MDedge Emergency Medicine

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia were less likely to need mechanical ventilation after treatment with corticosteroids, but mortality was unaffected, based on data from a meta-analysis of nearly 4,000 patients.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in adults, but no routinely used strategies are associated with improvements in mortality, disease severity, or length of hospital stay, wrote Naveed Saleem, MSc, of University College, London, and colleagues.

Corticosteroids are recommended for various infectious diseases including bacterial meningitis, septic shock, and tuberculosis, as well as for COVID-19 pneumonia, because of their ability to reduce systemic inflammation, but have not been well studied in CAP, they noted.

In a study published in Chest, the researchers identified 16 randomized, controlled trials that compared the use of corticosteroids to standard care in CAP management. Of these, 9 were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, 4 were open-label, and 11 were double-blind. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, treatment failure, readmission, and adverse events.

Although corticosteroids had no significant impact on the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, their use was associated with a significant reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (relative risk 0.51, P = .001). The relative risk for the primary outcome of all-cause mortality was 0.85 (P = .17). Corticosteroids had no significant impact on the other secondary outcomes of ICU admission (RR 0.66), treatment failure (RR 0.78), and the incidence of adverse events (RR 1.10). However, data from five studies showed an increase in hospital admission rates for patients who received corticosteroids (RR 1.20, P = .008).

Overall, the risk of total adverse events was similar in patients who received corticosteroids vs. standard of care (55.8% vs. 48.5%). However, 27.2% of patients reported at least one adverse event related to corticosteroids. Incidence of most adverse events including gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections were similar between the groups, but patients who received corticosteroids had a significantly higher incidence of new-onset hyperglycemia compared to standard care patients (17.6% vs. 9.5%, P = .0001).

“Despite an increased risk of hyperglycemia associated with steroid use, we found no association between corticosteroid use and infectious complications,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. The optimal type, dose, and duration of corticosteroids for hospitalized CAP patients has yet to be determined, and the type of corticosteroid may affect outcomes, they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the consideration of hospitalized patients only, not those in the community, and by the inability to adjust for differing diagnostic criteria, illness severity at baseline, or other therapeutic interventions, the researchers noted. Larger studies are needed to assess mortality benefit, and longer follow-up is needed to identify causes of readmission, they said. However, the results suggest that corticosteroids may be useful for preventing the need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with bacterial pneumonia, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with asthma who received mindfulness training showed significant improvement in symptoms compared to those who did not receive such training, based on data from 73 individuals.

Although previous research shows the contribution of psychological factors to poor asthma control and exacerbations, the ability of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to improve asthma symptoms in particular has not been well studied, wrote Estelle T. Higgins, BA, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues.

“Though the focus of mindfulness training is not symptom reduction, this is frequently the result in populations with chronic medical illness,” they wrote. The researchers hypothesized that MBSR training would reduce the effect of psychological distress on asthma control and inflammation compared to asthma patients in a waitlist control group.

In a study published in Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, the researchers randomized 38 adults with asthma to a program of MBSR and 24 to a waitlist. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a mean of 38.1 years, and 43 were female. All patients had an asthma diagnosis for at least 6 months; airway inflammation was based on measures of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 30 ppb, 138 blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/mcL, or percent sputum eosinophils ≥ 2% of total leukocytes. Individuals with ongoing medical conditions other than asthma were excluded.

The MBSR group had seven clinical data collection visits at approximately 1-month intervals. MBSR training sessions occurred within classes offered to the community over a period of 8 weekly sessions and one 6-hour retreat, and included breath-focused attention, body scan, and mindful awareness in seated positions, walking, and yoga. Participants completed questionnaires about mindfulness, distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. These were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at study completion. Chronic stress level was determined at baseline only.

The primary outcome was asthma control based on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ6) Minimally Important Difference.

Overall, asthma control improved significantly among those randomized to MBSR compared to waitlisted controls (P = .01) and this difference persisted at 4 months after the intervention.

Nearly one-third (32%) of the MBSR participants met the criteria for clinically significant improvement in asthma symptoms, compared to 12% of those on the wait list.

In addition, MBSR-related improvement in asthma control was significantly associated with a reduced distress (P = .043), and was especially effective for individuals with the highest levels of depressive symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Individuals who received MBSR also showed significantly reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide compared to waitlist controls (P < .05).

The study findings were limited by the lack of an active control group, the researchers noted. “Though a wait-list control group was employed to control for variation in outcome measures over time, it is possible that effects reported here were driven by factors that are not specific to training in mindfulness, such as social support or expectancy effects,” they wrote. However, the results support the value of mindfulness in reducing psychological stress, FeNO, and impairments related to asthma that were sustained over time, they said. The results also support the potential of MBSR to both augment and reduce the need for pharmacological treatment in asthma, and mindfulness may be an effective way to improve overall disease control by reducing the contribution of psychological factors to asthma morbidity, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Coauthor Richard J. Davidson, MD, is the founder and president, and serves on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations Inc. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with asthma who received mindfulness training showed significant improvement in symptoms compared to those who did not receive such training, based on data from 73 individuals.

Although previous research shows the contribution of psychological factors to poor asthma control and exacerbations, the ability of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to improve asthma symptoms in particular has not been well studied, wrote Estelle T. Higgins, BA, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues.

“Though the focus of mindfulness training is not symptom reduction, this is frequently the result in populations with chronic medical illness,” they wrote. The researchers hypothesized that MBSR training would reduce the effect of psychological distress on asthma control and inflammation compared to asthma patients in a waitlist control group.

In a study published in Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, the researchers randomized 38 adults with asthma to a program of MBSR and 24 to a waitlist. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a mean of 38.1 years, and 43 were female. All patients had an asthma diagnosis for at least 6 months; airway inflammation was based on measures of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 30 ppb, 138 blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/mcL, or percent sputum eosinophils ≥ 2% of total leukocytes. Individuals with ongoing medical conditions other than asthma were excluded.

The MBSR group had seven clinical data collection visits at approximately 1-month intervals. MBSR training sessions occurred within classes offered to the community over a period of 8 weekly sessions and one 6-hour retreat, and included breath-focused attention, body scan, and mindful awareness in seated positions, walking, and yoga. Participants completed questionnaires about mindfulness, distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. These were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at study completion. Chronic stress level was determined at baseline only.

The primary outcome was asthma control based on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ6) Minimally Important Difference.

Overall, asthma control improved significantly among those randomized to MBSR compared to waitlisted controls (P = .01) and this difference persisted at 4 months after the intervention.

Nearly one-third (32%) of the MBSR participants met the criteria for clinically significant improvement in asthma symptoms, compared to 12% of those on the wait list.

In addition, MBSR-related improvement in asthma control was significantly associated with a reduced distress (P = .043), and was especially effective for individuals with the highest levels of depressive symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Individuals who received MBSR also showed significantly reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide compared to waitlist controls (P < .05).

The study findings were limited by the lack of an active control group, the researchers noted. “Though a wait-list control group was employed to control for variation in outcome measures over time, it is possible that effects reported here were driven by factors that are not specific to training in mindfulness, such as social support or expectancy effects,” they wrote. However, the results support the value of mindfulness in reducing psychological stress, FeNO, and impairments related to asthma that were sustained over time, they said. The results also support the potential of MBSR to both augment and reduce the need for pharmacological treatment in asthma, and mindfulness may be an effective way to improve overall disease control by reducing the contribution of psychological factors to asthma morbidity, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Coauthor Richard J. Davidson, MD, is the founder and president, and serves on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations Inc. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with asthma who received mindfulness training showed significant improvement in symptoms compared to those who did not receive such training, based on data from 73 individuals.

Although previous research shows the contribution of psychological factors to poor asthma control and exacerbations, the ability of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) to improve asthma symptoms in particular has not been well studied, wrote Estelle T. Higgins, BA, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues.

“Though the focus of mindfulness training is not symptom reduction, this is frequently the result in populations with chronic medical illness,” they wrote. The researchers hypothesized that MBSR training would reduce the effect of psychological distress on asthma control and inflammation compared to asthma patients in a waitlist control group.

In a study published in Brain, Behavior, & Immunity – Health, the researchers randomized 38 adults with asthma to a program of MBSR and 24 to a waitlist. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 65 years, with a mean of 38.1 years, and 43 were female. All patients had an asthma diagnosis for at least 6 months; airway inflammation was based on measures of fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) ≥ 30 ppb, 138 blood eosinophil count ≥ 150 cells/mcL, or percent sputum eosinophils ≥ 2% of total leukocytes. Individuals with ongoing medical conditions other than asthma were excluded.

The MBSR group had seven clinical data collection visits at approximately 1-month intervals. MBSR training sessions occurred within classes offered to the community over a period of 8 weekly sessions and one 6-hour retreat, and included breath-focused attention, body scan, and mindful awareness in seated positions, walking, and yoga. Participants completed questionnaires about mindfulness, distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. These were assessed at baseline, post intervention, and at study completion. Chronic stress level was determined at baseline only.

The primary outcome was asthma control based on the Asthma Control Questionnaire 6-item version (ACQ6) Minimally Important Difference.

Overall, asthma control improved significantly among those randomized to MBSR compared to waitlisted controls (P = .01) and this difference persisted at 4 months after the intervention.

Nearly one-third (32%) of the MBSR participants met the criteria for clinically significant improvement in asthma symptoms, compared to 12% of those on the wait list.

In addition, MBSR-related improvement in asthma control was significantly associated with a reduced distress (P = .043), and was especially effective for individuals with the highest levels of depressive symptoms at baseline, the researchers noted. Individuals who received MBSR also showed significantly reduced levels of exhaled nitric oxide compared to waitlist controls (P < .05).

The study findings were limited by the lack of an active control group, the researchers noted. “Though a wait-list control group was employed to control for variation in outcome measures over time, it is possible that effects reported here were driven by factors that are not specific to training in mindfulness, such as social support or expectancy effects,” they wrote. However, the results support the value of mindfulness in reducing psychological stress, FeNO, and impairments related to asthma that were sustained over time, they said. The results also support the potential of MBSR to both augment and reduce the need for pharmacological treatment in asthma, and mindfulness may be an effective way to improve overall disease control by reducing the contribution of psychological factors to asthma morbidity, they concluded.

The study was supported by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Coauthor Richard J. Davidson, MD, is the founder and president, and serves on the board of directors for the nonprofit organization, Healthy Minds Innovations Inc. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with depression who had high levels of C-reactive protein responded poorly to selected serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared to those with lower CRP levels, based on data from more than 900 patients.

C-reactive protein (CRP) has been shown to predict antidepressant treatment outcomes in depressed patients, but previous studies have been small and under restricted conditions, and data from large, real-world studies are lacking, wrote Yuqian Pan of First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders , the researchers identified depressed patients aged 12-60 years who had tested CRP levels. The participants were followed through outpatient visits or telephone interviews to collect information on medication use and assess efficacy based on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement scale.

CRP was separated into the low CRP group of 709 patients (CRP < 1 mg/L) and a high CRP group of 209 patients (CRP ≥ 1 mg/L). The primary outcome was efficacy defined as effective and ineffective for high and low CRP levels in patients using different medications: Selected serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, (SNRIs), melatonin receptor agonists (MTs), and norepinephrinergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs).

