyes. One teen injured their radial nerve, which runs through the arm. Another cut their face, and one fractured their jaw.

Overall, six teens needed surgery, including one who needed multiple operations for a severe hand injury.

Three of the teenagers had never used e-cigarettes before the day they were hurt.

Vaping has become far more common than smoking traditional cigarettes among U.S. teens in recent years. More than 2 million of them currently use e-cigarettes, according to the Food and Drug Administration, including more than 11% of high school students and almost 3% of middle schoolers.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can impair healthy brain development in adolescents, according to the CDC. Other chemicals and flavorings in the liquids that are heated during vaping can also damage the lungs. Fires and explosions, while rare, are also a risk that’s been previously documented by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Nationwide, there were 195 reported explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes in all ages between 2009 and 2016, according to a FEMA report. While no deaths were reported, 29% of these cases involved severe injuries.

“The shape and construction of electronic cigarettes” can make them behave like “flaming rockets when a battery fails,” according to FEMA.

Vaping devices typically use a rechargeable lithium-ion battery that vaporizes the liquid nicotine solution, Dr. Acker said. “They are not highly regulated, and the batteries may be of inferior quality and prone to explosion.”

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

A study shows that, over a 4-year period, 15 teenagers were injured from exploding e-cigarettes, according to surgeons who have treated young people at nine hospitals in the United States.

“It definitely was an injury we were seeing frequently,” Shannon Acker, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric surgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said in a statement.

Reporting in the Journal of Surgical Research, doctors detail injuries from e-cigarette explosions from January 2016 through December 2019. Ten teens were hospitalized, including three who were admitted to ICUs.

“When we think about e-cigarettes, vaping, and the problems of marketing cigarettes to teenagers, it usually has to do with addiction and lung injury,” said Dr. Acker, a coauthor of the new study. “Whereas we, as trauma surgeons, were seeing these other traumatic injuries.”

Six of the teens had facial burns, five of them lost multiple teeth, five had burns around the thighs and groin, four burned their hands, and four burned their eyes. One teen injured their radial nerve, which runs through the arm. Another cut their face, and one fractured their jaw.

Overall, six teens needed surgery, including one who needed multiple operations for a severe hand injury.

Three of the teenagers had never used e-cigarettes before the day they were hurt.

Vaping has become far more common than smoking traditional cigarettes among U.S. teens in recent years. More than 2 million of them currently use e-cigarettes, according to the Food and Drug Administration, including more than 11% of high school students and almost 3% of middle schoolers.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can impair healthy brain development in adolescents, according to the CDC. Other chemicals and flavorings in the liquids that are heated during vaping can also damage the lungs. Fires and explosions, while rare, are also a risk that’s been previously documented by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Nationwide, there were 195 reported explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes in all ages between 2009 and 2016, according to a FEMA report. While no deaths were reported, 29% of these cases involved severe injuries.

“The shape and construction of electronic cigarettes” can make them behave like “flaming rockets when a battery fails,” according to FEMA.

Vaping devices typically use a rechargeable lithium-ion battery that vaporizes the liquid nicotine solution, Dr. Acker said. “They are not highly regulated, and the batteries may be of inferior quality and prone to explosion.”

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

A study shows that, over a 4-year period, 15 teenagers were injured from exploding e-cigarettes, according to surgeons who have treated young people at nine hospitals in the United States.

“It definitely was an injury we were seeing frequently,” Shannon Acker, MD, an assistant professor of pediatric surgery at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and a pediatric surgeon at Children’s Hospital Colorado, said in a statement.

Reporting in the Journal of Surgical Research, doctors detail injuries from e-cigarette explosions from January 2016 through December 2019. Ten teens were hospitalized, including three who were admitted to ICUs.

“When we think about e-cigarettes, vaping, and the problems of marketing cigarettes to teenagers, it usually has to do with addiction and lung injury,” said Dr. Acker, a coauthor of the new study. “Whereas we, as trauma surgeons, were seeing these other traumatic injuries.”

Six of the teens had facial burns, five of them lost multiple teeth, five had burns around the thighs and groin, four burned their hands, and four burned their eyes. One teen injured their radial nerve, which runs through the arm. Another cut their face, and one fractured their jaw.

Overall, six teens needed surgery, including one who needed multiple operations for a severe hand injury.

Three of the teenagers had never used e-cigarettes before the day they were hurt.

Vaping has become far more common than smoking traditional cigarettes among U.S. teens in recent years. More than 2 million of them currently use e-cigarettes, according to the Food and Drug Administration, including more than 11% of high school students and almost 3% of middle schoolers.

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and can impair healthy brain development in adolescents, according to the CDC. Other chemicals and flavorings in the liquids that are heated during vaping can also damage the lungs. Fires and explosions, while rare, are also a risk that’s been previously documented by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Nationwide, there were 195 reported explosions and fires involving e-cigarettes in all ages between 2009 and 2016, according to a FEMA report. While no deaths were reported, 29% of these cases involved severe injuries.

“The shape and construction of electronic cigarettes” can make them behave like “flaming rockets when a battery fails,” according to FEMA.

Vaping devices typically use a rechargeable lithium-ion battery that vaporizes the liquid nicotine solution, Dr. Acker said. “They are not highly regulated, and the batteries may be of inferior quality and prone to explosion.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – With 2 years of COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, anxiety among U.S. adults has turned instead toward global events, results from the annual Healthy Minds Poll from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“It’s not surprising that recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, racially motivated mass shootings, or the impacts of climate change, are weighing heavily on Americans’ minds,” APA president Vivian Pender, MD, said in a news release. 

“COVID-19 in a way has taken a back seat, but the pandemic and its mental health effects are very much still with us. It’s important that we are cognizant of that and continue to work to ensure people who need psychiatric care, whether the causes are tied to the pandemic or to other issues, can access it,” Dr. Pender added.

Results from the 2022’s poll were released May 22 during the annual meeting of the APA.
 

Record low COVID anxiety

The poll was conducted by Morning Consult between April 23-24 and included 2,210 adult participants.

Results showed that anxiety about COVID is at its recorded lowest, with 50% of respondents indicating they are anxious about the pandemic. This was down from 65% in 2021 and from 75% in 2020.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults are somewhat or extremely anxious about current events happening around the world, 64% are anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe, and 60% worry about their health in general.

Overall, about one-third (32%) reported being more anxious now than in 2021, 46% reported no change in their anxiety level, and 18% were less anxious.

About one-quarter (26%) have spoken with a mental health care professional in the past few years, which is down from 34% in 2021. In addition, Hispanic (36%) and Black (35%) adults were more likely to have reached out for help than White (25%) adults.

Despite the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent advisory on the mental health crisis among children, the poll results also showed that Americans are less concerned about their children’s mental health than in 2021. A total of 41% of parents expressed concern about this topic, which was down from 53% in 2021.

Still, 40% of parents said their children had received help from a mental health professional since the pandemic hit. Of that group, 36% sought help before the pandemic, whereas half said the pandemic had caused mental health issues for their children.

