User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Wilderness Medical Society issues clinical guidelines for tick-borne illness
The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.
Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”
The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.
The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”
In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.
One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.
The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.
Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”
Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.
Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.
The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.
Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.
Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”
The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.
The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”
In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.
One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.
The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.
Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”
Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.
Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.
The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.
Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The recently published “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Tick-Borne Illness,” from the Wilderness Medical Society, are a good compilation of treatment suggestions but are not, in fact, new recommendations, lead author Benjamin Ho, MD, of Southern Wisconsin Emergency Associates in Janesville, acknowledged in an interview.
Dr. Ho emphasized that the focus of the report was on “practitioners who practice in resource-limited settings” and are “the group’s way of solidifying a ... standard of practice” for such physicians. Dr. Ho also said that, while “a lot of the recommendations aren’t well supported, the risk-benefit ratio, we believe, supports the recommendations.”
The article first reviewed the different types of ticks and their distribution in the United States, the specific pathogen associated with each, the disease it causes, and comments about seasonal variations in biting behavior. Another table outlines the most common clinical syndromes, typical lab findings, recommended diagnostic testing, and antibiotic treatments. A third section contains images of different types of ticks and photos of ticks in various life-cycle stages and different levels of engorgement.
The authors were careful to note: “Several tick species are able to carry multiple pathogens. In one study, nearly 25% of Ixodes were coinfected with some combination of the bacteria or parasites causing Lyme disease, anaplasmosis, or babesiosis. Although TBI [tick-borne illness] diagnosis is not the focus of this [clinical practice guideline], providers should be aware of high rates of coinfection; the presence of one TBI should in many instances prompt testing for others.”
In terms of recommendations for preventing TBIs, the authors challenge the suggestion of wearing light-colored clothing. For repellents, they recommend DEET, picaridin, and permethrin. And they also give instructions for laundering clothing and removing ticks.
One recommendation is controversial: that of providing single-dose doxycycline as prophylaxis against Lyme disease. Dr. Ho stresses that this was only for “high-risk” tick bites, defined as a tick bite from an identified Ixodes vector species in which the tick was attached for at least 36 hours and that occurred in an endemic area.
The recommendation for prophylactic doxycycline originated with an article by Robert Nadelman and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine and has been strongly challenged by ILADS (International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society) physicians, including Daniel Cameron, MD, and others.
Sam Donta, MD, a recent member of the Department of Health & Human Services Tick-borne Working Group and a member of the Infectious Disease Society of America, said in an interview: “The problem with the one-dose doxycycline is you may not begin to develop symptoms until 2 months later.” It might mask the early symptoms of Lyme. “My impression is that the doxycycline – even the single dose – might have abrogated the ability to see an immune response. The idea, though, if you’ve had a tick bite, is to do nothing and to wait for symptoms to develop. That becomes a little bit more complex. But even then, you could choose to follow the patient and see the patient in 2 weeks and then get blood testing.”
Dr. Donta added: “I think the screening test is inadequate. So you have to go directly to the Western blot. And you have to do both the IgM and IgG” and look for specific bands.
Dr. Donta emphasized that patients should be encouraged to save any ticks that were attached and that, if at all possible, ticks should be sent to a reference lab for testing before committing a patient to a course of antibiotics. There is no harm in that brief delay, he said, and most labs can identify an array of pathogens.
The Wilderness Society guidelines on TBIs provide a good overview for clinicians practicing in limited resource settings and mirror those from the IDSA.
Dr. Ho and Dr. Donta reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM WILDERNESS ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
Orally dissolving buprenorphine tied to severe tooth decay, FDA warns
Orally dissolving medications containing buprenorphine are linked to severe dental problems, including total tooth loss, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns in a safety communication.
The oral side effects of these medications, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain, include cavities/tooth decay, including rampant caries; dental abscesses/infection; tooth erosion; fillings falling out; and, in some cases, total tooth loss.
Multiple cases have been reported even in patients with no history of dental problems.
The FDA is adding a warning about the risk of dental problems to the prescribing information and the patient medication guide for all buprenorphine-containing medicines dissolved in the mouth.
The FDA emphasizes, however, that buprenorphine remains “an important treatment option for OUD and pain, and the benefits of these medicines clearly outweigh the risks.”
More than 300 reported cases
Buprenorphine was approved in 2002 as a sublingual tablet, and in 2015 as a film to be placed inside the cheek to treat pain. Both delivery methods have been associated with dental problems.
Since buprenorphine was approved, the FDA has identified 305 cases of dental problems associated with orally dissolving buprenorphine, including 131 classified as serious.
There may be other cases, the FDA says, as this represents only cases reported to the FDA or published in the medical literature.
, but those as young as 18 years old were also affected.
Most cases occurred in patients using the medicines for OUD; however, 28 cases of dental problems occurred in patients using it to treat pain.
In 26 cases, patients had no prior history of dental problems. Some dental problems developed as soon as 2 weeks after treatment began; the median time to diagnosis was about 2 years after starting treatment.
Among all 305 cases reported, 113 involved two or more teeth.