The researchers compared efficacy in different groups according to CRP levels.

Overall, patients with low CRP showed significantly greater efficacy with SSRIs than did those with high CRP (hazard ratio [HR], 1.257, P = .047). SNRIs were more effective than SSRIs for treating patients with high CRP levels (HR, 1.652, P = .037).

A possible reason for the difference in efficacy is the correlation between CRP and body mass index; previous studies have shown that SSRIs may be less effective in obese individuals, the researchers said.

“Another possible explanation is that at high levels of inflammation, neurons, microglia, and macrophages respond to inflammatory challenges at the cellular level by activating metabolic pathways,” they said.

No significant changes in CRP levels were observed before and after starting medication use, which supports the stability of CRP as a biomarker under normal circumstances.

No difference in efficacy appeared between SSRIs and SNRIs in patients with low CRP, “which may indicate that SNRIs have stronger anti-inflammatory effects than SSRIs,” a finding consistent with previous studies, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients taking MT and NaSSA, the irregular time intervals for before and after SSRI treatment in 90 patients, the lack of classification by antidepressant type, and the potential for recall bias, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that CRP could predict the efficacy of SSRIs in depressed patients in a real-world setting, which may inform treatment decisions, they said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with depression who had high levels of C-reactive protein responded poorly to selected serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared to those with lower CRP levels, based on data from more than 900 patients.

C-reactive protein (CRP) has been shown to predict antidepressant treatment outcomes in depressed patients, but previous studies have been small and under restricted conditions, and data from large, real-world studies are lacking, wrote Yuqian Pan of First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders , the researchers identified depressed patients aged 12-60 years who had tested CRP levels. The participants were followed through outpatient visits or telephone interviews to collect information on medication use and assess efficacy based on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement scale.

CRP was separated into the low CRP group of 709 patients (CRP < 1 mg/L) and a high CRP group of 209 patients (CRP ≥ 1 mg/L). The primary outcome was efficacy defined as effective and ineffective for high and low CRP levels in patients using different medications: Selected serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, (SNRIs), melatonin receptor agonists (MTs), and norepinephrinergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs).

The researchers compared efficacy in different groups according to CRP levels.

Overall, patients with low CRP showed significantly greater efficacy with SSRIs than did those with high CRP (hazard ratio [HR], 1.257, P = .047). SNRIs were more effective than SSRIs for treating patients with high CRP levels (HR, 1.652, P = .037).

A possible reason for the difference in efficacy is the correlation between CRP and body mass index; previous studies have shown that SSRIs may be less effective in obese individuals, the researchers said.

“Another possible explanation is that at high levels of inflammation, neurons, microglia, and macrophages respond to inflammatory challenges at the cellular level by activating metabolic pathways,” they said.

No significant changes in CRP levels were observed before and after starting medication use, which supports the stability of CRP as a biomarker under normal circumstances.

No difference in efficacy appeared between SSRIs and SNRIs in patients with low CRP, “which may indicate that SNRIs have stronger anti-inflammatory effects than SSRIs,” a finding consistent with previous studies, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients taking MT and NaSSA, the irregular time intervals for before and after SSRI treatment in 90 patients, the lack of classification by antidepressant type, and the potential for recall bias, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that CRP could predict the efficacy of SSRIs in depressed patients in a real-world setting, which may inform treatment decisions, they said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Individuals with depression who had high levels of C-reactive protein responded poorly to selected serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared to those with lower CRP levels, based on data from more than 900 patients.

C-reactive protein (CRP) has been shown to predict antidepressant treatment outcomes in depressed patients, but previous studies have been small and under restricted conditions, and data from large, real-world studies are lacking, wrote Yuqian Pan of First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders , the researchers identified depressed patients aged 12-60 years who had tested CRP levels. The participants were followed through outpatient visits or telephone interviews to collect information on medication use and assess efficacy based on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement scale.

CRP was separated into the low CRP group of 709 patients (CRP < 1 mg/L) and a high CRP group of 209 patients (CRP ≥ 1 mg/L). The primary outcome was efficacy defined as effective and ineffective for high and low CRP levels in patients using different medications: Selected serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, (SNRIs), melatonin receptor agonists (MTs), and norepinephrinergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants (NaSSAs).

The researchers compared efficacy in different groups according to CRP levels.

Overall, patients with low CRP showed significantly greater efficacy with SSRIs than did those with high CRP (hazard ratio [HR], 1.257, P = .047). SNRIs were more effective than SSRIs for treating patients with high CRP levels (HR, 1.652, P = .037).

A possible reason for the difference in efficacy is the correlation between CRP and body mass index; previous studies have shown that SSRIs may be less effective in obese individuals, the researchers said.

“Another possible explanation is that at high levels of inflammation, neurons, microglia, and macrophages respond to inflammatory challenges at the cellular level by activating metabolic pathways,” they said.

No significant changes in CRP levels were observed before and after starting medication use, which supports the stability of CRP as a biomarker under normal circumstances.

No difference in efficacy appeared between SSRIs and SNRIs in patients with low CRP, “which may indicate that SNRIs have stronger anti-inflammatory effects than SSRIs,” a finding consistent with previous studies, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small number of patients taking MT and NaSSA, the irregular time intervals for before and after SSRI treatment in 90 patients, the lack of classification by antidepressant type, and the potential for recall bias, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that CRP could predict the efficacy of SSRIs in depressed patients in a real-world setting, which may inform treatment decisions, they said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Entrepreneur Maya McNulty, 49, was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Schenectady, N.Y., businesswoman spent 2 months in the hospital after catching the disease in March 2020. That September, she was diagnosed with long COVID.

“Even a simple task such as unloading the dishwasher became a major challenge,” she says.

Over the next several months, Ms. McNulty saw a range of specialists, including neurologists, pulmonologists, and cardiologists. She had months of physical therapy and respiratory therapy to help regain strength and lung function. While many of the doctors she saw were sympathetic to what she was going through, not all were.

“I saw one neurologist who told me to my face that she didn’t believe in long COVID,” she recalls. “It was particularly astonishing since the hospital they were affiliated with had a long COVID clinic.”

Ms. McNulty began to connect with other patients with long COVID through a support group she created at the end of 2020 on the social media app Clubhouse. They exchanged ideas and stories about what had helped one another, which led her to try, over the next year, a plant-based diet, Chinese medicine, and vitamin C supplements, among other treatments.

She also acted on unscientific reports she found online and did her own research, which led her to discover claims that some asthma patients with chronic coughing responded well to halotherapy, or dry salt therapy, during which patients inhale micro-particles of salt into their lungs to reduce inflammation, widen airways, and thin mucus. She’s been doing this procedure at a clinic near her home for over a year and credits it with helping with her chronic cough, especially as she recovers from her second bout of COVID-19.

It’s not cheap – a single half-hour session can cost up to $50 and isn’t covered by insurance. There’s also no good research to suggest that it can help with long COVID, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Ms. McNulty understands that but says many people who live with long COVID turn to these treatments out of a sense of desperation.

“When it comes to this condition, we kind of have to be our own advocates. People are so desperate and feel so gaslit by doctors who don’t believe in their symptoms that they play Russian roulette with their body,” she says. “Most just want some hope and a way to relieve pain.”

Across the country, 16 million Americans have long COVID, according to the Brookings Institution’s analysis of a 2022 Census Bureau report. The report also estimated that up to a quarter of them have such debilitating symptoms that they are no longer able to work. While long COVID centers may offer therapies to help relieve symptoms, “there are no evidence-based established treatments for long COVID at this point,” says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, who runs its Post-COVID Recovery Program. “You can’t blame patients for looking for alternative remedies to help them. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people out to make a buck who are selling unproven and disproven therapies.”
 

Sniffing out the snake oil

With few evidence-based treatments for long COVID, patients with debilitating symptoms can be tempted by unproven options. One that has gotten a lot of attention is hyperbaric oxygen. This therapy has traditionally been used to treat divers who have decompression sickness, or “the bends.” It’s also being touted by some clinics as an effective treatment for long COVID.

A very small trial of 73 patients with long COVID, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that those treated in a high-pressure oxygen system 5 days a week for 2 months showed improvements in brain fog, pain, energy, sleep, anxiety, and depression, compared with similar patients who got sham treatments. But larger studies are needed to show how well it works, notes Dr. Schamess.

“It’s very expensive – roughly $120 per session – and there just isn’t the evidence there to support its use,” he says.

In addition, the therapy itself carries risks, such as ear and sinus pain, middle ear injury, temporary vision changes, and, very rarely, lung collapse, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

One “particularly troubling” treatment being offered, says Kathleen Bell, MD, chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is stem cell therapy. This therapy is still in its infancy, but it’s being marketed by some clinics as a way to prevent COVID-19 and also treat long-haul symptoms.

The FDA has issued advisories that there are no products approved to treat long COVID and recommends against their use, except in a clinical trial.

“There’s absolutely no regulation – you don’t know what you’re getting, and there’s no research to suggest this therapy even works,” says Dr. Bell. It’s also prohibitively expensive – one Cayman Islands–based company advertises its treatment for as much as $25,000.

Patients with long COVID are even traveling as far as Cyprus, Germany, and Switzerland for a procedure known as blood washing, in which large needles are inserted into veins to filter blood and remove lipids and inflammatory proteins, the British Medical Journal reported in July. Some patients are also prescribed blood thinners to remove microscopic blood clots that may contribute to long COVID. But this treatment is also expensive, with many people paying $10,000-$15,000 out of pocket, and there’s no published evidence to suggest it works, according to the BMJ.

It can be particularly hard to discern what may work and what’s unproven, since many primary care providers are themselves unfamiliar with even traditional long COVID treatments, Dr. Bell says.
 

Sorting through supplements

Yufang Lin, MD, an integrative specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, says many patients with long COVID enter her office with bags of supplements.

“There’s no data on them, and in large quantities, they may even be harmful,” she says.

Instead, she works closely with the Cleveland Clinic’s long COVID center to do a thorough workup of each patient, which often includes screening for certain nutritional deficiencies.

“Anecdotally, we do see many patients with long COVID who are deficient in these vitamins and minerals,” says Dr. Lin. “If someone is low, we will suggest the appropriate supplement. Otherwise, we work with them to institute some dietary changes.”

This usually involves a plant-based, anti-inflammatory eating pattern such as the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fatty fish, and healthy fats such as olive oil and avocados.

Other supplements some doctors recommend for patients with long COVID are meant to treat inflammation, Dr. Bell says, although there’s not good evidence they work. One is the antioxidant coenzyme Q10.

But a small preprint study published in The Lancet, of 121 patients with long COVID who took 500 milligrams a day of coenzyme Q10 for 6 weeks saw no differences in recovery, compared with those who took a placebo. Because the study is still a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed.

Another is probiotics. A small study, published in the journal Infectious Diseases Diagnosis & Treatment, found that a blend of five lactobacillus probiotics, along with a prebiotic called inulin, taken for 30 days, helped with long-term COVID symptoms such as coughing and fatigue. But larger studies need to be done to support their use.