“While the overall level of concern has dropped, still 4 in 10 parents are worried about how their children are doing, and a third are having issues with access to care,” Saul Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the APA, said in the release.

“This is unacceptable and as a nation, we need to invest in the kind of systems that will ensure any parent who’s worried about their child has access to lifesaving treatment,” Dr. Levin added.
 

Workplace mental health

In addition, the poll showed employees often have a tough time getting mental health support from employers, or are hesitant to ask for help.

“What’s troubling about the results of this poll is that, even as the pandemic has continued and its mental health effects wear on, fewer employees are reporting that they have access to mental health services,” Dr. Pender said. 

“Workplaces need to ensure that they are paying attention to what their employees need, particularly now, and moving away from mental health benefits isn’t the right move,” she added.

About half (48%) of those polled said they can discuss mental health openly and honestly with their supervisor, down from 56% in 2021 and 62% in 2020.

Only about half (52%) said they feel comfortable using mental health services with their current employer, compared with 64% in 2021 and 67% in 2020.

In addition, fewer workers felt their employer is offering sufficient mental health resources and benefits. In 2022, 53% of workers thought resources and benefits were adequate, which was down from 65% in 2021 and 68% in 2020.

“It’s quite concerning to see that fewer people feel comfortable discussing mental health with a supervisor, at a time when people experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other conditions are on the rise and impact nearly every aspect of work, including productivity, performance, retention, and overall health care costs,” said Darcy Gruttadaro, JD, director of the APA Foundation’s Center for Workplace Mental Health.

“As rates of these conditions rise, we should see more employees knowing about available workplace mental health resources, not less,” Ms. Gruttadaro said.
 

Strong bipartisan support 

Perhaps unexpectedly, the poll shows strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for three APA-backed approaches to improve timely access to mental health care and treatment.

Specifically, about three-quarters of those polled supported making it easier to see a mental health professional via telehealth, allowing patients to receive mental health care through a primary care provider, and funding mental health care professionals to work in rural or urban communities that are traditionally underserved.

“We’re in a moment when mental health is a big part of the national conversation, and clearly political party doesn’t matter as much on this issue,” Dr. Pender noted. 

“It’s a rare thing in Washington these days to see such a resounding endorsement, but there is strong support for these practical workable solutions that mean more access to mental health care,” she said.

“What you see in this poll is agreement: It’s hard to access mental [health care] but we do have great solutions that could work across party lines,” Dr. Levin added.

“Many policy makers, in the administration and in Congress, are already putting these ideas into action, and they should feel encouraged that the public wants to see Congress act on them,” he said.

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

NEW ORLEANS – With 2 years of COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, anxiety among U.S. adults has turned instead toward global events, results from the annual Healthy Minds Poll from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“It’s not surprising that recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, racially motivated mass shootings, or the impacts of climate change, are weighing heavily on Americans’ minds,” APA president Vivian Pender, MD, said in a news release. 

“COVID-19 in a way has taken a back seat, but the pandemic and its mental health effects are very much still with us. It’s important that we are cognizant of that and continue to work to ensure people who need psychiatric care, whether the causes are tied to the pandemic or to other issues, can access it,” Dr. Pender added.

Results from the 2022’s poll were released May 22 during the annual meeting of the APA.
 

Record low COVID anxiety

The poll was conducted by Morning Consult between April 23-24 and included 2,210 adult participants.

Results showed that anxiety about COVID is at its recorded lowest, with 50% of respondents indicating they are anxious about the pandemic. This was down from 65% in 2021 and from 75% in 2020.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults are somewhat or extremely anxious about current events happening around the world, 64% are anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe, and 60% worry about their health in general.

Overall, about one-third (32%) reported being more anxious now than in 2021, 46% reported no change in their anxiety level, and 18% were less anxious.

About one-quarter (26%) have spoken with a mental health care professional in the past few years, which is down from 34% in 2021. In addition, Hispanic (36%) and Black (35%) adults were more likely to have reached out for help than White (25%) adults.

Despite the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent advisory on the mental health crisis among children, the poll results also showed that Americans are less concerned about their children’s mental health than in 2021. A total of 41% of parents expressed concern about this topic, which was down from 53% in 2021.

Still, 40% of parents said their children had received help from a mental health professional since the pandemic hit. Of that group, 36% sought help before the pandemic, whereas half said the pandemic had caused mental health issues for their children.

“While the overall level of concern has dropped, still 4 in 10 parents are worried about how their children are doing, and a third are having issues with access to care,” Saul Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the APA, said in the release.

“This is unacceptable and as a nation, we need to invest in the kind of systems that will ensure any parent who’s worried about their child has access to lifesaving treatment,” Dr. Levin added.
 

Workplace mental health

In addition, the poll showed employees often have a tough time getting mental health support from employers, or are hesitant to ask for help.

“What’s troubling about the results of this poll is that, even as the pandemic has continued and its mental health effects wear on, fewer employees are reporting that they have access to mental health services,” Dr. Pender said. 

“Workplaces need to ensure that they are paying attention to what their employees need, particularly now, and moving away from mental health benefits isn’t the right move,” she added.

About half (48%) of those polled said they can discuss mental health openly and honestly with their supervisor, down from 56% in 2021 and 62% in 2020.

Only about half (52%) said they feel comfortable using mental health services with their current employer, compared with 64% in 2021 and 67% in 2020.

In addition, fewer workers felt their employer is offering sufficient mental health resources and benefits. In 2022, 53% of workers thought resources and benefits were adequate, which was down from 65% in 2021 and 68% in 2020.

“It’s quite concerning to see that fewer people feel comfortable discussing mental health with a supervisor, at a time when people experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other conditions are on the rise and impact nearly every aspect of work, including productivity, performance, retention, and overall health care costs,” said Darcy Gruttadaro, JD, director of the APA Foundation’s Center for Workplace Mental Health.

“As rates of these conditions rise, we should see more employees knowing about available workplace mental health resources, not less,” Ms. Gruttadaro said.
 

Strong bipartisan support 

Perhaps unexpectedly, the poll shows strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for three APA-backed approaches to improve timely access to mental health care and treatment.

Specifically, about three-quarters of those polled supported making it easier to see a mental health professional via telehealth, allowing patients to receive mental health care through a primary care provider, and funding mental health care professionals to work in rural or urban communities that are traditionally underserved.

“We’re in a moment when mental health is a big part of the national conversation, and clearly political party doesn’t matter as much on this issue,” Dr. Pender noted. 

“It’s a rare thing in Washington these days to see such a resounding endorsement, but there is strong support for these practical workable solutions that mean more access to mental health care,” she said.

“What you see in this poll is agreement: It’s hard to access mental [health care] but we do have great solutions that could work across party lines,” Dr. Levin added.

“Many policy makers, in the administration and in Congress, are already putting these ideas into action, and they should feel encouraged that the public wants to see Congress act on them,” he said.

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

NEW ORLEANS – With 2 years of COVID-19 in the rearview mirror, anxiety among U.S. adults has turned instead toward global events, results from the annual Healthy Minds Poll from the American Psychiatric Association show.