The most common treatment for the dental problems was tooth extraction/removal, which was reported in 71 cases. Other cases required root canals, dental surgery, and other procedures such as crowns and implants.
Recommendations
The FDA says health care providers should counsel patients that severe and extensive tooth decay, tooth loss, and tooth fracture have been reported with the use of transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines and emphasize the importance of visiting their dentist to closely monitor their teeth.
Patients should be counseled to continue taking buprenorphine medications as prescribed and not stop suddenly without first talking to their health care provider, as this could lead to serious consequences, including relapse, misuse or abuse of other opioids, overdose, and death.
Patients are also being advised to take extra steps to help lessen the risk of serious dental problems.
Patients should also be educated on strategies to maintain or improve oral health while taking transmucosal buprenorphine medicines.
Counsel them that after the medicine is completely dissolved, the patient should take a large sip of water, swish it gently around the teeth and gums, swallow, and wait at least 1 hour before brushing their teeth, as the FDA advises. This will allow time for the mouth to gradually return to oral homeostasis and avoid any mechanical damage that may occur due to brushing.
The FDA also advises that patients tell their provider about any history of tooth problems, including cavities, and schedule a dentist visit soon after starting the medicine.
Dental problems related to transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Orally dissolving medications containing buprenorphine are linked to severe dental problems, including total tooth loss, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns in a safety communication.
The oral side effects of these medications, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain, include cavities/tooth decay, including rampant caries; dental abscesses/infection; tooth erosion; fillings falling out; and, in some cases, total tooth loss.
Multiple cases have been reported even in patients with no history of dental problems.
The FDA is adding a warning about the risk of dental problems to the prescribing information and the patient medication guide for all buprenorphine-containing medicines dissolved in the mouth.
The FDA emphasizes, however, that buprenorphine remains “an important treatment option for OUD and pain, and the benefits of these medicines clearly outweigh the risks.”
More than 300 reported cases
Buprenorphine was approved in 2002 as a sublingual tablet, and in 2015 as a film to be placed inside the cheek to treat pain. Both delivery methods have been associated with dental problems.
Since buprenorphine was approved, the FDA has identified 305 cases of dental problems associated with orally dissolving buprenorphine, including 131 classified as serious.
There may be other cases, the FDA says, as this represents only cases reported to the FDA or published in the medical literature.
, but those as young as 18 years old were also affected.
Most cases occurred in patients using the medicines for OUD; however, 28 cases of dental problems occurred in patients using it to treat pain.
In 26 cases, patients had no prior history of dental problems. Some dental problems developed as soon as 2 weeks after treatment began; the median time to diagnosis was about 2 years after starting treatment.
Among all 305 cases reported, 113 involved two or more teeth.
The most common treatment for the dental problems was tooth extraction/removal, which was reported in 71 cases. Other cases required root canals, dental surgery, and other procedures such as crowns and implants.
Recommendations
The FDA says health care providers should counsel patients that severe and extensive tooth decay, tooth loss, and tooth fracture have been reported with the use of transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines and emphasize the importance of visiting their dentist to closely monitor their teeth.
Patients should be counseled to continue taking buprenorphine medications as prescribed and not stop suddenly without first talking to their health care provider, as this could lead to serious consequences, including relapse, misuse or abuse of other opioids, overdose, and death.
Patients are also being advised to take extra steps to help lessen the risk of serious dental problems.
Patients should also be educated on strategies to maintain or improve oral health while taking transmucosal buprenorphine medicines.
Counsel them that after the medicine is completely dissolved, the patient should take a large sip of water, swish it gently around the teeth and gums, swallow, and wait at least 1 hour before brushing their teeth, as the FDA advises. This will allow time for the mouth to gradually return to oral homeostasis and avoid any mechanical damage that may occur due to brushing.
The FDA also advises that patients tell their provider about any history of tooth problems, including cavities, and schedule a dentist visit soon after starting the medicine.
Dental problems related to transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Orally dissolving medications containing buprenorphine are linked to severe dental problems, including total tooth loss, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns in a safety communication.
The oral side effects of these medications, which are used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) and pain, include cavities/tooth decay, including rampant caries; dental abscesses/infection; tooth erosion; fillings falling out; and, in some cases, total tooth loss.
Multiple cases have been reported even in patients with no history of dental problems.
The FDA is adding a warning about the risk of dental problems to the prescribing information and the patient medication guide for all buprenorphine-containing medicines dissolved in the mouth.
The FDA emphasizes, however, that buprenorphine remains “an important treatment option for OUD and pain, and the benefits of these medicines clearly outweigh the risks.”
More than 300 reported cases
Buprenorphine was approved in 2002 as a sublingual tablet, and in 2015 as a film to be placed inside the cheek to treat pain. Both delivery methods have been associated with dental problems.
Since buprenorphine was approved, the FDA has identified 305 cases of dental problems associated with orally dissolving buprenorphine, including 131 classified as serious.
There may be other cases, the FDA says, as this represents only cases reported to the FDA or published in the medical literature.
, but those as young as 18 years old were also affected.
Most cases occurred in patients using the medicines for OUD; however, 28 cases of dental problems occurred in patients using it to treat pain.