One that may have more promise is omega-3 fatty acids. Like many other supplements, these may help with long COVID by easing inflammation, says Steven Flanagan, MD, a rehabilitation medicine specialist at NYU Langone who works with long COVID patients. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, are studying whether a supplement can help patients who have lost their sense of taste or smell after an infection, but results aren’t yet available.

Among the few alternatives that have been shown to help patients are mindfulness-based therapies – in particular, mindfulness-based forms of exercise such as tai chi and qi gong may be helpful, as they combine a gentle workout with stress reduction.

“Both incorporate meditation, which helps not only to relieve some of the anxiety associated with long COVID but allows patients to redirect their thought process so that they can cope with symptoms better,” says Dr. Flanagan.

A 2022 study, published in BMJ Open, found that these two activities reduced inflammatory markers and improved respiratory muscle strength and function in patients recovering from COVID-19.

“I recommend these activities to all my long COVID patients, as it’s inexpensive and easy to find classes to do either at home or in their community,” he says. “Even if it doesn’t improve their long COVID symptoms, it has other benefits such as increased strength and flexibility that can boost their overall health.”

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

Entrepreneur Maya McNulty, 49, was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Schenectady, N.Y., businesswoman spent 2 months in the hospital after catching the disease in March 2020. That September, she was diagnosed with long COVID.

“Even a simple task such as unloading the dishwasher became a major challenge,” she says.

Over the next several months, Ms. McNulty saw a range of specialists, including neurologists, pulmonologists, and cardiologists. She had months of physical therapy and respiratory therapy to help regain strength and lung function. While many of the doctors she saw were sympathetic to what she was going through, not all were.

“I saw one neurologist who told me to my face that she didn’t believe in long COVID,” she recalls. “It was particularly astonishing since the hospital they were affiliated with had a long COVID clinic.”

Ms. McNulty began to connect with other patients with long COVID through a support group she created at the end of 2020 on the social media app Clubhouse. They exchanged ideas and stories about what had helped one another, which led her to try, over the next year, a plant-based diet, Chinese medicine, and vitamin C supplements, among other treatments.

She also acted on unscientific reports she found online and did her own research, which led her to discover claims that some asthma patients with chronic coughing responded well to halotherapy, or dry salt therapy, during which patients inhale micro-particles of salt into their lungs to reduce inflammation, widen airways, and thin mucus. She’s been doing this procedure at a clinic near her home for over a year and credits it with helping with her chronic cough, especially as she recovers from her second bout of COVID-19.

It’s not cheap – a single half-hour session can cost up to $50 and isn’t covered by insurance. There’s also no good research to suggest that it can help with long COVID, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Ms. McNulty understands that but says many people who live with long COVID turn to these treatments out of a sense of desperation.

“When it comes to this condition, we kind of have to be our own advocates. People are so desperate and feel so gaslit by doctors who don’t believe in their symptoms that they play Russian roulette with their body,” she says. “Most just want some hope and a way to relieve pain.”

Across the country, 16 million Americans have long COVID, according to the Brookings Institution’s analysis of a 2022 Census Bureau report. The report also estimated that up to a quarter of them have such debilitating symptoms that they are no longer able to work. While long COVID centers may offer therapies to help relieve symptoms, “there are no evidence-based established treatments for long COVID at this point,” says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, who runs its Post-COVID Recovery Program. “You can’t blame patients for looking for alternative remedies to help them. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people out to make a buck who are selling unproven and disproven therapies.”
 

Sniffing out the snake oil

With few evidence-based treatments for long COVID, patients with debilitating symptoms can be tempted by unproven options. One that has gotten a lot of attention is hyperbaric oxygen. This therapy has traditionally been used to treat divers who have decompression sickness, or “the bends.” It’s also being touted by some clinics as an effective treatment for long COVID.

A very small trial of 73 patients with long COVID, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that those treated in a high-pressure oxygen system 5 days a week for 2 months showed improvements in brain fog, pain, energy, sleep, anxiety, and depression, compared with similar patients who got sham treatments. But larger studies are needed to show how well it works, notes Dr. Schamess.

“It’s very expensive – roughly $120 per session – and there just isn’t the evidence there to support its use,” he says.

In addition, the therapy itself carries risks, such as ear and sinus pain, middle ear injury, temporary vision changes, and, very rarely, lung collapse, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

One “particularly troubling” treatment being offered, says Kathleen Bell, MD, chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is stem cell therapy. This therapy is still in its infancy, but it’s being marketed by some clinics as a way to prevent COVID-19 and also treat long-haul symptoms.

The FDA has issued advisories that there are no products approved to treat long COVID and recommends against their use, except in a clinical trial.

“There’s absolutely no regulation – you don’t know what you’re getting, and there’s no research to suggest this therapy even works,” says Dr. Bell. It’s also prohibitively expensive – one Cayman Islands–based company advertises its treatment for as much as $25,000.

Patients with long COVID are even traveling as far as Cyprus, Germany, and Switzerland for a procedure known as blood washing, in which large needles are inserted into veins to filter blood and remove lipids and inflammatory proteins, the British Medical Journal reported in July. Some patients are also prescribed blood thinners to remove microscopic blood clots that may contribute to long COVID. But this treatment is also expensive, with many people paying $10,000-$15,000 out of pocket, and there’s no published evidence to suggest it works, according to the BMJ.

It can be particularly hard to discern what may work and what’s unproven, since many primary care providers are themselves unfamiliar with even traditional long COVID treatments, Dr. Bell says.
 

Sorting through supplements

Yufang Lin, MD, an integrative specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, says many patients with long COVID enter her office with bags of supplements.

“There’s no data on them, and in large quantities, they may even be harmful,” she says.

Instead, she works closely with the Cleveland Clinic’s long COVID center to do a thorough workup of each patient, which often includes screening for certain nutritional deficiencies.

“Anecdotally, we do see many patients with long COVID who are deficient in these vitamins and minerals,” says Dr. Lin. “If someone is low, we will suggest the appropriate supplement. Otherwise, we work with them to institute some dietary changes.”

This usually involves a plant-based, anti-inflammatory eating pattern such as the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fatty fish, and healthy fats such as olive oil and avocados.

Other supplements some doctors recommend for patients with long COVID are meant to treat inflammation, Dr. Bell says, although there’s not good evidence they work. One is the antioxidant coenzyme Q10.

But a small preprint study published in The Lancet, of 121 patients with long COVID who took 500 milligrams a day of coenzyme Q10 for 6 weeks saw no differences in recovery, compared with those who took a placebo. Because the study is still a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed.

Another is probiotics. A small study, published in the journal Infectious Diseases Diagnosis & Treatment, found that a blend of five lactobacillus probiotics, along with a prebiotic called inulin, taken for 30 days, helped with long-term COVID symptoms such as coughing and fatigue. But larger studies need to be done to support their use.

One that may have more promise is omega-3 fatty acids. Like many other supplements, these may help with long COVID by easing inflammation, says Steven Flanagan, MD, a rehabilitation medicine specialist at NYU Langone who works with long COVID patients. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, are studying whether a supplement can help patients who have lost their sense of taste or smell after an infection, but results aren’t yet available.

Among the few alternatives that have been shown to help patients are mindfulness-based therapies – in particular, mindfulness-based forms of exercise such as tai chi and qi gong may be helpful, as they combine a gentle workout with stress reduction.

“Both incorporate meditation, which helps not only to relieve some of the anxiety associated with long COVID but allows patients to redirect their thought process so that they can cope with symptoms better,” says Dr. Flanagan.

A 2022 study, published in BMJ Open, found that these two activities reduced inflammatory markers and improved respiratory muscle strength and function in patients recovering from COVID-19.

“I recommend these activities to all my long COVID patients, as it’s inexpensive and easy to find classes to do either at home or in their community,” he says. “Even if it doesn’t improve their long COVID symptoms, it has other benefits such as increased strength and flexibility that can boost their overall health.”

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

Entrepreneur Maya McNulty, 49, was one of the first victims of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Schenectady, N.Y., businesswoman spent 2 months in the hospital after catching the disease in March 2020. That September, she was diagnosed with long COVID.

“Even a simple task such as unloading the dishwasher became a major challenge,” she says.

Over the next several months, Ms. McNulty saw a range of specialists, including neurologists, pulmonologists, and cardiologists. She had months of physical therapy and respiratory therapy to help regain strength and lung function. While many of the doctors she saw were sympathetic to what she was going through, not all were.

“I saw one neurologist who told me to my face that she didn’t believe in long COVID,” she recalls. “It was particularly astonishing since the hospital they were affiliated with had a long COVID clinic.”

Ms. McNulty began to connect with other patients with long COVID through a support group she created at the end of 2020 on the social media app Clubhouse. They exchanged ideas and stories about what had helped one another, which led her to try, over the next year, a plant-based diet, Chinese medicine, and vitamin C supplements, among other treatments.

She also acted on unscientific reports she found online and did her own research, which led her to discover claims that some asthma patients with chronic coughing responded well to halotherapy, or dry salt therapy, during which patients inhale micro-particles of salt into their lungs to reduce inflammation, widen airways, and thin mucus. She’s been doing this procedure at a clinic near her home for over a year and credits it with helping with her chronic cough, especially as she recovers from her second bout of COVID-19.

It’s not cheap – a single half-hour session can cost up to $50 and isn’t covered by insurance. There’s also no good research to suggest that it can help with long COVID, according to the Cleveland Clinic.

Ms. McNulty understands that but says many people who live with long COVID turn to these treatments out of a sense of desperation.

“When it comes to this condition, we kind of have to be our own advocates. People are so desperate and feel so gaslit by doctors who don’t believe in their symptoms that they play Russian roulette with their body,” she says. “Most just want some hope and a way to relieve pain.”

Across the country, 16 million Americans have long COVID, according to the Brookings Institution’s analysis of a 2022 Census Bureau report. The report also estimated that up to a quarter of them have such debilitating symptoms that they are no longer able to work. While long COVID centers may offer therapies to help relieve symptoms, “there are no evidence-based established treatments for long COVID at this point,” says Andrew Schamess, MD, a professor of internal medicine at Ohio State Wexner Medical Center, who runs its Post-COVID Recovery Program. “You can’t blame patients for looking for alternative remedies to help them. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people out to make a buck who are selling unproven and disproven therapies.”
 

Sniffing out the snake oil

With few evidence-based treatments for long COVID, patients with debilitating symptoms can be tempted by unproven options. One that has gotten a lot of attention is hyperbaric oxygen. This therapy has traditionally been used to treat divers who have decompression sickness, or “the bends.” It’s also being touted by some clinics as an effective treatment for long COVID.

A very small trial of 73 patients with long COVID, published in the journal Scientific Reports, found that those treated in a high-pressure oxygen system 5 days a week for 2 months showed improvements in brain fog, pain, energy, sleep, anxiety, and depression, compared with similar patients who got sham treatments. But larger studies are needed to show how well it works, notes Dr. Schamess.

“It’s very expensive – roughly $120 per session – and there just isn’t the evidence there to support its use,” he says.