“It’s not surprising that recent events, such as the war in Ukraine, racially motivated mass shootings, or the impacts of climate change, are weighing heavily on Americans’ minds,” APA president Vivian Pender, MD, said in a news release. 

“COVID-19 in a way has taken a back seat, but the pandemic and its mental health effects are very much still with us. It’s important that we are cognizant of that and continue to work to ensure people who need psychiatric care, whether the causes are tied to the pandemic or to other issues, can access it,” Dr. Pender added.

Results from the 2022’s poll were released May 22 during the annual meeting of the APA.
 

Record low COVID anxiety

The poll was conducted by Morning Consult between April 23-24 and included 2,210 adult participants.

Results showed that anxiety about COVID is at its recorded lowest, with 50% of respondents indicating they are anxious about the pandemic. This was down from 65% in 2021 and from 75% in 2020.

Instead, nearly three-quarters (73%) of adults are somewhat or extremely anxious about current events happening around the world, 64% are anxious about keeping themselves or their families safe, and 60% worry about their health in general.

Overall, about one-third (32%) reported being more anxious now than in 2021, 46% reported no change in their anxiety level, and 18% were less anxious.

About one-quarter (26%) have spoken with a mental health care professional in the past few years, which is down from 34% in 2021. In addition, Hispanic (36%) and Black (35%) adults were more likely to have reached out for help than White (25%) adults.

Despite the U.S. Surgeon General’s recent advisory on the mental health crisis among children, the poll results also showed that Americans are less concerned about their children’s mental health than in 2021. A total of 41% of parents expressed concern about this topic, which was down from 53% in 2021.

Still, 40% of parents said their children had received help from a mental health professional since the pandemic hit. Of that group, 36% sought help before the pandemic, whereas half said the pandemic had caused mental health issues for their children.

“While the overall level of concern has dropped, still 4 in 10 parents are worried about how their children are doing, and a third are having issues with access to care,” Saul Levin, MD, CEO and medical director of the APA, said in the release.

“This is unacceptable and as a nation, we need to invest in the kind of systems that will ensure any parent who’s worried about their child has access to lifesaving treatment,” Dr. Levin added.
 

Workplace mental health

In addition, the poll showed employees often have a tough time getting mental health support from employers, or are hesitant to ask for help.

“What’s troubling about the results of this poll is that, even as the pandemic has continued and its mental health effects wear on, fewer employees are reporting that they have access to mental health services,” Dr. Pender said. 

“Workplaces need to ensure that they are paying attention to what their employees need, particularly now, and moving away from mental health benefits isn’t the right move,” she added.

About half (48%) of those polled said they can discuss mental health openly and honestly with their supervisor, down from 56% in 2021 and 62% in 2020.

Only about half (52%) said they feel comfortable using mental health services with their current employer, compared with 64% in 2021 and 67% in 2020.

In addition, fewer workers felt their employer is offering sufficient mental health resources and benefits. In 2022, 53% of workers thought resources and benefits were adequate, which was down from 65% in 2021 and 68% in 2020.

“It’s quite concerning to see that fewer people feel comfortable discussing mental health with a supervisor, at a time when people experiencing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and other conditions are on the rise and impact nearly every aspect of work, including productivity, performance, retention, and overall health care costs,” said Darcy Gruttadaro, JD, director of the APA Foundation’s Center for Workplace Mental Health.

“As rates of these conditions rise, we should see more employees knowing about available workplace mental health resources, not less,” Ms. Gruttadaro said.
 

Strong bipartisan support 

Perhaps unexpectedly, the poll shows strong support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents for three APA-backed approaches to improve timely access to mental health care and treatment.

Specifically, about three-quarters of those polled supported making it easier to see a mental health professional via telehealth, allowing patients to receive mental health care through a primary care provider, and funding mental health care professionals to work in rural or urban communities that are traditionally underserved.

“We’re in a moment when mental health is a big part of the national conversation, and clearly political party doesn’t matter as much on this issue,” Dr. Pender noted. 

“It’s a rare thing in Washington these days to see such a resounding endorsement, but there is strong support for these practical workable solutions that mean more access to mental health care,” she said.

“What you see in this poll is agreement: It’s hard to access mental [health care] but we do have great solutions that could work across party lines,” Dr. Levin added.

“Many policy makers, in the administration and in Congress, are already putting these ideas into action, and they should feel encouraged that the public wants to see Congress act on them,” he said.

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

SAN DIEGO – A novel combination of eight human commensal bacteria has shown efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in high-risk populations. The cocktail of bacterial strains (VE303), produced under tightly-controlled conditions, is delivered in powdered form over a period of 14 days.

The approach, sponsored by Vedanta Biosciences, is one of several efforts to use carefully defined microbial populations instead of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat or prevent C. diff infections.

The key issue is that not all of the bacteria found in FMTs are needed to provide a therapeutic effect, according to Thomas Louie, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “You don’t need all the bugs. You don’t need raw [stool]. You can take only the good parts,” said Dr. Louie, who presented the results of the phase 2 study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). In fact, FMT carries the risk of infection of pathogenic bacteria.

The strains found in VE303 were consistently identified in patients’ microbiota following successful FMTs, though they were absent before the transplant. Animal and human studies then showed that the microbes could repopulate microbiota.

Among 78 patients included in the efficacy analysis of the study, after 8 weeks, 13.8% of the VE303 group experienced a recurrent C. diff infection, versus 45.5% of the placebo group, amounting to more than an 80% reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.192; P = .0077). Adverse events were mild and similar across both groups, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported.

The same session included a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study sponsored by Seres Therapeutics, which showed that the company’s oral product SER-109, composed of purified Firmicutes spores, reduced the risk of recurrent C. diff infection after 8 weeks compared to placebo (12.4% versus 39.8%; P < .001).

The new analysis examined short-, medium-, and branch-chained fatty acids in patient stools. After just 1 week of treatment, there was an increase in the short-chain fatty acid butyrate and medium-chain fatty acids valerate and hexanoate. They continued to be higher in weeks 2 and 8 in the treatment arm. The results suggest that increased fatty acid production might boost clinical outcomes, according to Kevin Litcofsky of Seres, who presented the results.

Both approaches have potential, according to Melinda Engevik, PhD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think that they’re both interesting ideas. The spores [from Seres], I think, are going to be better at passing through the stomach and a little bit more resistant, but then they have to germinate and engraft, whereas if you give the lyophilized bacteria [from Vedanta], you might lose some more, but they’re already primed and ready to go. So I think they’re both very different approaches, but the data from both seem to support that they worked and probably in different ways,” said Dr. Engevik, assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Patients that have recurrent [C. diff], they are desperate to be able to break the cycle of recurrence. I think that they’ve shown a lot of safety with this, which is an issue for FMT. Both of the talks seemed like there is a path moving forward to help those patients. I was encouraged,” said Dr. Engevik.

Comoderator Anoop Kumar, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Illinois, Chicago, agreed and noted the advantage of such treatments over FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted FMT delivery.