In 26 cases, patients had no prior history of dental problems. Some dental problems developed as soon as 2 weeks after treatment began; the median time to diagnosis was about 2 years after starting treatment.
Among all 305 cases reported, 113 involved two or more teeth.
The most common treatment for the dental problems was tooth extraction/removal, which was reported in 71 cases. Other cases required root canals, dental surgery, and other procedures such as crowns and implants.
Recommendations
The FDA says health care providers should counsel patients that severe and extensive tooth decay, tooth loss, and tooth fracture have been reported with the use of transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines and emphasize the importance of visiting their dentist to closely monitor their teeth.
Patients should be counseled to continue taking buprenorphine medications as prescribed and not stop suddenly without first talking to their health care provider, as this could lead to serious consequences, including relapse, misuse or abuse of other opioids, overdose, and death.
Patients are also being advised to take extra steps to help lessen the risk of serious dental problems.
Patients should also be educated on strategies to maintain or improve oral health while taking transmucosal buprenorphine medicines.
Counsel them that after the medicine is completely dissolved, the patient should take a large sip of water, swish it gently around the teeth and gums, swallow, and wait at least 1 hour before brushing their teeth, as the FDA advises. This will allow time for the mouth to gradually return to oral homeostasis and avoid any mechanical damage that may occur due to brushing.
The FDA also advises that patients tell their provider about any history of tooth problems, including cavities, and schedule a dentist visit soon after starting the medicine.
Dental problems related to transmucosal buprenorphine-containing medicines should be reported to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What does a pig-to-human heart transplant mean for medicine?
Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.
The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.
“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.
Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”
“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”
‘Still a nascent technology’
“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”
The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?
That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”
Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”
Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”
For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.
“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.
The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
‘This field needs to evolve’
Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”
It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”
“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.
“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.
The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.
“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.
Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”
“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”
‘Still a nascent technology’
“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”
The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?
That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”
Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”
Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”
For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.
“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.
The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
‘This field needs to evolve’
Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”
It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”
“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.
“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Scientific achievements usually raise big new questions, and the remarkable surgery that took place on Jan. 7, when Maryland resident David Bennett was transplanted with a genetically modified heart from a pig, has been no different.
The 57-year-old with end-stage heart failure had been repeatedly turned down for a standard transplant and was judged a poor candidate for a ventricular assist device. Now his new heart is beating soundly and apparently accepted by his immune system as Mr. Bennett, his physicians at the University of Maryland where the procedure took place, and indeed the world set out on a journey with far more unknowns than knowns.
“I think even just a couple of years ago, people felt that xenotransplantation for the heart and other organs was still a long way off. And it seems like it’s started to move very quickly,” Larry A. Allen, MD, University of Colorado, Aurora, said in an interview.
Demand for donor hearts far outstrips supply, and despite advances in the development of ventricular assist pumps and artificial hearts, “there are still significant limitations to them in terms of clotting, stroke, and infection. We’ve seen the use of those devices plateau,” Dr. Allen said. “So, the concept of a nonhuman source of organs is exciting and very much in need, if people can get it to work.”
“I really credit the surgeons at the University of Maryland for courageous clinical work and a brilliant scientific innovation,” Clyde W. Yancy, MD, MSc, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “But it’s always in the implementation that we have to hold our breath.” Heart xenotransplantation is an old idea that “has never before been successful,” he said. And standard heart transplantation has set a high bar, with a 1-year survival of about 90% and low 1-year risk for rejection. Whether the new procedure can meet that standard is unknown, as is its potential for complications, such as chronic rejection or cancers due to long-term immunosuppression. Those are “major questions requiring more time and careful follow-up.”
‘Still a nascent technology’
“This is an exciting and courageous step forward in heart transplantation, and kudos to the team at the University of Maryland,” said Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, Brigham and Woman’s Hospital, Boston. But “there are many challenges here.”
The procedure’s 10 gene modifications were reportedly aimed at preventing hyperacute rejection of the heart and its excessive growth after transplantation, and making the organ less immunogenic, Dr. Mehra said in an interview. But even if those goals are met, could the same changes potentially impede the heart’s adaptation to human physiology, such as during ambulation or stress?
That kind of adaptation may become important. For example, Dr. Mehra observed, normally a pig heart “provides flow in a four-footed configuration, and pig temperature is inherently higher than humans by several degrees, so it will be functioning in a relatively hypothermic environment.”
Transplantation remains the gold standard for patients with advanced heart failure despite modern medical and device therapy, Dr. Allen agreed. But “if we can raise pig hearts that provide the organ, and it can be implanted with a surgery that’s been done for 50 years, and rejection can be managed with gene editing and tailored immunosuppression, then it’s not hard to think about this very rapidly replacing a lot of what we do in the advanced heart failure and transplantation world.”
Certainly, it would be a major advance if the gene editing technique successfully improves the heart’s immunologic compatibility, Dr. Yancy noted. But do we have enough genomic knowledge to select gene deletions and insertions in the safest way for a successful outcome? “We have to appreciate that this is still a nascent technology, and we should be careful that there might be consequences that we haven’t anticipated.”