In addition, the therapy itself carries risks, such as ear and sinus pain, middle ear injury, temporary vision changes, and, very rarely, lung collapse, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

One “particularly troubling” treatment being offered, says Kathleen Bell, MD, chair of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, is stem cell therapy. This therapy is still in its infancy, but it’s being marketed by some clinics as a way to prevent COVID-19 and also treat long-haul symptoms.

The FDA has issued advisories that there are no products approved to treat long COVID and recommends against their use, except in a clinical trial.

“There’s absolutely no regulation – you don’t know what you’re getting, and there’s no research to suggest this therapy even works,” says Dr. Bell. It’s also prohibitively expensive – one Cayman Islands–based company advertises its treatment for as much as $25,000.

Patients with long COVID are even traveling as far as Cyprus, Germany, and Switzerland for a procedure known as blood washing, in which large needles are inserted into veins to filter blood and remove lipids and inflammatory proteins, the British Medical Journal reported in July. Some patients are also prescribed blood thinners to remove microscopic blood clots that may contribute to long COVID. But this treatment is also expensive, with many people paying $10,000-$15,000 out of pocket, and there’s no published evidence to suggest it works, according to the BMJ.

It can be particularly hard to discern what may work and what’s unproven, since many primary care providers are themselves unfamiliar with even traditional long COVID treatments, Dr. Bell says.
 

Sorting through supplements

Yufang Lin, MD, an integrative specialist at the Cleveland Clinic, says many patients with long COVID enter her office with bags of supplements.

“There’s no data on them, and in large quantities, they may even be harmful,” she says.

Instead, she works closely with the Cleveland Clinic’s long COVID center to do a thorough workup of each patient, which often includes screening for certain nutritional deficiencies.

“Anecdotally, we do see many patients with long COVID who are deficient in these vitamins and minerals,” says Dr. Lin. “If someone is low, we will suggest the appropriate supplement. Otherwise, we work with them to institute some dietary changes.”

This usually involves a plant-based, anti-inflammatory eating pattern such as the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fatty fish, and healthy fats such as olive oil and avocados.

Other supplements some doctors recommend for patients with long COVID are meant to treat inflammation, Dr. Bell says, although there’s not good evidence they work. One is the antioxidant coenzyme Q10.

But a small preprint study published in The Lancet, of 121 patients with long COVID who took 500 milligrams a day of coenzyme Q10 for 6 weeks saw no differences in recovery, compared with those who took a placebo. Because the study is still a preprint, it has not been peer-reviewed.

Another is probiotics. A small study, published in the journal Infectious Diseases Diagnosis & Treatment, found that a blend of five lactobacillus probiotics, along with a prebiotic called inulin, taken for 30 days, helped with long-term COVID symptoms such as coughing and fatigue. But larger studies need to be done to support their use.

One that may have more promise is omega-3 fatty acids. Like many other supplements, these may help with long COVID by easing inflammation, says Steven Flanagan, MD, a rehabilitation medicine specialist at NYU Langone who works with long COVID patients. Researchers at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, are studying whether a supplement can help patients who have lost their sense of taste or smell after an infection, but results aren’t yet available.

Among the few alternatives that have been shown to help patients are mindfulness-based therapies – in particular, mindfulness-based forms of exercise such as tai chi and qi gong may be helpful, as they combine a gentle workout with stress reduction.

“Both incorporate meditation, which helps not only to relieve some of the anxiety associated with long COVID but allows patients to redirect their thought process so that they can cope with symptoms better,” says Dr. Flanagan.

A 2022 study, published in BMJ Open, found that these two activities reduced inflammatory markers and improved respiratory muscle strength and function in patients recovering from COVID-19.

“I recommend these activities to all my long COVID patients, as it’s inexpensive and easy to find classes to do either at home or in their community,” he says. “Even if it doesn’t improve their long COVID symptoms, it has other benefits such as increased strength and flexibility that can boost their overall health.”

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A study in The Lancet Global Health takes a pessimistic view of our ability to eradicate measles by 2100, although rubella forecasts look a bit more promising.

So far, measles has been eliminated in 81 countries and rubella in 93. But factors such as antivaccination sentiment and misinformation linking vaccination to autism have led to occasional outbreaks. In addition, because the COVID-19 pandemic fueled lower routine vaccination coverage and postponed public health campaigns, some countries have also lost previously gained ground.

The study, which is slated for publication in the Oct. 1 issue of the Lancet Global Health, explored the likelihood of eliminating measles and rubella, based on vaccination strategies in 93 countries with the highest measles and rubella burden, under two vaccination scenarios: 1) a “business as usual” approach, that is, continuing current vaccination coverage via routine childhood immunization schedules and intermittent vaccination campaigns that target age groups to vaccinate quickly (known as SIAs); and 2) an “intensified investment approach” that scales up SIA vaccination coverage into the future.

Both vaccination scenarios were evaluated within the context of two national models (Johns Hopkins University and Public Health England), and one subnational model (Nigeria) for rubella transmission.

Lead author Amy Winter, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology and biostatistics, University of Georgia College of Public Health, Athens, told this news organization that “under the intensified investment scenario, rubella elimination is likely to be achieved in all 93 countries that were modeled [but] measles elimination is likely in some but not all countries.”

This is especially the case if the goal is cessation of vaccination campaigns, study authors noted when placing the research in context.

But Dr. Winter also emphasized that Nigeria offered specific lessons not seen in the national models.

For one, “when you’re conducting a vaccination campaign, it’s essential to be hitting kids who haven’t already had a routine vaccine.”

In addition, she stressed a need to improve vaccine equity by focusing on areas with really low coverage and then moving into areas with higher coverage.

“The Nigerian subnational analysis definitely illustrates the importance of achieving equitable vaccination and the need for potentially targeted strategies to improve vaccination,” she said. “The initial focus should be on getting areas with low coverage up to par.”

Still, “even with the intensified investment approach, we won’t be able to eradicate measles,” William Moss, MD, professor of epidemiology and executive director, International Vaccine Access Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not directly involved in the study, told this news organization.
 

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

In a related editorial (The Lancet Global Health. 2022 Oct 1. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X[22]00388-6), the authors noted that COVID-19 has markedly disrupted vaccination campaigns globally.

In 2017, 118 (61%) countries achieved the Global Vaccine Action Plan 2020 target of 90% or more national MCV1 (first dose of measles vaccine) coverage. Since that time, measles coverage has declined from 84%-85% in 2017 to 81% in 2021, leaving 24.7 million completely unprotected (also known as zero-dose children) and 14.7 million children underimmunized (that is, recipients of only 1 dose).

Notably, this is the lowest immunization level since 2008, with more than 5 million more children missing their first measles dose.

Dr. Moss has previously written on the biological feasibility of measles eradication and said that it’s not tenable to rely on increased vaccination coverage alone.

We need “new tools and the new strategies. One of the ones that we’re most excited about [is] microarray patches,” he said, noting that they are thermostable and can be administered by anyone.

Dr. Moss also said that, while he is hoping for point-of-care rapid diagnostics, the focus of the efforts needs to change.

“Where’s [the] measles virus coming from? Where’s it being exported from and where is it being imported to?” he posited, adding that the focus should be on these areas “to try to shut down transmission … a radical kind of second phase of a measles eradication puts aside equity and focuses on sources and sinks.”

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

“It’s not as contagious [as measles] and has a lower sort of herd immunity threshold because of it,” Dr. Winter said.

Dr. Winter and Dr. Moss report no relevant financial relationships. The study was funded by the World Health Organization, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

A statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America, published online in Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, offers health care providers guidelines on how to prevent inappropriate antibiotic use in future pandemics and to avoid some of the negative scenarios that have been seen with COVID-19.

According to the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 pandemic brought an alarming increase in antimicrobial resistance in hospitals, with infections and deaths caused by resistant bacteria and fungi going up by 15%. For some pathogens, such as the Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, that number is now as high as 78%.

The culprit might be the widespread antibiotic overprescription during the current pandemic. A 2022 meta-analysis revealed that in high-income countries, 58% of patients with COVID-19 were given antibiotics, whereas in lower- and middle-income countries, 89% of patients were put on such drugs. Some hospitals in Europe and the United States reported similarly elevated numbers, sometimes approaching 100%.

“We’ve lost control,” Natasha Pettit, PharmD, pharmacy director at University of Chicago Medicine, told this news organization. Dr. Pettit was not involved in the SHEA study. “Even if CDC didn’t come out with that data, I can tell you right now more of my time is spent trying to figure out how to manage these multi-drug–resistant infections, and we are running out of options for these patients,”

“Dealing with uncertainty, exhaustion, [and] critical illness in often young, otherwise healthy patients meant doctors wanted to do something for their patients,” said Tamar Barlam, MD, an infectious diseases expert at the Boston Medical Center who led the development of the SHEA white paper, in an interview.

That something often was a prescription for antibiotics, even without a clear indication that they were actually needed. A British study revealed that in times of pandemic uncertainty, clinicians often reached for antibiotics “just in case” and referred to conservative prescribing as “bravery.”

Studies have shown, however, that bacterial co-infections in COVID-19 are rare. A 2020 meta-analysis of 24 studies concluded that only 3.5% of patients had a bacterial co-infection on presentation, and 14.3% had a secondary infection. Similar patterns had previously been observed in other viral outbreaks. Research on MERS-CoV, for example, documented only 1% of patients with a bacterial co-infection on admission. During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, that number was 12% of non–ICU hospitalized patients.

Yet, according to Dr. Pettit, even when such data became available, it didn’t necessarily change prescribing patterns. “Information was coming at us so quickly, I think the providers didn’t have a moment to see the data, to understand what it meant for their prescribing. Having external guidance earlier on would have been hugely helpful,” she told this news organization.

That’s where the newly published SHEA statement comes in: It outlines recommendations on when to prescribe antibiotics during a respiratory viral pandemic, what tests to order, and when to de-escalate or discontinue the treatment. These recommendations include, for instance, advice to not trust inflammatory markers as reliable indicators of bacterial or fungal infection and to not use procalcitonin routinely to aid in the decision to initiate antibiotics.

According to Dr. Barlam, one of the crucial lessons here is that if clinicians see patients with symptoms that are consistent with the current pandemic, they should trust their own impressions and avoid reaching for antimicrobials “just in case.”

Another important lesson is that antibiotic stewardship programs have a huge role to play during pandemics. They should not only monitor prescribing but also compile new information on bacterial co-infections as it gets released and make sure it reaches the clinicians in a clear form.

Evidence suggests that such programs and guidelines do work to limit unnecessary antibiotic use. In one medical center in Chicago, for example, before recommendations on when to initiate and discontinue antimicrobials were released, over 74% of COVID-19 patients received antibiotics. After guidelines were put in place, the use of such drugs fell to 42%.

Dr. Pettit believes, however, that it’s important not to leave each medical center to its own devices. “Hindsight is always twenty-twenty,” she said, “but I think it would be great that, if we start hearing about a pathogen that might lead to another pandemic, we should have a mechanism in place to call together an expert body to get guidance for how antimicrobial stewardship programs should get involved.”