Previous studies have looked at probiotics, but results so far have been mixed, said Dr. Engevik. She suspects these two approaches, containing more bacterial strains, are likely to have better success. “I think you really have to have a complex gut microbiota community, at least minimally complex, to be able to get the effects. I think it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Dr. Engevik also suggested that the benefits might not stop at C. diff. She highlighted research in other gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and even efforts underway to enhance responses to checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. “Gut microbes are master regulators, so they have these wide-reaching effects. I think that a lot of human health will be started to be targeted by looking at the gut microbiota,” she said.

Dr. Louie also highlighted the potential for more applications. “C. diff is low-hanging fruit. I think these bugs will have some usefulness for [irritable bowel syndrome]. I’ve transplanted some patients with IBS and it seemed to work. I haven’t had time to design and do an IBS trial, but the future is these bugs.”

Dr. Louie also participated in the Seres study. He has been on the advisory board for Vedanta, Seres, Finch Therapeutics, and Artugen Therapeutics. Dr. Engevik and Dr. Kumar have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A novel combination of eight human commensal bacteria has shown efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in high-risk populations. The cocktail of bacterial strains (VE303), produced under tightly-controlled conditions, is delivered in powdered form over a period of 14 days.

The approach, sponsored by Vedanta Biosciences, is one of several efforts to use carefully defined microbial populations instead of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat or prevent C. diff infections.

The key issue is that not all of the bacteria found in FMTs are needed to provide a therapeutic effect, according to Thomas Louie, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “You don’t need all the bugs. You don’t need raw [stool]. You can take only the good parts,” said Dr. Louie, who presented the results of the phase 2 study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). In fact, FMT carries the risk of infection of pathogenic bacteria.

The strains found in VE303 were consistently identified in patients’ microbiota following successful FMTs, though they were absent before the transplant. Animal and human studies then showed that the microbes could repopulate microbiota.

Among 78 patients included in the efficacy analysis of the study, after 8 weeks, 13.8% of the VE303 group experienced a recurrent C. diff infection, versus 45.5% of the placebo group, amounting to more than an 80% reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.192; P = .0077). Adverse events were mild and similar across both groups, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported.

The same session included a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study sponsored by Seres Therapeutics, which showed that the company’s oral product SER-109, composed of purified Firmicutes spores, reduced the risk of recurrent C. diff infection after 8 weeks compared to placebo (12.4% versus 39.8%; P < .001).

The new analysis examined short-, medium-, and branch-chained fatty acids in patient stools. After just 1 week of treatment, there was an increase in the short-chain fatty acid butyrate and medium-chain fatty acids valerate and hexanoate. They continued to be higher in weeks 2 and 8 in the treatment arm. The results suggest that increased fatty acid production might boost clinical outcomes, according to Kevin Litcofsky of Seres, who presented the results.

Both approaches have potential, according to Melinda Engevik, PhD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think that they’re both interesting ideas. The spores [from Seres], I think, are going to be better at passing through the stomach and a little bit more resistant, but then they have to germinate and engraft, whereas if you give the lyophilized bacteria [from Vedanta], you might lose some more, but they’re already primed and ready to go. So I think they’re both very different approaches, but the data from both seem to support that they worked and probably in different ways,” said Dr. Engevik, assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Patients that have recurrent [C. diff], they are desperate to be able to break the cycle of recurrence. I think that they’ve shown a lot of safety with this, which is an issue for FMT. Both of the talks seemed like there is a path moving forward to help those patients. I was encouraged,” said Dr. Engevik.

Comoderator Anoop Kumar, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Illinois, Chicago, agreed and noted the advantage of such treatments over FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted FMT delivery.

Previous studies have looked at probiotics, but results so far have been mixed, said Dr. Engevik. She suspects these two approaches, containing more bacterial strains, are likely to have better success. “I think you really have to have a complex gut microbiota community, at least minimally complex, to be able to get the effects. I think it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Dr. Engevik also suggested that the benefits might not stop at C. diff. She highlighted research in other gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and even efforts underway to enhance responses to checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. “Gut microbes are master regulators, so they have these wide-reaching effects. I think that a lot of human health will be started to be targeted by looking at the gut microbiota,” she said.

Dr. Louie also highlighted the potential for more applications. “C. diff is low-hanging fruit. I think these bugs will have some usefulness for [irritable bowel syndrome]. I’ve transplanted some patients with IBS and it seemed to work. I haven’t had time to design and do an IBS trial, but the future is these bugs.”

Dr. Louie also participated in the Seres study. He has been on the advisory board for Vedanta, Seres, Finch Therapeutics, and Artugen Therapeutics. Dr. Engevik and Dr. Kumar have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A novel combination of eight human commensal bacteria has shown efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in high-risk populations. The cocktail of bacterial strains (VE303), produced under tightly-controlled conditions, is delivered in powdered form over a period of 14 days.

The approach, sponsored by Vedanta Biosciences, is one of several efforts to use carefully defined microbial populations instead of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat or prevent C. diff infections.

The key issue is that not all of the bacteria found in FMTs are needed to provide a therapeutic effect, according to Thomas Louie, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “You don’t need all the bugs. You don’t need raw [stool]. You can take only the good parts,” said Dr. Louie, who presented the results of the phase 2 study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). In fact, FMT carries the risk of infection of pathogenic bacteria.

The strains found in VE303 were consistently identified in patients’ microbiota following successful FMTs, though they were absent before the transplant. Animal and human studies then showed that the microbes could repopulate microbiota.

Among 78 patients included in the efficacy analysis of the study, after 8 weeks, 13.8% of the VE303 group experienced a recurrent C. diff infection, versus 45.5% of the placebo group, amounting to more than an 80% reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.192; P = .0077). Adverse events were mild and similar across both groups, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported.

The same session included a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study sponsored by Seres Therapeutics, which showed that the company’s oral product SER-109, composed of purified Firmicutes spores, reduced the risk of recurrent C. diff infection after 8 weeks compared to placebo (12.4% versus 39.8%; P < .001).

The new analysis examined short-, medium-, and branch-chained fatty acids in patient stools. After just 1 week of treatment, there was an increase in the short-chain fatty acid butyrate and medium-chain fatty acids valerate and hexanoate. They continued to be higher in weeks 2 and 8 in the treatment arm. The results suggest that increased fatty acid production might boost clinical outcomes, according to Kevin Litcofsky of Seres, who presented the results.

Both approaches have potential, according to Melinda Engevik, PhD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think that they’re both interesting ideas. The spores [from Seres], I think, are going to be better at passing through the stomach and a little bit more resistant, but then they have to germinate and engraft, whereas if you give the lyophilized bacteria [from Vedanta], you might lose some more, but they’re already primed and ready to go. So I think they’re both very different approaches, but the data from both seem to support that they worked and probably in different ways,” said Dr. Engevik, assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Patients that have recurrent [C. diff], they are desperate to be able to break the cycle of recurrence. I think that they’ve shown a lot of safety with this, which is an issue for FMT. Both of the talks seemed like there is a path moving forward to help those patients. I was encouraged,” said Dr. Engevik.