For example, he said, the xenotransplantation and gene-modifying techniques should be explored in a range of patients, including older and younger people, women and men, and people of different ethnicities and races.
“There may be some differences based on ancestry, based on gender, based on aging, that will influence the way in which these engineered donor hearts are experienced clinically,” Dr. Yancy said.
The xenotransplantation technique’s potential impact on health equity should also be considered, as it “almost assuredly will be a very expensive technology that will be utilized in a very select population,” he noted. “We need to have a really wide lens to think about all of the potential ramifications.”
‘This field needs to evolve’
Dr. Mehra also flagged the procedure’s potential cost should it become mainstream. Perhaps that would promote dialogue on how to primarily use it “after legitimately exhausting all available options, such as total artificial heart support.”
It might also teach the field to take greater advantage of the many donated hearts discarded as suboptimal. “The general usage rate for offered organs is around a third,” despite opportunities to expand use of those that are “less than perfect,” Dr. Mehra said. “I think that the field will grow with the community focusing on reduced discards of current available heart organs, and not necessarily grow because of the availability of ‘xeno-organs.’ ”
“This field needs to evolve because we’re actively transplanting patients today. But in my mind, the real future is to have such a sufficient understanding of the biology of left ventricular dysfunction that transplantation is a rare event,” Dr. Yancy proposed.
“I’m not certain that heart transplantation per se is the endgame. I think the avoidance of transplantation is the real endgame,” he said. “This may be controversial, but my vision of the future is not one where we have a supply of animals that we can use for transplantation. My vision of the future is that heart transplantation becomes obsolete.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC to update mask recommendations as Omicron spreads
Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.
“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.
While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.
“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.
“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.
WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve.
The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection.
The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected.
“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing.
The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.
But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.
But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing.
The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate.
The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.
Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.
But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.
In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.
But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.
“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.
“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.
While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.
“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.
“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.
WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve.
The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection.
The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected.
“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing.
The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.
But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.
But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing.
The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate.
The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.
Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.
But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.
In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.
But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.
“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.
“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.
While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.
“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.
“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.
WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve.
The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection.
The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected.
“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing.
The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.
But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.
A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.
But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing.
The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate.
The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.
Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.
But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.
In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.
But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.
“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.
Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.
He doesn’t seem like the best source of information, especially since he’s been arrested in the past for refusing to wear a mask in a store. Not wanting to wear a mask in a store doesn’t seem like much, but he also believes that those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine should be “executed” and he tried to impersonate a law official toattempt to arrest a Democratic governor for vaccine mandates.
The overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation has been stressful, yet sometimes laugh-worthy. Urine is not the first “cure” and probably won’t be the last. If you heard something works in a sketchy group on Facebook, it’s probably safe to assume that it absolutely does not. Please don’t recycle your urine.
Vaccine or beer? You must now choose
As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.
As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.
And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.
Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.
All I need is the polyester that I breathe
When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.
That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.
The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!
Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.
Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.
Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
It’s always in the last place you look
At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”
Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”
We will explain ... again.
When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.
So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.
Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.
What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.
And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.
But not all at the same time, thank goodness.
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.
Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.
He doesn’t seem like the best source of information, especially since he’s been arrested in the past for refusing to wear a mask in a store. Not wanting to wear a mask in a store doesn’t seem like much, but he also believes that those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine should be “executed” and he tried to impersonate a law official toattempt to arrest a Democratic governor for vaccine mandates.
The overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation has been stressful, yet sometimes laugh-worthy. Urine is not the first “cure” and probably won’t be the last. If you heard something works in a sketchy group on Facebook, it’s probably safe to assume that it absolutely does not. Please don’t recycle your urine.
Vaccine or beer? You must now choose
As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.
As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.
And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.
Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.
All I need is the polyester that I breathe
When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.
That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.
The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!
Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.
Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.
Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
It’s always in the last place you look
At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”
Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”
We will explain ... again.
When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.
So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.
Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.
What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.
And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.
But not all at the same time, thank goodness.
Urine for a new vaccine alternative
Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.
Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.
He doesn’t seem like the best source of information, especially since he’s been arrested in the past for refusing to wear a mask in a store. Not wanting to wear a mask in a store doesn’t seem like much, but he also believes that those who administer the COVID-19 vaccine should be “executed” and he tried to impersonate a law official toattempt to arrest a Democratic governor for vaccine mandates.
The overwhelming amount of COVID-19 misinformation has been stressful, yet sometimes laugh-worthy. Urine is not the first “cure” and probably won’t be the last. If you heard something works in a sketchy group on Facebook, it’s probably safe to assume that it absolutely does not. Please don’t recycle your urine.
Vaccine or beer? You must now choose
As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.
As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.
And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.
Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.
All I need is the polyester that I breathe
When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.
That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.
The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!
Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.
Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.
Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
It’s always in the last place you look
At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”
Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”
We will explain ... again.
When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.
So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.
Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.
What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.
And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.
But not all at the same time, thank goodness.