One of the authors of the SHEA statement, Susan Seo, reports an investigator-initiated Merck grant on cost-effectiveness of letermovir in hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients. Another author, Graeme Forrest, reports a clinical study grant from Regeneron for inpatient monoclonals against SARS-CoV-2. All other authors report no conflicts of interest. The study was independently supported.

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

The broad-spectrum antibiotic minocycline (multiple brands) is not effective when added to standard antidepressant therapy, the largest randomized, controlled trial of minocycline in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) shows.

In the MinoTRD trial, 6 weeks of minocycline 200 mg daily added to stable antidepressant therapy did not show a statistically significant advantage over placebo on the overall course of depressive symptoms.

“The failure of minocycline treatment to reduce depressive symptoms in a naturalistic sample of patients with TRD is a setback for anti-inflammatory treatment strategies in this clinical population,” Julian Hellmann-Regen, MD, department of psychiatry and neurosciences, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote.  

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

No additional benefit

The “inflammatory hypothesis” of depression maintains that depression arises from increased immune activation and neurotrophic mechanisms.

This view is supported by observations that depression is accompanied by increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, low-grade inflammatory processes may interfere with response to typical antidepressant medications. 

Minocycline has been put forth as a novel antidepressant, and a few small trials have hinted at a benefit.

In the MinoTRD trial, 168 patients (mean age, 46 years; 53% men) with TRD were randomly allocated minocycline 200 mg/day or matching placebo in addition to usual antidepressant treatment for 6 weeks.

Results showed minocycline was well tolerated but was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, the researchers report.

Overall, the mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline was 26.5. There was no significant between-group difference in mean change in MADRS score from baseline to 6 weeks, the primary outcome.

After 6 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in MADRS score was 8.46 points in the minocycline group versus 8.01 points in the placebo group, and the difference of 1.46 points was not significant (P = .25).

Six weeks of minocycline treatment did not alter the course of depression severity, compared with placebo, the investigators noted.

Minocycline treatment also showed no statistically significant effect on secondary outcomes of response, remission, and various other clinical rating scales.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

The researchers noted that one explanation for the null result of the MinoTRD trial could be that the 6-week treatment duration was not long enough to reveal detectable differences. They point to a small study that showed a strong effect of minocycline, compared with placebo by and after 8 weeks of treatment.

However, a closer look at that study suggests the overall effect in the minocycline group was caused by an almost-complete lack of improvement in the placebo group, “which is very unusual,” the investigators wrote.

In the MinoTRD trial, the magnitude of improvement for placebo was as expected from similar trials in TRD, they pointed out.

They also noted that, unlike some other trials, the MinoTRD trial purposely recruited a naturalistic population of TRD, assuming (but not confirming) elevated baseline inflammation as a potential underlying cause in at least a subgroup of the patients.

Post hoc stratification by baseline CRP levels in MinoTRD participants did not yield any results supporting the hypothesis of minocycline treatment possibly being more effective in participants with higher-grade baseline inflammation, the researchers reported.

“Our results from this large randomized controlled trial of a pleiotropic anti-inflammatory drug in this difficult-to-treat patient population are of great clinical importance, robustly demonstrating that minocycline add-on treatment does not outperform placebo, not even in those participants with elevated levels of CRP prior to treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The trial was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Consortium Optimizing Treatment of Depression, as part of the Research Network for Psychiatric Disorders. Dr. Hellmann-Regen reported no relevant financial relationship.

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

The broad-spectrum antibiotic minocycline (multiple brands) is not effective when added to standard antidepressant therapy, the largest randomized, controlled trial of minocycline in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) shows.

In the MinoTRD trial, 6 weeks of minocycline 200 mg daily added to stable antidepressant therapy did not show a statistically significant advantage over placebo on the overall course of depressive symptoms.

“The failure of minocycline treatment to reduce depressive symptoms in a naturalistic sample of patients with TRD is a setback for anti-inflammatory treatment strategies in this clinical population,” Julian Hellmann-Regen, MD, department of psychiatry and neurosciences, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote.  

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

No additional benefit

The “inflammatory hypothesis” of depression maintains that depression arises from increased immune activation and neurotrophic mechanisms.

This view is supported by observations that depression is accompanied by increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, low-grade inflammatory processes may interfere with response to typical antidepressant medications. 

Minocycline has been put forth as a novel antidepressant, and a few small trials have hinted at a benefit.

In the MinoTRD trial, 168 patients (mean age, 46 years; 53% men) with TRD were randomly allocated minocycline 200 mg/day or matching placebo in addition to usual antidepressant treatment for 6 weeks.

Results showed minocycline was well tolerated but was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, the researchers report.

Overall, the mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline was 26.5. There was no significant between-group difference in mean change in MADRS score from baseline to 6 weeks, the primary outcome.

After 6 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in MADRS score was 8.46 points in the minocycline group versus 8.01 points in the placebo group, and the difference of 1.46 points was not significant (P = .25).

Six weeks of minocycline treatment did not alter the course of depression severity, compared with placebo, the investigators noted.

Minocycline treatment also showed no statistically significant effect on secondary outcomes of response, remission, and various other clinical rating scales.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

The researchers noted that one explanation for the null result of the MinoTRD trial could be that the 6-week treatment duration was not long enough to reveal detectable differences. They point to a small study that showed a strong effect of minocycline, compared with placebo by and after 8 weeks of treatment.

However, a closer look at that study suggests the overall effect in the minocycline group was caused by an almost-complete lack of improvement in the placebo group, “which is very unusual,” the investigators wrote.

In the MinoTRD trial, the magnitude of improvement for placebo was as expected from similar trials in TRD, they pointed out.

They also noted that, unlike some other trials, the MinoTRD trial purposely recruited a naturalistic population of TRD, assuming (but not confirming) elevated baseline inflammation as a potential underlying cause in at least a subgroup of the patients.

Post hoc stratification by baseline CRP levels in MinoTRD participants did not yield any results supporting the hypothesis of minocycline treatment possibly being more effective in participants with higher-grade baseline inflammation, the researchers reported.

“Our results from this large randomized controlled trial of a pleiotropic anti-inflammatory drug in this difficult-to-treat patient population are of great clinical importance, robustly demonstrating that minocycline add-on treatment does not outperform placebo, not even in those participants with elevated levels of CRP prior to treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The trial was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Consortium Optimizing Treatment of Depression, as part of the Research Network for Psychiatric Disorders. Dr. Hellmann-Regen reported no relevant financial relationship.

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

The broad-spectrum antibiotic minocycline (multiple brands) is not effective when added to standard antidepressant therapy, the largest randomized, controlled trial of minocycline in treatment-resistant depression (TRD) shows.

In the MinoTRD trial, 6 weeks of minocycline 200 mg daily added to stable antidepressant therapy did not show a statistically significant advantage over placebo on the overall course of depressive symptoms.

“The failure of minocycline treatment to reduce depressive symptoms in a naturalistic sample of patients with TRD is a setback for anti-inflammatory treatment strategies in this clinical population,” Julian Hellmann-Regen, MD, department of psychiatry and neurosciences, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, and colleagues wrote.  

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

No additional benefit

The “inflammatory hypothesis” of depression maintains that depression arises from increased immune activation and neurotrophic mechanisms.

This view is supported by observations that depression is accompanied by increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines. In addition, low-grade inflammatory processes may interfere with response to typical antidepressant medications. 

Minocycline has been put forth as a novel antidepressant, and a few small trials have hinted at a benefit.

In the MinoTRD trial, 168 patients (mean age, 46 years; 53% men) with TRD were randomly allocated minocycline 200 mg/day or matching placebo in addition to usual antidepressant treatment for 6 weeks.

Results showed minocycline was well tolerated but was not superior to placebo in reducing depressive symptoms, the researchers report.

Overall, the mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score at baseline was 26.5. There was no significant between-group difference in mean change in MADRS score from baseline to 6 weeks, the primary outcome.

After 6 weeks of treatment, the mean reduction in MADRS score was 8.46 points in the minocycline group versus 8.01 points in the placebo group, and the difference of 1.46 points was not significant (P = .25).

Six weeks of minocycline treatment did not alter the course of depression severity, compared with placebo, the investigators noted.

Minocycline treatment also showed no statistically significant effect on secondary outcomes of response, remission, and various other clinical rating scales.
 

Caveats and cautionary notes

The researchers noted that one explanation for the null result of the MinoTRD trial could be that the 6-week treatment duration was not long enough to reveal detectable differences. They point to a small study that showed a strong effect of minocycline, compared with placebo by and after 8 weeks of treatment.

However, a closer look at that study suggests the overall effect in the minocycline group was caused by an almost-complete lack of improvement in the placebo group, “which is very unusual,” the investigators wrote.

In the MinoTRD trial, the magnitude of improvement for placebo was as expected from similar trials in TRD, they pointed out.

They also noted that, unlike some other trials, the MinoTRD trial purposely recruited a naturalistic population of TRD, assuming (but not confirming) elevated baseline inflammation as a potential underlying cause in at least a subgroup of the patients.

Post hoc stratification by baseline CRP levels in MinoTRD participants did not yield any results supporting the hypothesis of minocycline treatment possibly being more effective in participants with higher-grade baseline inflammation, the researchers reported.

“Our results from this large randomized controlled trial of a pleiotropic anti-inflammatory drug in this difficult-to-treat patient population are of great clinical importance, robustly demonstrating that minocycline add-on treatment does not outperform placebo, not even in those participants with elevated levels of CRP prior to treatment initiation,” they wrote.

The trial was funded by a grant from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research within the Consortium Optimizing Treatment of Depression, as part of the Research Network for Psychiatric Disorders. Dr. Hellmann-Regen reported no relevant financial relationship.

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

A new guideline aims to help primary care doctors differentiate pollen food syndrome (PFS) – a cross-reactive allergic reaction to certain raw, but not cooked, plant foods – from other food allergies.

The guideline from the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) focuses on birch tree pollen, the major sensitizing PFS allergen in Northern Europe. Providers may be able to diagnose PFS related to birch pollen from clinical history alone, including the foods involved and the rapidity of symptom onset, write lead author Isabel J. Skypala, PhD, RD, of Imperial College London, and her colleagues.

The new BSACI guideline for diagnosis and management of PFS was published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
 

PFS is common and increasingly prevalent

PFS – also called oral allergy syndrome and pollen food allergy syndrome – is common and increasingly prevalent. PFS can begin at any age but usually starts in pollen-sensitized school-age children and adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptoms from similar proteins in food

Mild to moderate allergic symptoms develop quickly when people sensitized to birch pollen eat raw plant foods that contain proteins similar to those in the pollen, such as pathogenesis-related protein PR-10. The allergens are broken down by cooking or processing.

Symptoms usually occur immediately or within 15 minutes of eating. Patients may have tingling; itching or soreness in the mouth, throat, or ears; mild lip and oral mucosa angioedema; itchy hands, sneezing, or eye symptoms; tongue or pharynx angioedema; perioral rash; cough; abdominal pain; nausea; and/or worsening of eczema. In children, itch and rash may predominate.
 