Comoderator Anoop Kumar, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Illinois, Chicago, agreed and noted the advantage of such treatments over FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted FMT delivery.

Previous studies have looked at probiotics, but results so far have been mixed, said Dr. Engevik. She suspects these two approaches, containing more bacterial strains, are likely to have better success. “I think you really have to have a complex gut microbiota community, at least minimally complex, to be able to get the effects. I think it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Dr. Engevik also suggested that the benefits might not stop at C. diff. She highlighted research in other gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and even efforts underway to enhance responses to checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. “Gut microbes are master regulators, so they have these wide-reaching effects. I think that a lot of human health will be started to be targeted by looking at the gut microbiota,” she said.

Dr. Louie also highlighted the potential for more applications. “C. diff is low-hanging fruit. I think these bugs will have some usefulness for [irritable bowel syndrome]. I’ve transplanted some patients with IBS and it seemed to work. I haven’t had time to design and do an IBS trial, but the future is these bugs.”

Dr. Louie also participated in the Seres study. He has been on the advisory board for Vedanta, Seres, Finch Therapeutics, and Artugen Therapeutics. Dr. Engevik and Dr. Kumar have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN FRANCISCO – Along with first responders, health care workers in pulmonary and critical care have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s not surprising that a large proportion have suffered from burnout, a syndrome characterized by chronic workplace stress, emotional exhaustion, cynicism about the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

“Prior to the pandemic, 50% of providers reported burnout, and that, of course, has been exacerbated, with recent surveys showing up to 80% of health care workers reporting burnout,” said Sangeeta Joshi, MD, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

In a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Joshi and colleagues showed that transcendental meditation (TM) can significantly improve burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and insomnia compared with other interventions, albeit without significant improvement in acute psychological distress.

Dr. Joshi reported the results of the trial at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

Mind-body intervention

TM, popularized in the 1960s by the Beatles and their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is a nonpharmacologic mind-body intervention that has been shown to reduce sympathetic arousal and to promote a state of relaxation, Dr. Joshi said.

Although the mechanism of action is not fully understood, proposed explanations for its efficacy include increased alpha coherence, as seen on electroencephalography, and increases in blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, as visualized on functional MRI.

TM has been shown to be effective for reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans and for reducing stress and burnout symptoms in teachers, Dr. Joshi noted.
 

Randomized trial

To see whether TM could make a difference for health care providers, Dr. Joshi and colleagues screened candidates for burnout with the single-item Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale and digital autonomic reactivity, a measure of the depth of physiologic stimulus.

Their study included 80 eligible participants, who were randomly assigned to receive either TM or treatment as usual.

The participants who received the intervention were assigned to attend four TM instruction sessions over 4 consecutive days, followed by four virtual follow-up sessions over the 3-month period. The investigators hypothesized that these participants would have significant improvements in symptoms of burnout over baseline compared with those assigned to standard treatments. Participants who underwent the intervention were encouraged to perform TM at home for 20 minutes twice each day.

Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month follow-up with the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)–25.

At baseline, 70% of all participants reported a history of visiting a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, and 91% reported onset of a mental health condition. Only 30% reported that they had had a mental health condition that resolved with treatment.

At 3 months, there were significant improvements over baseline in the TM group compared with the treatment-as-usual group for the MBI emotional exhaustion item (P = .005), insomnia (P = .029), and anxiety (P = .010). There was trend toward significance on the PHQ-9 (P = .057), but no significant difference in the Global Severity Index (the total score of BSI items).

There were improvements in both study arms in both the MBI professional accomplishment item and in the CD-RISC scale, but the between-group differences were not significant.

The results show that “TM is a feasible, efficacious intervention in health care workers, especially during a pandemic,” Dr. Joshi said.

Future studies of TM in this setting should expand the number of participants and recruitment sites so as to have the necessary power to detect statistically significant changes in the numerical scales, she said.
 

Integrating TM into employee wellness

“These results are really encouraging,” said Seppo Rinne, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, who comoderated the oral abstract session in which the data were presented but was not involved in the study.

Commenting on the fact that TM is not more widely offered as part of a package of services for treating employees with symptoms of burnout, he noted that “in the burnout literature, we have a tendency to dichotomize these individual vs. organizational interventions, and the reality is that they are probably more integrated, and it’s not really helpful for us to think about these as totally separate.

“We need organizational interventions that support individual wellness,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by Duke University. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Rinne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Along with first responders, health care workers in pulmonary and critical care have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s not surprising that a large proportion have suffered from burnout, a syndrome characterized by chronic workplace stress, emotional exhaustion, cynicism about the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

“Prior to the pandemic, 50% of providers reported burnout, and that, of course, has been exacerbated, with recent surveys showing up to 80% of health care workers reporting burnout,” said Sangeeta Joshi, MD, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

In a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Joshi and colleagues showed that transcendental meditation (TM) can significantly improve burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and insomnia compared with other interventions, albeit without significant improvement in acute psychological distress.

Dr. Joshi reported the results of the trial at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

Mind-body intervention

TM, popularized in the 1960s by the Beatles and their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is a nonpharmacologic mind-body intervention that has been shown to reduce sympathetic arousal and to promote a state of relaxation, Dr. Joshi said.

Although the mechanism of action is not fully understood, proposed explanations for its efficacy include increased alpha coherence, as seen on electroencephalography, and increases in blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, as visualized on functional MRI.

TM has been shown to be effective for reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans and for reducing stress and burnout symptoms in teachers, Dr. Joshi noted.
 

Randomized trial

To see whether TM could make a difference for health care providers, Dr. Joshi and colleagues screened candidates for burnout with the single-item Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale and digital autonomic reactivity, a measure of the depth of physiologic stimulus.

Their study included 80 eligible participants, who were randomly assigned to receive either TM or treatment as usual.

The participants who received the intervention were assigned to attend four TM instruction sessions over 4 consecutive days, followed by four virtual follow-up sessions over the 3-month period. The investigators hypothesized that these participants would have significant improvements in symptoms of burnout over baseline compared with those assigned to standard treatments. Participants who underwent the intervention were encouraged to perform TM at home for 20 minutes twice each day.

Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month follow-up with the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)–25.

At baseline, 70% of all participants reported a history of visiting a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, and 91% reported onset of a mental health condition. Only 30% reported that they had had a mental health condition that resolved with treatment.

At 3 months, there were significant improvements over baseline in the TM group compared with the treatment-as-usual group for the MBI emotional exhaustion item (P = .005), insomnia (P = .029), and anxiety (P = .010). There was trend toward significance on the PHQ-9 (P = .057), but no significant difference in the Global Severity Index (the total score of BSI items).

There were improvements in both study arms in both the MBI professional accomplishment item and in the CD-RISC scale, but the between-group differences were not significant.

The results show that “TM is a feasible, efficacious intervention in health care workers, especially during a pandemic,” Dr. Joshi said.

Future studies of TM in this setting should expand the number of participants and recruitment sites so as to have the necessary power to detect statistically significant changes in the numerical scales, she said.
 