Symptoms common in high-risk, early-stage ovarian cancer
A new study offers fresh insight into early indications of high-risk, early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer: More than 70% have at least one symptom such as abdominal/pelvic pain or increased girth/fullness, and women with larger tumors have more symptoms.
“Even in early-stage disease, ovarian cancer is not necessarily a silent disease,” said lead author and gynecologic oncologist/surgeon John K. Chan, MD, of Palo Alto Medical Foundation/California Pacific/Sutter Research Institute.
The study appeared online Jan. 6, in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.*
According to Dr. Chan, most previous studies of symptoms in ovarian cancer have focused on those with advanced disease since that’s when it’s typically diagnosed. “Given these gaps in knowledge from prior reports, we performed this analysis to evaluate the presentation and characteristic symptoms of early-stage ovarian cancer and to attempt to identify the relationship between these symptoms with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in early-stage disease.”
Dr. Chan and colleagues retrospectively tracked 419 patients who were subjects in a clinical trial of chemotherapy doses. The patients all had high-risk, early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II).
Of the patients, 40% presented with one symptom, while 32% had multiple symptoms. The other 28% had no symptoms, and their masses were diagnosed upon discovery during physical examination. “Other investigators have found that nearly 95% of patients with ovarian cancer were symptomatic,” Dr. Chan said. “The lower percentage of symptomatic patients in our study may be because all 419 patients had early-stage disease as opposed to advanced-stage disease.”
The most common symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (31%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-36%), fullness or increased abdominal girth (27%; 95% CI, 22%-31%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (13%; 95% CI, 10%-17%), urinary problems (10%; 95% CI, 8%-14%), and gastrointestinal problems (6%; 95% CI, 4%-8%).
There was no statistically significant link between number of symptoms and age (younger than 60 or 60 or older), cancer stage, or histologic subtype. However, patients with the largest tumors (>15 cm) were more likely to have multiple symptoms than those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller): 46% vs. 21% (P < .001).
Also, 79% of those with the largest tumors (>15 cm) had at least one symptom, compared with 65% of those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller, P < .001)
Unlike other studies, this report didn’t find a link between the number of symptoms and mortality. This finding surprised the researchers, Dr. Chan said, as did the lack of connections between symptoms and age, stage, or histologic subtype. “We were expecting that the younger patients may have more symptoms given the association with endometriosis and clear cell cancers,” he said. “We also thought that those who are less symptomatic may have more stage I and low-grade indolent tumors with better survival, but we did not find that.”
The researchers noted limitations such as the lack of standardization in the patient data.
In the big picture, Dr. Chan said, “patients and health care professionals need to have a higher index of suspicion in symptomatic ovarian cancer patients to increase early detection and potentially improve cures. Ovarian cancer does not always kill. In fact, up to 80% of our early-stage disease patients are cured.”
He called for “additional research to evaluate symptom awareness in early-stage cancers and possibly incorporating novel serum biomarkers and wearable monitoring devices. Wearables may be able to assess for frequency or duration of symptoms, which may be an important factor in distinguishing symptoms that are more concerning for ovarian cancer.”
In an adjoining commentary, Barbara A. Goff, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that, while ovarian cancers diagnosed early have a high survival rate, prospective randomized trials of transvaginal ultrasonography and tumor marker screening strategies have failed to reduce mortality. There’s currently no recommended screening test for women at average risk.
There are other challenges, she wrote. For one, “many health care professionals are seemingly unaware of the symptoms typically associated with ovarian cancer, so misdiagnosis remains common.” And “one of the concerns about the symptoms of ovarian cancer is that they can be vague and commonly present in the general population.”
Dr. Goff praised the study, called for more education about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and wrote that “symptom recognition with appropriate diagnostic testing remains very important in our efforts to improve outcomes.”
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Several study authors, including Dr. Chan, reported various disclosures.
Correction, 1/31/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of publication.
A new study offers fresh insight into early indications of high-risk, early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer: More than 70% have at least one symptom such as abdominal/pelvic pain or increased girth/fullness, and women with larger tumors have more symptoms.
“Even in early-stage disease, ovarian cancer is not necessarily a silent disease,” said lead author and gynecologic oncologist/surgeon John K. Chan, MD, of Palo Alto Medical Foundation/California Pacific/Sutter Research Institute.
The study appeared online Jan. 6, in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.*
According to Dr. Chan, most previous studies of symptoms in ovarian cancer have focused on those with advanced disease since that’s when it’s typically diagnosed. “Given these gaps in knowledge from prior reports, we performed this analysis to evaluate the presentation and characteristic symptoms of early-stage ovarian cancer and to attempt to identify the relationship between these symptoms with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in early-stage disease.”
Dr. Chan and colleagues retrospectively tracked 419 patients who were subjects in a clinical trial of chemotherapy doses. The patients all had high-risk, early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II).
Of the patients, 40% presented with one symptom, while 32% had multiple symptoms. The other 28% had no symptoms, and their masses were diagnosed upon discovery during physical examination. “Other investigators have found that nearly 95% of patients with ovarian cancer were symptomatic,” Dr. Chan said. “The lower percentage of symptomatic patients in our study may be because all 419 patients had early-stage disease as opposed to advanced-stage disease.”