Triggers depend on pollen type

PFS triggers vary depending on a person’s pollen sensitization, which is affected by their geographic area and local dietary habits. In the United Kingdom, almost 70% of birch-allergic adults and more than 40% of birch-allergic children have PFS, the authors write.

Typical triggers include eating apples, stone fruits, kiwis, carrots, celery, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, soymilk, and peanuts, as well as peeling potatoes or other root vegetables. Freshly prepared vegetable or fruit smoothies or juices, celery, soymilk, raw nuts, large quantities of roasted nuts, and concentrated nut products can cause more severe reactions.
 

Diagnostic clinical history

If a patient answers yes to these questions, they almost certainly have PFS, the authors write:

• Are symptoms caused by raw fruits, nuts, carrots, or celery?
• Are the same trigger foods tolerated when they’re cooked well or roasted?
• Do symptoms come immediately or within a few minutes of eating?
• Do symptoms occur in the oropharynx and include tingling, itching, or swelling?
• Does the patient have seasonal allergic rhinitis or sensitization to pollen?

Testing needed for some cases

Allergy tests may be needed for people who report atypical or severe reactions or who also react to cooked or processed plant foods, such as roasted nuts, nuts in foods, fruits or vegetables in juices and smoothies, and soy products other than milk. Tests may also be needed for people who react to foods that are not linked with PFS, such as cashews, pistachios, macadamias, sesame seeds, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.

Whether PFS reactions also occur to roasted hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, or peanuts, either alone or in composite foods such as chocolates, spreads, desserts, and snacks, is unclear.

An oral food challenge to confirm PFS is needed only if the history and diagnostic tests are inconclusive or if the patient is avoiding multiple foods.
 

Dietary management

PFS is managed by excluding known trigger foods. This becomes challenging for patients with preexisting food allergies and for vegetarians and vegans.

Personalized dietary advice is needed to avoid nutritional imbalance, minimize anxiety and unnecessary food restrictions, and improve quality of life. Reactions after accidental exposure often resolve without medication, and if antihistamines are needed, they rarely require self-injectable devices.
 

Guideline helpful beyond the United Kingdom and birch pollen

Allyson S. Larkin, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization in an email that the guideline summarizes in great detail the pathophysiology behind PFS and highlights how component testing may help diagnose patients and manage the condition.

“Patients worry very much about the progression and severity of allergic reactions,” said Dr. Larkin, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“As the authors note, recognizing the nutritional consequences of dietary restrictions is important, and nutrition consults and suitable alternative suggestions are very helpful for these patients, especially for those with food allergy or who are vegetarian or vegan.”

Jill A. Poole, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, noted that PFS, although common, is underrecognized by the public and by health care providers.

“People are not allergic to the specific food, but they are allergic to a seasonal allergen, such as birch tree, that cross-reacts with the food protein, which is typically changed with cooking,” she explained in an email.

“This differs from reactions by those who have moderate to severe allergic food-specific reactions that may include systemic reactions like anaphylaxis from eating certain foods,” she said.

“Importantly, the number of cross-reacting foods with seasonal pollens continues to grow, and the extent of testing has expanded in recent years,” advised Dr. Poole, who also was not involved in the guideline development. 

The authors recommend further related research into food immunotherapy and other novel PFS treatments. They also want to raise awareness of factors affecting PFS prevalence, such as increased spread and allergenicity of pollen due to climate change, pollution, the global consumption of previously local traditional foods, and the increase in vegetarian and vegan diets.

The authors, Dr. Larkin, and Dr. Poole report no relevant financial relationships involving this guideline. The guideline was not funded.

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

A new guideline aims to help primary care doctors differentiate pollen food syndrome (PFS) – a cross-reactive allergic reaction to certain raw, but not cooked, plant foods – from other food allergies.

The guideline from the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) focuses on birch tree pollen, the major sensitizing PFS allergen in Northern Europe. Providers may be able to diagnose PFS related to birch pollen from clinical history alone, including the foods involved and the rapidity of symptom onset, write lead author Isabel J. Skypala, PhD, RD, of Imperial College London, and her colleagues.

The new BSACI guideline for diagnosis and management of PFS was published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
 

PFS is common and increasingly prevalent

PFS – also called oral allergy syndrome and pollen food allergy syndrome – is common and increasingly prevalent. PFS can begin at any age but usually starts in pollen-sensitized school-age children and adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptoms from similar proteins in food

Mild to moderate allergic symptoms develop quickly when people sensitized to birch pollen eat raw plant foods that contain proteins similar to those in the pollen, such as pathogenesis-related protein PR-10. The allergens are broken down by cooking or processing.

Symptoms usually occur immediately or within 15 minutes of eating. Patients may have tingling; itching or soreness in the mouth, throat, or ears; mild lip and oral mucosa angioedema; itchy hands, sneezing, or eye symptoms; tongue or pharynx angioedema; perioral rash; cough; abdominal pain; nausea; and/or worsening of eczema. In children, itch and rash may predominate.
 

Triggers depend on pollen type

PFS triggers vary depending on a person’s pollen sensitization, which is affected by their geographic area and local dietary habits. In the United Kingdom, almost 70% of birch-allergic adults and more than 40% of birch-allergic children have PFS, the authors write.

Typical triggers include eating apples, stone fruits, kiwis, carrots, celery, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, soymilk, and peanuts, as well as peeling potatoes or other root vegetables. Freshly prepared vegetable or fruit smoothies or juices, celery, soymilk, raw nuts, large quantities of roasted nuts, and concentrated nut products can cause more severe reactions.
 

Diagnostic clinical history

If a patient answers yes to these questions, they almost certainly have PFS, the authors write:

• Are symptoms caused by raw fruits, nuts, carrots, or celery?
• Are the same trigger foods tolerated when they’re cooked well or roasted?
• Do symptoms come immediately or within a few minutes of eating?
• Do symptoms occur in the oropharynx and include tingling, itching, or swelling?
• Does the patient have seasonal allergic rhinitis or sensitization to pollen?

Testing needed for some cases

Allergy tests may be needed for people who report atypical or severe reactions or who also react to cooked or processed plant foods, such as roasted nuts, nuts in foods, fruits or vegetables in juices and smoothies, and soy products other than milk. Tests may also be needed for people who react to foods that are not linked with PFS, such as cashews, pistachios, macadamias, sesame seeds, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.

Whether PFS reactions also occur to roasted hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, or peanuts, either alone or in composite foods such as chocolates, spreads, desserts, and snacks, is unclear.

An oral food challenge to confirm PFS is needed only if the history and diagnostic tests are inconclusive or if the patient is avoiding multiple foods.
 

Dietary management

PFS is managed by excluding known trigger foods. This becomes challenging for patients with preexisting food allergies and for vegetarians and vegans.

Personalized dietary advice is needed to avoid nutritional imbalance, minimize anxiety and unnecessary food restrictions, and improve quality of life. Reactions after accidental exposure often resolve without medication, and if antihistamines are needed, they rarely require self-injectable devices.
 

Guideline helpful beyond the United Kingdom and birch pollen

Allyson S. Larkin, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization in an email that the guideline summarizes in great detail the pathophysiology behind PFS and highlights how component testing may help diagnose patients and manage the condition.

“Patients worry very much about the progression and severity of allergic reactions,” said Dr. Larkin, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“As the authors note, recognizing the nutritional consequences of dietary restrictions is important, and nutrition consults and suitable alternative suggestions are very helpful for these patients, especially for those with food allergy or who are vegetarian or vegan.”

Jill A. Poole, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, noted that PFS, although common, is underrecognized by the public and by health care providers.

“People are not allergic to the specific food, but they are allergic to a seasonal allergen, such as birch tree, that cross-reacts with the food protein, which is typically changed with cooking,” she explained in an email.

“This differs from reactions by those who have moderate to severe allergic food-specific reactions that may include systemic reactions like anaphylaxis from eating certain foods,” she said.

“Importantly, the number of cross-reacting foods with seasonal pollens continues to grow, and the extent of testing has expanded in recent years,” advised Dr. Poole, who also was not involved in the guideline development. 

The authors recommend further related research into food immunotherapy and other novel PFS treatments. They also want to raise awareness of factors affecting PFS prevalence, such as increased spread and allergenicity of pollen due to climate change, pollution, the global consumption of previously local traditional foods, and the increase in vegetarian and vegan diets.

The authors, Dr. Larkin, and Dr. Poole report no relevant financial relationships involving this guideline. The guideline was not funded.

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

A new guideline aims to help primary care doctors differentiate pollen food syndrome (PFS) – a cross-reactive allergic reaction to certain raw, but not cooked, plant foods – from other food allergies.

The guideline from the British Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) focuses on birch tree pollen, the major sensitizing PFS allergen in Northern Europe. Providers may be able to diagnose PFS related to birch pollen from clinical history alone, including the foods involved and the rapidity of symptom onset, write lead author Isabel J. Skypala, PhD, RD, of Imperial College London, and her colleagues.

The new BSACI guideline for diagnosis and management of PFS was published in Clinical & Experimental Allergy.
 

PFS is common and increasingly prevalent

PFS – also called oral allergy syndrome and pollen food allergy syndrome – is common and increasingly prevalent. PFS can begin at any age but usually starts in pollen-sensitized school-age children and adults with seasonal allergic rhinitis.

Symptoms from similar proteins in food

Mild to moderate allergic symptoms develop quickly when people sensitized to birch pollen eat raw plant foods that contain proteins similar to those in the pollen, such as pathogenesis-related protein PR-10. The allergens are broken down by cooking or processing.

Symptoms usually occur immediately or within 15 minutes of eating. Patients may have tingling; itching or soreness in the mouth, throat, or ears; mild lip and oral mucosa angioedema; itchy hands, sneezing, or eye symptoms; tongue or pharynx angioedema; perioral rash; cough; abdominal pain; nausea; and/or worsening of eczema. In children, itch and rash may predominate.
 

Triggers depend on pollen type

PFS triggers vary depending on a person’s pollen sensitization, which is affected by their geographic area and local dietary habits. In the United Kingdom, almost 70% of birch-allergic adults and more than 40% of birch-allergic children have PFS, the authors write.

Typical triggers include eating apples, stone fruits, kiwis, carrots, celery, hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, soymilk, and peanuts, as well as peeling potatoes or other root vegetables. Freshly prepared vegetable or fruit smoothies or juices, celery, soymilk, raw nuts, large quantities of roasted nuts, and concentrated nut products can cause more severe reactions.
 

Diagnostic clinical history

If a patient answers yes to these questions, they almost certainly have PFS, the authors write:

• Are symptoms caused by raw fruits, nuts, carrots, or celery?
• Are the same trigger foods tolerated when they’re cooked well or roasted?
• Do symptoms come immediately or within a few minutes of eating?
• Do symptoms occur in the oropharynx and include tingling, itching, or swelling?
• Does the patient have seasonal allergic rhinitis or sensitization to pollen?

Testing needed for some cases

Allergy tests may be needed for people who report atypical or severe reactions or who also react to cooked or processed plant foods, such as roasted nuts, nuts in foods, fruits or vegetables in juices and smoothies, and soy products other than milk. Tests may also be needed for people who react to foods that are not linked with PFS, such as cashews, pistachios, macadamias, sesame seeds, beans, lentils, and chickpeas.