Integrating TM into employee wellness

“These results are really encouraging,” said Seppo Rinne, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, who comoderated the oral abstract session in which the data were presented but was not involved in the study.

Commenting on the fact that TM is not more widely offered as part of a package of services for treating employees with symptoms of burnout, he noted that “in the burnout literature, we have a tendency to dichotomize these individual vs. organizational interventions, and the reality is that they are probably more integrated, and it’s not really helpful for us to think about these as totally separate.

“We need organizational interventions that support individual wellness,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by Duke University. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Rinne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Along with first responders, health care workers in pulmonary and critical care have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s not surprising that a large proportion have suffered from burnout, a syndrome characterized by chronic workplace stress, emotional exhaustion, cynicism about the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

“Prior to the pandemic, 50% of providers reported burnout, and that, of course, has been exacerbated, with recent surveys showing up to 80% of health care workers reporting burnout,” said Sangeeta Joshi, MD, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

In a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Joshi and colleagues showed that transcendental meditation (TM) can significantly improve burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and insomnia compared with other interventions, albeit without significant improvement in acute psychological distress.

Dr. Joshi reported the results of the trial at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

Mind-body intervention

TM, popularized in the 1960s by the Beatles and their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is a nonpharmacologic mind-body intervention that has been shown to reduce sympathetic arousal and to promote a state of relaxation, Dr. Joshi said.

Although the mechanism of action is not fully understood, proposed explanations for its efficacy include increased alpha coherence, as seen on electroencephalography, and increases in blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, as visualized on functional MRI.

TM has been shown to be effective for reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans and for reducing stress and burnout symptoms in teachers, Dr. Joshi noted.
 

Randomized trial

To see whether TM could make a difference for health care providers, Dr. Joshi and colleagues screened candidates for burnout with the single-item Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale and digital autonomic reactivity, a measure of the depth of physiologic stimulus.

Their study included 80 eligible participants, who were randomly assigned to receive either TM or treatment as usual.

The participants who received the intervention were assigned to attend four TM instruction sessions over 4 consecutive days, followed by four virtual follow-up sessions over the 3-month period. The investigators hypothesized that these participants would have significant improvements in symptoms of burnout over baseline compared with those assigned to standard treatments. Participants who underwent the intervention were encouraged to perform TM at home for 20 minutes twice each day.

Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month follow-up with the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)–25.

At baseline, 70% of all participants reported a history of visiting a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, and 91% reported onset of a mental health condition. Only 30% reported that they had had a mental health condition that resolved with treatment.

At 3 months, there were significant improvements over baseline in the TM group compared with the treatment-as-usual group for the MBI emotional exhaustion item (P = .005), insomnia (P = .029), and anxiety (P = .010). There was trend toward significance on the PHQ-9 (P = .057), but no significant difference in the Global Severity Index (the total score of BSI items).

There were improvements in both study arms in both the MBI professional accomplishment item and in the CD-RISC scale, but the between-group differences were not significant.

The results show that “TM is a feasible, efficacious intervention in health care workers, especially during a pandemic,” Dr. Joshi said.

Future studies of TM in this setting should expand the number of participants and recruitment sites so as to have the necessary power to detect statistically significant changes in the numerical scales, she said.
 

Integrating TM into employee wellness

“These results are really encouraging,” said Seppo Rinne, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, who comoderated the oral abstract session in which the data were presented but was not involved in the study.

Commenting on the fact that TM is not more widely offered as part of a package of services for treating employees with symptoms of burnout, he noted that “in the burnout literature, we have a tendency to dichotomize these individual vs. organizational interventions, and the reality is that they are probably more integrated, and it’s not really helpful for us to think about these as totally separate.

“We need organizational interventions that support individual wellness,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by Duke University. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Rinne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A balance between fear and relaxation is normal. However, mental dispositions and the continuous influence of environmental stimuli can disrupt this balance. A failure in therapy can often conceal unvoiced fears.

This article is based on the lecture “State of the Art: Treating Anxiety Disorders” by Christian Albus, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne (Germany), at the 128th conference of the German Society of Internal Medicine.
 

Hidden fears

Poor compliance often has a simple cause: The patients are scared. They are afraid of bad news, for example through further investigations. Taking medication regularly reminds them, over and over, of their threatening problem. Those affected rarely speak about these delicate issues of their own volition, said Dr. Albus. But latent fears are no trivial issue.

Cardiac prognosis

A third of those affected by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subsequently suffer from long-term anxiety disorders. The fear that they will relive their experiences overshadows their zest for life. As a result, signs of clinical depression can be detected in 50% of patients with ACS. Posttraumatic stress disorders have even been observed in up to 30% of patients. Fear also exacerbates the prognosis. Patients suffering from heart attack and subsequent cardiac failure demonstrate a significant correlation between stress and increased mortality.

Self-diagnosis

The fact that we are living in an age of fear is influenced by technological advances. “Dr. Google” is the first source to be consulted for almost half of adults who need their symptoms explained. Well-informed patients improve patient-doctor communication. But unfortunately, many people are becoming addicted to searching for diagnoses and symptoms online. Primarily harmless symptoms are associated with catastrophic diagnoses. Regrettably, Google’s search algorithm also increases this tendency. If someone starts to look for serious diseases, Google will show you these sorts of potential catastrophes on an ever more frequent basis. Google ultimately orients itself around the interests of its users. The result is a spiral of fear that can cause illness.

Cyberchondria

Compulsive searching on the internet for more and more new dangers to health has now developed into its own medical condition, termed cyberchondria. The therapy is strict internet abstinence. The gross exaggeration of health problems by the media also contributes to this. This is because it’s not just sex that sells, but also fear. The current example is long COVID. In the much-cited Gutenberg study, over half of coronavirus patients subsequently exhibited the typical symptoms: fatigue, concentration disorders, and breathing issues. Most media ignore the crucial detail that the same problems were also registered in 40% of the coronavirus-free control group. Dr. Albus pointed out that it’s no wonder that so much fear is being spread by long COVID.

The first step

Responsible medicine must counteract these developments. The first step is actively to address the fear problem. Patients who seem tense benefit enormously from the simple question: “How are you otherwise?” This question may open doors. Suddenly, patients begin to talk about their anxieties and fears. Of course, this approach to patients is time consuming. Still, this time must be taken, said Dr. Albus. In a survey of oncology patients, the majority reported that none of their physicians are ever interested in their emotional state. This is a sign of inadequate care, since psychosomatic primary care should be a standard nowadays in every specialty.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

A balance between fear and relaxation is normal. However, mental dispositions and the continuous influence of environmental stimuli can disrupt this balance. A failure in therapy can often conceal unvoiced fears.

This article is based on the lecture “State of the Art: Treating Anxiety Disorders” by Christian Albus, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne (Germany), at the 128th conference of the German Society of Internal Medicine.
 

Hidden fears

Poor compliance often has a simple cause: The patients are scared. They are afraid of bad news, for example through further investigations. Taking medication regularly reminds them, over and over, of their threatening problem. Those affected rarely speak about these delicate issues of their own volition, said Dr. Albus. But latent fears are no trivial issue.