The most common symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (31%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-36%), fullness or increased abdominal girth (27%; 95% CI, 22%-31%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (13%; 95% CI, 10%-17%), urinary problems (10%; 95% CI, 8%-14%), and gastrointestinal problems (6%; 95% CI, 4%-8%).
There was no statistically significant link between number of symptoms and age (younger than 60 or 60 or older), cancer stage, or histologic subtype. However, patients with the largest tumors (>15 cm) were more likely to have multiple symptoms than those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller): 46% vs. 21% (P < .001).
Also, 79% of those with the largest tumors (>15 cm) had at least one symptom, compared with 65% of those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller, P < .001)
Unlike other studies, this report didn’t find a link between the number of symptoms and mortality. This finding surprised the researchers, Dr. Chan said, as did the lack of connections between symptoms and age, stage, or histologic subtype. “We were expecting that the younger patients may have more symptoms given the association with endometriosis and clear cell cancers,” he said. “We also thought that those who are less symptomatic may have more stage I and low-grade indolent tumors with better survival, but we did not find that.”
The researchers noted limitations such as the lack of standardization in the patient data.
In the big picture, Dr. Chan said, “patients and health care professionals need to have a higher index of suspicion in symptomatic ovarian cancer patients to increase early detection and potentially improve cures. Ovarian cancer does not always kill. In fact, up to 80% of our early-stage disease patients are cured.”
He called for “additional research to evaluate symptom awareness in early-stage cancers and possibly incorporating novel serum biomarkers and wearable monitoring devices. Wearables may be able to assess for frequency or duration of symptoms, which may be an important factor in distinguishing symptoms that are more concerning for ovarian cancer.”
In an adjoining commentary, Barbara A. Goff, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that, while ovarian cancers diagnosed early have a high survival rate, prospective randomized trials of transvaginal ultrasonography and tumor marker screening strategies have failed to reduce mortality. There’s currently no recommended screening test for women at average risk.
There are other challenges, she wrote. For one, “many health care professionals are seemingly unaware of the symptoms typically associated with ovarian cancer, so misdiagnosis remains common.” And “one of the concerns about the symptoms of ovarian cancer is that they can be vague and commonly present in the general population.”
Dr. Goff praised the study, called for more education about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and wrote that “symptom recognition with appropriate diagnostic testing remains very important in our efforts to improve outcomes.”
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Several study authors, including Dr. Chan, reported various disclosures.
Correction, 1/31/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of publication.
A new study offers fresh insight into early indications of high-risk, early-stage, epithelial ovarian cancer: More than 70% have at least one symptom such as abdominal/pelvic pain or increased girth/fullness, and women with larger tumors have more symptoms.
“Even in early-stage disease, ovarian cancer is not necessarily a silent disease,” said lead author and gynecologic oncologist/surgeon John K. Chan, MD, of Palo Alto Medical Foundation/California Pacific/Sutter Research Institute.
The study appeared online Jan. 6, in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.*
According to Dr. Chan, most previous studies of symptoms in ovarian cancer have focused on those with advanced disease since that’s when it’s typically diagnosed. “Given these gaps in knowledge from prior reports, we performed this analysis to evaluate the presentation and characteristic symptoms of early-stage ovarian cancer and to attempt to identify the relationship between these symptoms with respect to clinicopathologic characteristics and prognosis in early-stage disease.”
Dr. Chan and colleagues retrospectively tracked 419 patients who were subjects in a clinical trial of chemotherapy doses. The patients all had high-risk, early-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (stage IA-IB and grade 3, any clear cell, stage IC or II).
Of the patients, 40% presented with one symptom, while 32% had multiple symptoms. The other 28% had no symptoms, and their masses were diagnosed upon discovery during physical examination. “Other investigators have found that nearly 95% of patients with ovarian cancer were symptomatic,” Dr. Chan said. “The lower percentage of symptomatic patients in our study may be because all 419 patients had early-stage disease as opposed to advanced-stage disease.”
The most common symptoms were abdominal or pelvic pain (31%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-36%), fullness or increased abdominal girth (27%; 95% CI, 22%-31%), abnormal vaginal bleeding (13%; 95% CI, 10%-17%), urinary problems (10%; 95% CI, 8%-14%), and gastrointestinal problems (6%; 95% CI, 4%-8%).
There was no statistically significant link between number of symptoms and age (younger than 60 or 60 or older), cancer stage, or histologic subtype. However, patients with the largest tumors (>15 cm) were more likely to have multiple symptoms than those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller): 46% vs. 21% (P < .001).
Also, 79% of those with the largest tumors (>15 cm) had at least one symptom, compared with 65% of those with the smallest tumors (10 cm or smaller, P < .001)
Unlike other studies, this report didn’t find a link between the number of symptoms and mortality. This finding surprised the researchers, Dr. Chan said, as did the lack of connections between symptoms and age, stage, or histologic subtype. “We were expecting that the younger patients may have more symptoms given the association with endometriosis and clear cell cancers,” he said. “We also thought that those who are less symptomatic may have more stage I and low-grade indolent tumors with better survival, but we did not find that.”