Whether PFS reactions also occur to roasted hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, or peanuts, either alone or in composite foods such as chocolates, spreads, desserts, and snacks, is unclear.

An oral food challenge to confirm PFS is needed only if the history and diagnostic tests are inconclusive or if the patient is avoiding multiple foods.
 

Dietary management

PFS is managed by excluding known trigger foods. This becomes challenging for patients with preexisting food allergies and for vegetarians and vegans.

Personalized dietary advice is needed to avoid nutritional imbalance, minimize anxiety and unnecessary food restrictions, and improve quality of life. Reactions after accidental exposure often resolve without medication, and if antihistamines are needed, they rarely require self-injectable devices.
 

Guideline helpful beyond the United Kingdom and birch pollen

Allyson S. Larkin, MD, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization in an email that the guideline summarizes in great detail the pathophysiology behind PFS and highlights how component testing may help diagnose patients and manage the condition.

“Patients worry very much about the progression and severity of allergic reactions,” said Dr. Larkin, who was not involved in the guideline development.

“As the authors note, recognizing the nutritional consequences of dietary restrictions is important, and nutrition consults and suitable alternative suggestions are very helpful for these patients, especially for those with food allergy or who are vegetarian or vegan.”

Jill A. Poole, MD, professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine, Omaha, noted that PFS, although common, is underrecognized by the public and by health care providers.

“People are not allergic to the specific food, but they are allergic to a seasonal allergen, such as birch tree, that cross-reacts with the food protein, which is typically changed with cooking,” she explained in an email.

“This differs from reactions by those who have moderate to severe allergic food-specific reactions that may include systemic reactions like anaphylaxis from eating certain foods,” she said.

“Importantly, the number of cross-reacting foods with seasonal pollens continues to grow, and the extent of testing has expanded in recent years,” advised Dr. Poole, who also was not involved in the guideline development. 

The authors recommend further related research into food immunotherapy and other novel PFS treatments. They also want to raise awareness of factors affecting PFS prevalence, such as increased spread and allergenicity of pollen due to climate change, pollution, the global consumption of previously local traditional foods, and the increase in vegetarian and vegan diets.

The authors, Dr. Larkin, and Dr. Poole report no relevant financial relationships involving this guideline. The guideline was not funded.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against cooking chicken in NyQuil after a social media challenge that encouraged people to try it went viral.

Called the “sleepy chicken challenge,” the trend tells people to cook chicken in NyQuil or similar over-the-counter cough and cold medications, which include ingredients such as acetaminophen, dextromethorphan, and doxylamine.

“The challenge sounds silly and unappetizing – and it is. But it could also be very unsafe,” the FDA said. “Boiling a medication can make it much more concentrated and change its properties in other ways.”

Even if someone doesn’t plan to eat the chicken, inhaling the vapors of the medication while it cooks could cause high levels of the drug to enter the body.

“It could also hurt your lungs,” the FDA said. “Put simply: Someone could take a dangerously high amount of the cough and cold medicine without even realizing it.”

This isn’t the first time that social media challenges involving medicine have gone viral. In a 2020 TikTok challenge, people were encouraged to take large doses of the allergy medicine diphenhydramine, called the “Benadryl challenge,” to cause hallucinations. The FDA received several reports of teens who were hospitalized or died, and it issued a warning about taking high doses of the drug.

“These video challenges, which often target youths, can harm people – and even cause death,” the FDA said. “Nonprescription (also called over-the-counter or OTC) drugs are readily available in many homes, making these challenges even more risky.”

In the latest warning, the FDA provided several ways for parents to make it less likely for children to do the social media challenges, such as locking up prescription and over-the-counter medications to prevent accidental overdoses. The FDA also encouraged parents and guardians to have open conversations with their children.

“Sit down with your children and discuss the dangers of misusing drugs and how social media trends can lead to real, sometimes irreversible, damage,” the FDA said. “Remind your children that overdoses can occur with OTC drugs as well as with prescription drugs.”

Following the FDA warning, the American Academy of Pediatrics also issued an advisory about social media trends. Some challenges, such as the ALS ice bucket challenge or the mannequin challenge, can be fun and positive activities. But medication-related challenges, such as the sleepy chicken and Benadryl challenges, can cause serious heart problems, seizures, coma, and even death.

“Teens’ brains are still developing. The part of the brain that handles rational thought, the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed until the mid-20s,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said. “This means teens are naturally more impulsive and likely to act before thinking through all of the ramifications.”

Social media rewards outrageous behavior, it wrote, and the more outrageous the behavior, the more likely someone will get more engagement online.

“It’s a quick moving, impulsive environment, and the fear of losing out is real for teens,” the academy said. “What they will focus on is that a popular kid in class did this and got hundreds of likes and comments.”

The academy suggested that parents and guardians talk with teens about which challenges are trending on social media and at school.

“Sometimes kids are more willing to talk about their peers than themselves,” it said. “Asking questions about school trends, friends and fads may yield more answers than direct questions about their own activities.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against cooking chicken in NyQuil after a social media challenge that encouraged people to try it went viral.

Called the “sleepy chicken challenge,” the trend tells people to cook chicken in NyQuil or similar over-the-counter cough and cold medications, which include ingredients such as acetaminophen, dextromethorphan, and doxylamine.

“The challenge sounds silly and unappetizing – and it is. But it could also be very unsafe,” the FDA said. “Boiling a medication can make it much more concentrated and change its properties in other ways.”

Even if someone doesn’t plan to eat the chicken, inhaling the vapors of the medication while it cooks could cause high levels of the drug to enter the body.

“It could also hurt your lungs,” the FDA said. “Put simply: Someone could take a dangerously high amount of the cough and cold medicine without even realizing it.”

This isn’t the first time that social media challenges involving medicine have gone viral. In a 2020 TikTok challenge, people were encouraged to take large doses of the allergy medicine diphenhydramine, called the “Benadryl challenge,” to cause hallucinations. The FDA received several reports of teens who were hospitalized or died, and it issued a warning about taking high doses of the drug.

“These video challenges, which often target youths, can harm people – and even cause death,” the FDA said. “Nonprescription (also called over-the-counter or OTC) drugs are readily available in many homes, making these challenges even more risky.”

In the latest warning, the FDA provided several ways for parents to make it less likely for children to do the social media challenges, such as locking up prescription and over-the-counter medications to prevent accidental overdoses. The FDA also encouraged parents and guardians to have open conversations with their children.

“Sit down with your children and discuss the dangers of misusing drugs and how social media trends can lead to real, sometimes irreversible, damage,” the FDA said. “Remind your children that overdoses can occur with OTC drugs as well as with prescription drugs.”

Following the FDA warning, the American Academy of Pediatrics also issued an advisory about social media trends. Some challenges, such as the ALS ice bucket challenge or the mannequin challenge, can be fun and positive activities. But medication-related challenges, such as the sleepy chicken and Benadryl challenges, can cause serious heart problems, seizures, coma, and even death.

“Teens’ brains are still developing. The part of the brain that handles rational thought, the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed until the mid-20s,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said. “This means teens are naturally more impulsive and likely to act before thinking through all of the ramifications.”

Social media rewards outrageous behavior, it wrote, and the more outrageous the behavior, the more likely someone will get more engagement online.

“It’s a quick moving, impulsive environment, and the fear of losing out is real for teens,” the academy said. “What they will focus on is that a popular kid in class did this and got hundreds of likes and comments.”

The academy suggested that parents and guardians talk with teens about which challenges are trending on social media and at school.

“Sometimes kids are more willing to talk about their peers than themselves,” it said. “Asking questions about school trends, friends and fads may yield more answers than direct questions about their own activities.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning against cooking chicken in NyQuil after a social media challenge that encouraged people to try it went viral.

Called the “sleepy chicken challenge,” the trend tells people to cook chicken in NyQuil or similar over-the-counter cough and cold medications, which include ingredients such as acetaminophen, dextromethorphan, and doxylamine.

“The challenge sounds silly and unappetizing – and it is. But it could also be very unsafe,” the FDA said. “Boiling a medication can make it much more concentrated and change its properties in other ways.”

Even if someone doesn’t plan to eat the chicken, inhaling the vapors of the medication while it cooks could cause high levels of the drug to enter the body.

“It could also hurt your lungs,” the FDA said. “Put simply: Someone could take a dangerously high amount of the cough and cold medicine without even realizing it.”

This isn’t the first time that social media challenges involving medicine have gone viral. In a 2020 TikTok challenge, people were encouraged to take large doses of the allergy medicine diphenhydramine, called the “Benadryl challenge,” to cause hallucinations. The FDA received several reports of teens who were hospitalized or died, and it issued a warning about taking high doses of the drug.

“These video challenges, which often target youths, can harm people – and even cause death,” the FDA said. “Nonprescription (also called over-the-counter or OTC) drugs are readily available in many homes, making these challenges even more risky.”

In the latest warning, the FDA provided several ways for parents to make it less likely for children to do the social media challenges, such as locking up prescription and over-the-counter medications to prevent accidental overdoses. The FDA also encouraged parents and guardians to have open conversations with their children.

“Sit down with your children and discuss the dangers of misusing drugs and how social media trends can lead to real, sometimes irreversible, damage,” the FDA said. “Remind your children that overdoses can occur with OTC drugs as well as with prescription drugs.”

Following the FDA warning, the American Academy of Pediatrics also issued an advisory about social media trends. Some challenges, such as the ALS ice bucket challenge or the mannequin challenge, can be fun and positive activities. But medication-related challenges, such as the sleepy chicken and Benadryl challenges, can cause serious heart problems, seizures, coma, and even death.

“Teens’ brains are still developing. The part of the brain that handles rational thought, the prefrontal cortex, is not fully developed until the mid-20s,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said. “This means teens are naturally more impulsive and likely to act before thinking through all of the ramifications.”

Social media rewards outrageous behavior, it wrote, and the more outrageous the behavior, the more likely someone will get more engagement online.

“It’s a quick moving, impulsive environment, and the fear of losing out is real for teens,” the academy said. “What they will focus on is that a popular kid in class did this and got hundreds of likes and comments.”

The academy suggested that parents and guardians talk with teens about which challenges are trending on social media and at school.

“Sometimes kids are more willing to talk about their peers than themselves,” it said. “Asking questions about school trends, friends and fads may yield more answers than direct questions about their own activities.”

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

Metabolism a player in circadian rhythm section

Are you an early bird, or do you wake up and stare at your phone, wondering why you were up watching “The Crown” until 3 a.m.? Recent research suggests that people who wake up earlier tend to be more active during the day and burn more fat than those who sleep in. Fat builds up in the night owls, putting them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

The study gives physicians something to think about when assessing a patient’s risk factors. “This could help medical professionals consider another behavioral factor contributing to disease risk,” Steven Malin, PhD, lead author of the study and expert in metabolism at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., said in The Guardian.

Geber86/E+

For the research, 51 participants were divided into night owls and early birds, depending on their answers to a questionnaire. They were examined, monitored for a week, and assessed while doing various activities. Those who woke up early tended to be more sensitive to insulin and burned off fat faster than those who woke up late, the researchers explained.