Cardiac prognosis

A third of those affected by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subsequently suffer from long-term anxiety disorders. The fear that they will relive their experiences overshadows their zest for life. As a result, signs of clinical depression can be detected in 50% of patients with ACS. Posttraumatic stress disorders have even been observed in up to 30% of patients. Fear also exacerbates the prognosis. Patients suffering from heart attack and subsequent cardiac failure demonstrate a significant correlation between stress and increased mortality.

Self-diagnosis

The fact that we are living in an age of fear is influenced by technological advances. “Dr. Google” is the first source to be consulted for almost half of adults who need their symptoms explained. Well-informed patients improve patient-doctor communication. But unfortunately, many people are becoming addicted to searching for diagnoses and symptoms online. Primarily harmless symptoms are associated with catastrophic diagnoses. Regrettably, Google’s search algorithm also increases this tendency. If someone starts to look for serious diseases, Google will show you these sorts of potential catastrophes on an ever more frequent basis. Google ultimately orients itself around the interests of its users. The result is a spiral of fear that can cause illness.

Cyberchondria

Compulsive searching on the internet for more and more new dangers to health has now developed into its own medical condition, termed cyberchondria. The therapy is strict internet abstinence. The gross exaggeration of health problems by the media also contributes to this. This is because it’s not just sex that sells, but also fear. The current example is long COVID. In the much-cited Gutenberg study, over half of coronavirus patients subsequently exhibited the typical symptoms: fatigue, concentration disorders, and breathing issues. Most media ignore the crucial detail that the same problems were also registered in 40% of the coronavirus-free control group. Dr. Albus pointed out that it’s no wonder that so much fear is being spread by long COVID.

The first step

Responsible medicine must counteract these developments. The first step is actively to address the fear problem. Patients who seem tense benefit enormously from the simple question: “How are you otherwise?” This question may open doors. Suddenly, patients begin to talk about their anxieties and fears. Of course, this approach to patients is time consuming. Still, this time must be taken, said Dr. Albus. In a survey of oncology patients, the majority reported that none of their physicians are ever interested in their emotional state. This is a sign of inadequate care, since psychosomatic primary care should be a standard nowadays in every specialty.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

A balance between fear and relaxation is normal. However, mental dispositions and the continuous influence of environmental stimuli can disrupt this balance. A failure in therapy can often conceal unvoiced fears.

This article is based on the lecture “State of the Art: Treating Anxiety Disorders” by Christian Albus, MD, director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Cologne (Germany), at the 128th conference of the German Society of Internal Medicine.
 

Hidden fears

Poor compliance often has a simple cause: The patients are scared. They are afraid of bad news, for example through further investigations. Taking medication regularly reminds them, over and over, of their threatening problem. Those affected rarely speak about these delicate issues of their own volition, said Dr. Albus. But latent fears are no trivial issue.

Cardiac prognosis

A third of those affected by acute coronary syndrome (ACS) subsequently suffer from long-term anxiety disorders. The fear that they will relive their experiences overshadows their zest for life. As a result, signs of clinical depression can be detected in 50% of patients with ACS. Posttraumatic stress disorders have even been observed in up to 30% of patients. Fear also exacerbates the prognosis. Patients suffering from heart attack and subsequent cardiac failure demonstrate a significant correlation between stress and increased mortality.

Self-diagnosis

The fact that we are living in an age of fear is influenced by technological advances. “Dr. Google” is the first source to be consulted for almost half of adults who need their symptoms explained. Well-informed patients improve patient-doctor communication. But unfortunately, many people are becoming addicted to searching for diagnoses and symptoms online. Primarily harmless symptoms are associated with catastrophic diagnoses. Regrettably, Google’s search algorithm also increases this tendency. If someone starts to look for serious diseases, Google will show you these sorts of potential catastrophes on an ever more frequent basis. Google ultimately orients itself around the interests of its users. The result is a spiral of fear that can cause illness.

Cyberchondria

Compulsive searching on the internet for more and more new dangers to health has now developed into its own medical condition, termed cyberchondria. The therapy is strict internet abstinence. The gross exaggeration of health problems by the media also contributes to this. This is because it’s not just sex that sells, but also fear. The current example is long COVID. In the much-cited Gutenberg study, over half of coronavirus patients subsequently exhibited the typical symptoms: fatigue, concentration disorders, and breathing issues. Most media ignore the crucial detail that the same problems were also registered in 40% of the coronavirus-free control group. Dr. Albus pointed out that it’s no wonder that so much fear is being spread by long COVID.

The first step

Responsible medicine must counteract these developments. The first step is actively to address the fear problem. Patients who seem tense benefit enormously from the simple question: “How are you otherwise?” This question may open doors. Suddenly, patients begin to talk about their anxieties and fears. Of course, this approach to patients is time consuming. Still, this time must be taken, said Dr. Albus. In a survey of oncology patients, the majority reported that none of their physicians are ever interested in their emotional state. This is a sign of inadequate care, since psychosomatic primary care should be a standard nowadays in every specialty.

This article was translated from Coliquio.

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Each year, there are about 59,000 deaths from rabies globally. Most of these occur outside the United States and are the result of dog bites. Since infection with rabies is almost always fatal, there has been considerable attention given to vaccinating people at high risk before likely exposure and responding immediately to those bitten by a rabid animal.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently revised its preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) recommendations for rabies. Under the previous 2008 guidelines, PrEP injections were given on days 0, 7, and 21 and cost more than $1,100. In trying to simplify recommendations and make immunization less expensive, the agency designated five risk levels with different advice based on the level of risk.

The first two groups are those with very high risk of occupational exposures – either working with rabies virus in the laboratory or working with or having contact with bats or performing animal necropsies. They are now advised to get two doses of rabies vaccine on days 0 and 7. The lab workers should have titers checked every 6 months to ensure that they remain adequately protected. And a booster should be given if the titer drops to < 0.5 IU/mL. The second group, with bat exposures, should have titers checked every 2 years.

Risk category 3 is those with long-term (> 3 years) exposure to mammals other than bats that might be rabid. This group would include veterinarians, wildlife biologists, animal control officers, and spelunkers (cavers). Category 3 also includes travelers who may encounter rabid dogs, which is not a risk in the United States. They would get the same initial two doses. The new recommendations for a third dose are based either on a titer drawn 1-3 years later being < 0.5 IU/mL or choosing to give a booster between 3 weeks and 3 years after the second dose.

The same groups are covered in risk group 4, but these are expected to have less than 3 years of potential exposure after PrEP. They would receive two doses on days 0 and 7.

Finally, group 5, at the lowest risk, includes most of the U.S. population. They do not require any PrEP.

Agam Rao, MD, CAPT, U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, told this news organization that the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has been working on updating the 2008 rabies PrEP recommendations for several years. The committee wanted the new guideline to be “as easily followable as possible but also based on the evidence itself.”

There were two significant problems the committee tried to address. “One was that travelers who book their travel on kind of short notice don’t have enough time to get that third dose, which at the earliest can be given on day 21,” Dr. Rao said.