The researchers noted limitations such as the lack of standardization in the patient data.
In the big picture, Dr. Chan said, “patients and health care professionals need to have a higher index of suspicion in symptomatic ovarian cancer patients to increase early detection and potentially improve cures. Ovarian cancer does not always kill. In fact, up to 80% of our early-stage disease patients are cured.”
He called for “additional research to evaluate symptom awareness in early-stage cancers and possibly incorporating novel serum biomarkers and wearable monitoring devices. Wearables may be able to assess for frequency or duration of symptoms, which may be an important factor in distinguishing symptoms that are more concerning for ovarian cancer.”
In an adjoining commentary, Barbara A. Goff, MD, chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted that, while ovarian cancers diagnosed early have a high survival rate, prospective randomized trials of transvaginal ultrasonography and tumor marker screening strategies have failed to reduce mortality. There’s currently no recommended screening test for women at average risk.
There are other challenges, she wrote. For one, “many health care professionals are seemingly unaware of the symptoms typically associated with ovarian cancer, so misdiagnosis remains common.” And “one of the concerns about the symptoms of ovarian cancer is that they can be vague and commonly present in the general population.”
Dr. Goff praised the study, called for more education about the symptoms of ovarian cancer, and wrote that “symptom recognition with appropriate diagnostic testing remains very important in our efforts to improve outcomes.”
The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Several study authors, including Dr. Chan, reported various disclosures.
Correction, 1/31/22: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of publication.
FROM OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Common cold could protect against COVID-19, study says
, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.
Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.
The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.
“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.
People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.
“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”
For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.
The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.
The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.
The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.
“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.
But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com
, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.
Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.
The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.
“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.
People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.
“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”
For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.
The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.
The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.
The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.
“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.
But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com
, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.
Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.
The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.
“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.
People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.
“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”
For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.
The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.
The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.
The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.
“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.
But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com
Ranking seven COVID-19 antigen tests by ease of use: Report
Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.
None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.
If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.
To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.
More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.
ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly.
“If you have a tremor from Parkinson’s, for example, or anything which won’t allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the No. 1 concern we have,” Dr. Schabacker said.
“The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn’t even have instructions – you have to download an app,” he noted.
Given demand and supply issues, Dr. Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available.
These tests are a “hot commodity right now,” he said. “If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.
None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.
If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.
To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.
More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.
ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly.
“If you have a tremor from Parkinson’s, for example, or anything which won’t allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the No. 1 concern we have,” Dr. Schabacker said.
“The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn’t even have instructions – you have to download an app,” he noted.
Given demand and supply issues, Dr. Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available.
These tests are a “hot commodity right now,” he said. “If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some COVID-19 rapid antigen home test kits are much easier to use than others, according to an analysis by ECRI, an independent, nonprofit patient safety organization.
None of the tests were rated as “excellent” in terms of usability and some had “noteworthy” usability concerns, the company said.
If a test is hard to use, “chances are that you may miss a step or not follow the right order, or contaminate the testing area and that can definitely influence the accuracy of the test and lead to a wrong test result,” Marcus Schabacker, MD, PhD, president and CEO of ECRI, told this news organization.
To gauge usability, ECRI used the “industry-standard” system usability scale (SUS), which rates products on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the easiest to use.
More than 30 points separated the top and bottom tests analyzed. The top performer was On/Go, followed by CareStart and Flowflex.
ECRI analysts found that some tests require particularly fine motor skills or have instructions with extremely small font size that may make it hard for older adults or people with complex health conditions to use the tests correctly.
“If you have a tremor from Parkinson’s, for example, or anything which won’t allow you to handle small items, you will have difficulties to do that test by yourself. That is the No. 1 concern we have,” Dr. Schabacker said.
“The second concern is readability, as all of these tests have relatively small instructions. One of them actually has doesn’t even have instructions – you have to download an app,” he noted.
Given demand and supply issues, Dr. Schabacker acknowledged that consumers might not have a choice in which test to use and may have to rely on whatever is available.
These tests are a “hot commodity right now,” he said. “If you have a choice, people should use the ones which are easiest to use, which is the On/Go, the CareStart, or the Flowflex.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians react: Should docs lose their licenses for spreading false COVID information?
Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”
COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.
Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.
State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.
Yes, those doctors are doing wrong
Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”
Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”
One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”
“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”
“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”
“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”
“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”
One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”
“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs
However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.
“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”
Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”
One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”
Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”
Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.
“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”
“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.
One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
And the debate goes even further
Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”
“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”
“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”
Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”
One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”
Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”
COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.
Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.
State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.
Yes, those doctors are doing wrong
Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”
Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”
One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”
“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”
“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”
“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”
“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”
One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”
“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs
However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.
“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”
Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”
One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”
Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”
Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.
“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”
“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.
One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
And the debate goes even further
Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”
“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”
“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”
Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”
One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”
Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”
COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.
Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.
State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.
Yes, those doctors are doing wrong
Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.
One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”
Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”
One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”
“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”
“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”
“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”
“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”
One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”
“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs
However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.
“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”
Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”
One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”
Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”
Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.
“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”
“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.
One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
And the debate goes even further
Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”
“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”
“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”
Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”
One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”
Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Children and COVID: New cases and hospital admissions skyrocket
, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total for the week of Dec. 31 to Jan. 6 – the highest since the pandemic began – was an increase of 78% over the previous week (325,000) and 192% higher than just 2 weeks before (199,000), the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. No region of the country was spared, as all four saw at least 50,000 more cases than the week before, but the increase was largest in the West and smallest in the Midwest.
“Nearly 8.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 11% of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks,” the AAP said.
The situation is the same for hospitalizations. On Dec. 15, the daily rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 years was 0.26 per 100,000, and by Jan. 7 it had more than quadrupled to 1.15 per 100,000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Before Omicron, the highest rate was 0.47 per 100,000 on Sept. 4, 2021.
The number of children occupying inpatient beds who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 went from 2,343 on Jan. 2 to 3,476 on Jan. 9, a jump of more than 48% in just 1 week. Texas had more hospitalized children (392) than any other state on Jan. 9, with California (339) and New York (313) the only other states over 300, according to data from the Department of Health & Human Services.
For vaccinations. however, the situation is definitely not the same. The number of children added to the ranks of those with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine was down in early 2022 (Jan. 3-9) for both 5- to 11-year-olds (–8.2%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (–12.2%) but higher among those aged 12-15 (12.2%), compared with the previous week (Dec. 27 to Jan. 2), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Cumulative figures show that 26.3% of all children aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine and 17.2% were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 10, compared with 62.2% and 52.0% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 68.5% and 58.1% of those aged 16-17. Altogether, over 23.8 million children in those three age groups have received at least one dose and almost 18.6 million are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total for the week of Dec. 31 to Jan. 6 – the highest since the pandemic began – was an increase of 78% over the previous week (325,000) and 192% higher than just 2 weeks before (199,000), the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. No region of the country was spared, as all four saw at least 50,000 more cases than the week before, but the increase was largest in the West and smallest in the Midwest.
“Nearly 8.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 11% of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks,” the AAP said.
The situation is the same for hospitalizations. On Dec. 15, the daily rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 years was 0.26 per 100,000, and by Jan. 7 it had more than quadrupled to 1.15 per 100,000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Before Omicron, the highest rate was 0.47 per 100,000 on Sept. 4, 2021.
The number of children occupying inpatient beds who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 went from 2,343 on Jan. 2 to 3,476 on Jan. 9, a jump of more than 48% in just 1 week. Texas had more hospitalized children (392) than any other state on Jan. 9, with California (339) and New York (313) the only other states over 300, according to data from the Department of Health & Human Services.
For vaccinations. however, the situation is definitely not the same. The number of children added to the ranks of those with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine was down in early 2022 (Jan. 3-9) for both 5- to 11-year-olds (–8.2%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (–12.2%) but higher among those aged 12-15 (12.2%), compared with the previous week (Dec. 27 to Jan. 2), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Cumulative figures show that 26.3% of all children aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine and 17.2% were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 10, compared with 62.2% and 52.0% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 68.5% and 58.1% of those aged 16-17. Altogether, over 23.8 million children in those three age groups have received at least one dose and almost 18.6 million are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.
, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.
The total for the week of Dec. 31 to Jan. 6 – the highest since the pandemic began – was an increase of 78% over the previous week (325,000) and 192% higher than just 2 weeks before (199,000), the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID-19 report. No region of the country was spared, as all four saw at least 50,000 more cases than the week before, but the increase was largest in the West and smallest in the Midwest.
“Nearly 8.5 million children have tested positive for COVID-19 since the onset of the pandemic; nearly 11% of these cases have been added in the past 2 weeks,” the AAP said.
The situation is the same for hospitalizations. On Dec. 15, the daily rate of new admissions for children aged 0-17 years was 0.26 per 100,000, and by Jan. 7 it had more than quadrupled to 1.15 per 100,000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. Before Omicron, the highest rate was 0.47 per 100,000 on Sept. 4, 2021.
The number of children occupying inpatient beds who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 went from 2,343 on Jan. 2 to 3,476 on Jan. 9, a jump of more than 48% in just 1 week. Texas had more hospitalized children (392) than any other state on Jan. 9, with California (339) and New York (313) the only other states over 300, according to data from the Department of Health & Human Services.
For vaccinations. however, the situation is definitely not the same. The number of children added to the ranks of those with at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine was down in early 2022 (Jan. 3-9) for both 5- to 11-year-olds (–8.2%) and 16- to 17-year-olds (–12.2%) but higher among those aged 12-15 (12.2%), compared with the previous week (Dec. 27 to Jan. 2), the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.
Cumulative figures show that 26.3% of all children aged 5-11 had received at least one dose of vaccine and 17.2% were fully vaccinated as of Jan. 10, compared with 62.2% and 52.0% of 12- to 15-year-olds and 68.5% and 58.1% of those aged 16-17. Altogether, over 23.8 million children in those three age groups have received at least one dose and almost 18.6 million are fully vaccinated, the CDC said.