The second problem is that “a three-dose series [is] just really expensive. And what we found from data that had been published since the last ACIP recommendations is that fewer people than we recommend get vaccinated were getting vaccinated. So hopefully, the two-dose series helps with that.”

The ACIP used an adapted Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of the evidence for immunogenicity. The ACIP also used an evidence to recommendations (EtR) framework. “This incorporates a lot of other factors like the acceptability, usability, equity, all of these other variables that are important to the evidence being translated into recommendations,” Dr. Rao said. A table details their analysis.

Rabies expert Thiravat Hemachudha, MD, professor of neurology at WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training on Viral Zoonoses, Chulalongkorn University Hospital, Bangkok, told this news organization via email that “the ACIP relies mostly on serology, whereas the rest of the world cannot afford the test or testing may not be available.”

He added: “The issue of ‘long-term immunogenicity’ after receiving [PrEP is] an anamnestic response. All standard tissue culture rabies vaccines with appropriate dosage and route of delivery, either IM or ID, are considered safe and effective. There are many studies in Asian countries confirming that with only one primary series of PrEP, ID or IM with reduced doses, can produce immunity for as long as 20 years. Therefore, serology check is not necessary in general populations in rabies endemic countries where most of the rabies deaths occur. Investigation of all death cases was performed in Thailand and did not reveal any failure. Cases with PrEP in the past who died did not receive a booster after exposure.”

Dr. Rao offered one additional suggestion to clinicians faced with an urgent need to get a rabies titer: “They really should reach out to the lab (with all the information) before they send the specimen for the titer check ... so that the testing can be facilitated. All of these laboratories have the capacity to do stat and ASAP testing ... Clinicians do not know that they can call laboratories directly and expedite this sort of testing.” 

Dr. Rao emphasized that PrEP does not eliminate the need for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Still, it eliminates the need for rabies immunoglobulin and decreases the number of vaccine doses required for PEP. “I hope more people will take advantage of the titer checks and potentially save the patient some money,” she concluded.

Dr. Rao and Dr. Hemachudha have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, signed off May 19 on an advisory panel’s recommendation that children ages 5 to 11 years should receive a Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine booster dose at least 5 months after completion of the primary series.

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 11:1, with one abstention, on a question about whether it recommended these additional shots in this age group.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 17 amended the emergency use authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine to cover a single booster dose for administration to individuals 5 through 11 years of age.

At the request of CDC staff, ACIP members considered whether there should be softer wording for this recommendation, stating that children in this age group “may” receive a booster. This kind of phrasing would better reflect uncertainty about the course of COVID in the months ahead and allow flexibility for a stronger recommendation in the fall.

ACIP panelists and members of key groups argued strongly for a “should” recommendation, despite the uncertainties.

They also called for stronger efforts to make sure eligible children received their initial COVID-19 shots. Data gathered between November and April show only 14.4% of children ages 5 to 11 in rural areas have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccination, with top rates of 39.8% in large urban communities and 36% in larger suburban regions, CDC staff said.

CDC staff also said nearly 40% of parents in rural areas reported that their children’s pediatricians did not recommend COVID-19 vaccinations, compared with only 8% of parents in urban communities. These figures concerned ACIP members and liaisons from medical associations who take part in the panel’s deliberations but not in its votes.

“People will hear the word ‘m-a-y’ as ‘m-e-h’,” said Patricia Stinchfield, RN, MS, who served as the liaison for National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners to ACIP. “I think we need to add urgency” to efforts to increase use of COVID vaccinations, she said.

Voting no on Thursday was Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, of Vanderbilt University. She explained after the vote that she is in favor of having young children vaccinated, but she’s concerned about the low rates of initial uptake of the COVID-19 shots.

“Boosters are great once we’ve gotten everyone their first round,” she said. “That needs to be our priority in this.”

Sandra Fryhofer, MD, the American Medical Association’s liaison to ACIP, stressed the add-on benefits from more widespread vaccination of children against COVID. Dr. Fryhofer said she serves adults in her practice as an internal medicine physician, with many of her patients being at high risk for complications from COVID.

Too many people are assuming the spread of infections in the community has lessened the risk of the virus, Dr. Fryhofer said.

“Not everyone’s had COVID yet, and my patients will be likely to get COVID if their grandchildren get it. We’re going through pandemic fatigue in this country,” she said. “Unfortunately, masks are now more off than on. Winter’s coming. They’re more variants” of the virus likely to emerge.

The data emerging so far suggests COVID vaccines will become a three-dose medicine, as is already accepted for other shots like hepatitis B vaccine, Dr. Fryhofer said.

Data gathered to date show the vaccine decreases risk of hospitalization for COVID and for complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), she said.

“The bottom line is children in this age group are getting COVID,” Dr. Fryhofer said of the 5- to 11-year-olds. “Some do fine. Some are getting real sick. Some are hospitalized, some have died.”

At the meeting, CDC staff cited data from a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in March showing that vaccination had reduced the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 among children 5 to 11 years of age by two-thirds during the Omicron period; most children with critical COVID-19 were unvaccinated.

COVID-19 led to 66 deaths among children ages 5 to 11 in the October 2020 to October 2021 timeframe, said ACIP member Matthew F. Daley, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Colorado during a presentation to his fellow panel members.

Parents may underestimate children’s risk from COVID and thus hold off on vaccinations, stressed AMA President Gerald E. Harmon, MD, in a statement issued after the meeting.

“It is concerning that only 1 in 3 children between the ages of 5 and 11 in the United States have received two doses of the vaccine, in part because parents believe them to be at lower risk for severe disease than adults,” Dr. Harmon said. “But the Omicron variant brought about change that should alter that calculus.”
 

Responding to early data

As Dr. Fryhofer put it, the medical community has been learning in “real time” about how COVID vaccines work and how to use them.

The EUA granted on May 17 for booster shots for children ages 5 to 11 was based on an analysis of immune response data in a subset of children from an ongoing randomized placebo-controlled trial, the FDA said.

Antibody responses were evaluated in 67 study participants who received a booster dose 7 to 9 months after completing a two-dose primary series of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. The EUA for the booster shot was intended to respond to emerging data that suggest that vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 wanes after the second dose of the vaccine, the FDA said.
 

CDC seeks help tracking vaccine complications

At the ACIP meeting, a top CDC vaccine-safety official, Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, asked physicians to make sure their patients know about the agency’s V-Safe program for gathering reports from the public about their experiences with COVID vaccines. This is intended to help the CDC monitor for side effects of these medications.

“We need your help,” he said during a presentation about adverse events reported to date in children ages 5 to 11 who took the Pfizer vaccine.

About 18.1 million doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine have been administered to children ages 5 to 11 years in the United States so far. Most of the reports of adverse events following vaccination were not serious, he said. But there were 20 reports of myocarditis verified to meet CDC case definition among children ages 5 to 11 years.

One case involved a death with histopathologic evidence of myocarditis on autopsy. The CDC continues to assist with case review, he said.

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