“Night owls are reported to have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease when compared with early birds,” Dr. Malin said. “A potential explanation is they become misaligned with their circadian rhythm for various reasons, but most notably among adults would be work.”

We all know that we may not be at our best when we throw off our internal clocks by going to sleep late and waking up early. Think about that next time you start another episode on Netflix at 2:57 a.m.
 

Mosquitoes, chemical cocktails, and glass sock beads

We all know that mosquitoes are annoying little disease vectors with a taste for human blood. One of the less-known things about mosquitoes is what attracts them to humans in the first place. It’s so less known that, until now, it was unknown. Oh sure, we knew that odor was involved, and that lactic acid was part of the odor equation, but what are the specific chemicals? Well, there’s carbon dioxide … and ammonia. Those were already known.

Ring Cardé, PhD, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, wasn’t convinced. “I suspected there was something undiscovered about the chemistry of odors luring the yellow fever mosquito. I wanted to nail down the exact blend,” he said in a statement from the university.

Dr. Cardé and his associates eventually figured out that the exact chemical cocktail attracting female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes was a combination of carbon dioxide plus two chemicals, 2-ketoglutaric acid and lactic acid. The odor from these chemicals enables mosquitoes to locate and land on their victim and “also encourages probing, the use of piercing mouthparts to find blood,” the university said.

This amazing destination of science is important, but we have to acknowledge the journey as well. To do that we turn to one of Dr. Cardé’s associates, Jan Bello, PhD, formerly of Cal-Riverside and now with insect pest control company Provivi. Turns out that 2-ketoglutaric acid is tricky stuff because the methods typically used to identify chemicals don’t work on it.

Dr. Bello employed a somewhat unorthodox chemical extraction method: He filled his socks with glass beads and walked around with the beads in his socks.

Jan Bello/UCR

“Wearing the beads felt almost like a massage, like squeezing stress balls full of sand, but with your feet,” Dr. Bello said. “The most frustrating part of doing it for a long time is that they would get stuck in between your toes, so it would be uncomfortable after a while.”

We hate when science gets stuck between our toes, but we love it when scientists write their own punchlines.
 

The MS drugs are better down where it’s wetter, take it from me

The myth of the mermaid is one with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history. The ancient Greeks had the mythological siren, while the Babylonians depicted kulullû (which were mermen – never let the Babylonians be known as noninclusive) in artwork as far back as 1600 BC. Cultures as far flung as Japan, southern Africa, and New Zealand have folkloric figures similar to the mermaid. It is most decidedly not a creation of western Europe, Hans Christian Andersen, or Disney.

AG Kostenis-Gomeza / University of Bonn

With that mild rant out of the way, let’s move to Germany and a group of researchers from the University of Bonn, who have not created a mermaid. They did, however, add human genes to a zebrafish for research purposes, which feels uncomfortably close. Nothing better than unholy animal-human hybrids, right?

Stick with us here, because the researchers did have a good reason for their gene splicing. Zebrafish and humans both have the GPR17 receptor, which is highly active in nerve tissue. When GPR17 is overactivated, diseases such as multiple sclerosis can develop. Because the zebrafish has this receptor, which performs the same function in its body as in ours, it’s a prime candidate for replacement. Also, zebrafish larvae are transparent, which makes it very easy to observe a drug working.

That said, fish and humans are very far apart, genetically speaking. Big shock right there. But by replacing their GPR17 receptor with ours, the scientists have created a fish that we could test drug candidates on and be assured that they would also work on humans. Actually testing drugs for MS on these humanized zebrafish was beyond the scope of the study, but the researchers said that the new genes function normally in the fish larvae, making them a promising new avenue for MS drug development.

Can we all promise not to tell Disney that human DNA can be spliced into a fish without consequence? Otherwise, we’re just going to have to sit through another “Little Mermaid” adaptation in 30 years, this one in super live-action featuring actual, real-life mermaids. And we’re not ready for that level of man-made horror just yet.
 

Beware of the fly vomit

Picture this: You’re outside at a picnic or barbecue, loading a plate with food. In a brief moment of conversation a fly lands right on top of your sandwich. You shoo it away and think nothing more of it, eating the sandwich anyway. We’ve all been there.

A recent study is making us think again.

John Stoffolano, an entomology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, claims that too much attention has been focused on pathogen transmission by the biting, blood-feeding flies when really we should be taking note of the nonbiting, or synanthropic, flies we live with, which may have a greater impact on the transmission of pathogens right in our own homes.

arian.suresh/PxHere

Metabolism a player in circadian rhythm section

Are you an early bird, or do you wake up and stare at your phone, wondering why you were up watching “The Crown” until 3 a.m.? Recent research suggests that people who wake up earlier tend to be more active during the day and burn more fat than those who sleep in. Fat builds up in the night owls, putting them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

The study gives physicians something to think about when assessing a patient’s risk factors. “This could help medical professionals consider another behavioral factor contributing to disease risk,” Steven Malin, PhD, lead author of the study and expert in metabolism at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., said in The Guardian.

Geber86/E+

For the research, 51 participants were divided into night owls and early birds, depending on their answers to a questionnaire. They were examined, monitored for a week, and assessed while doing various activities. Those who woke up early tended to be more sensitive to insulin and burned off fat faster than those who woke up late, the researchers explained.

“Night owls are reported to have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease when compared with early birds,” Dr. Malin said. “A potential explanation is they become misaligned with their circadian rhythm for various reasons, but most notably among adults would be work.”

We all know that we may not be at our best when we throw off our internal clocks by going to sleep late and waking up early. Think about that next time you start another episode on Netflix at 2:57 a.m.
 

Mosquitoes, chemical cocktails, and glass sock beads

We all know that mosquitoes are annoying little disease vectors with a taste for human blood. One of the less-known things about mosquitoes is what attracts them to humans in the first place. It’s so less known that, until now, it was unknown. Oh sure, we knew that odor was involved, and that lactic acid was part of the odor equation, but what are the specific chemicals? Well, there’s carbon dioxide … and ammonia. Those were already known.

Ring Cardé, PhD, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, wasn’t convinced. “I suspected there was something undiscovered about the chemistry of odors luring the yellow fever mosquito. I wanted to nail down the exact blend,” he said in a statement from the university.

Dr. Cardé and his associates eventually figured out that the exact chemical cocktail attracting female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes was a combination of carbon dioxide plus two chemicals, 2-ketoglutaric acid and lactic acid. The odor from these chemicals enables mosquitoes to locate and land on their victim and “also encourages probing, the use of piercing mouthparts to find blood,” the university said.

This amazing destination of science is important, but we have to acknowledge the journey as well. To do that we turn to one of Dr. Cardé’s associates, Jan Bello, PhD, formerly of Cal-Riverside and now with insect pest control company Provivi. Turns out that 2-ketoglutaric acid is tricky stuff because the methods typically used to identify chemicals don’t work on it.

Dr. Bello employed a somewhat unorthodox chemical extraction method: He filled his socks with glass beads and walked around with the beads in his socks.

Jan Bello/UCR

“Wearing the beads felt almost like a massage, like squeezing stress balls full of sand, but with your feet,” Dr. Bello said. “The most frustrating part of doing it for a long time is that they would get stuck in between your toes, so it would be uncomfortable after a while.”

We hate when science gets stuck between our toes, but we love it when scientists write their own punchlines.
 

The MS drugs are better down where it’s wetter, take it from me

The myth of the mermaid is one with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history. The ancient Greeks had the mythological siren, while the Babylonians depicted kulullû (which were mermen – never let the Babylonians be known as noninclusive) in artwork as far back as 1600 BC. Cultures as far flung as Japan, southern Africa, and New Zealand have folkloric figures similar to the mermaid. It is most decidedly not a creation of western Europe, Hans Christian Andersen, or Disney.

AG Kostenis-Gomeza / University of Bonn

With that mild rant out of the way, let’s move to Germany and a group of researchers from the University of Bonn, who have not created a mermaid. They did, however, add human genes to a zebrafish for research purposes, which feels uncomfortably close. Nothing better than unholy animal-human hybrids, right?

Stick with us here, because the researchers did have a good reason for their gene splicing. Zebrafish and humans both have the GPR17 receptor, which is highly active in nerve tissue. When GPR17 is overactivated, diseases such as multiple sclerosis can develop. Because the zebrafish has this receptor, which performs the same function in its body as in ours, it’s a prime candidate for replacement. Also, zebrafish larvae are transparent, which makes it very easy to observe a drug working.

That said, fish and humans are very far apart, genetically speaking. Big shock right there. But by replacing their GPR17 receptor with ours, the scientists have created a fish that we could test drug candidates on and be assured that they would also work on humans. Actually testing drugs for MS on these humanized zebrafish was beyond the scope of the study, but the researchers said that the new genes function normally in the fish larvae, making them a promising new avenue for MS drug development.

Can we all promise not to tell Disney that human DNA can be spliced into a fish without consequence? Otherwise, we’re just going to have to sit through another “Little Mermaid” adaptation in 30 years, this one in super live-action featuring actual, real-life mermaids. And we’re not ready for that level of man-made horror just yet.
 

Beware of the fly vomit

Picture this: You’re outside at a picnic or barbecue, loading a plate with food. In a brief moment of conversation a fly lands right on top of your sandwich. You shoo it away and think nothing more of it, eating the sandwich anyway. We’ve all been there.

A recent study is making us think again.

John Stoffolano, an entomology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, claims that too much attention has been focused on pathogen transmission by the biting, blood-feeding flies when really we should be taking note of the nonbiting, or synanthropic, flies we live with, which may have a greater impact on the transmission of pathogens right in our own homes.

arian.suresh/PxHere

Metabolism a player in circadian rhythm section

Are you an early bird, or do you wake up and stare at your phone, wondering why you were up watching “The Crown” until 3 a.m.? Recent research suggests that people who wake up earlier tend to be more active during the day and burn more fat than those who sleep in. Fat builds up in the night owls, putting them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

The study gives physicians something to think about when assessing a patient’s risk factors. “This could help medical professionals consider another behavioral factor contributing to disease risk,” Steven Malin, PhD, lead author of the study and expert in metabolism at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., said in The Guardian.

Geber86/E+

For the research, 51 participants were divided into night owls and early birds, depending on their answers to a questionnaire. They were examined, monitored for a week, and assessed while doing various activities. Those who woke up early tended to be more sensitive to insulin and burned off fat faster than those who woke up late, the researchers explained.

“Night owls are reported to have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease when compared with early birds,” Dr. Malin said. “A potential explanation is they become misaligned with their circadian rhythm for various reasons, but most notably among adults would be work.”

We all know that we may not be at our best when we throw off our internal clocks by going to sleep late and waking up early. Think about that next time you start another episode on Netflix at 2:57 a.m.
 

Mosquitoes, chemical cocktails, and glass sock beads

We all know that mosquitoes are annoying little disease vectors with a taste for human blood. One of the less-known things about mosquitoes is what attracts them to humans in the first place. It’s so less known that, until now, it was unknown. Oh sure, we knew that odor was involved, and that lactic acid was part of the odor equation, but what are the specific chemicals? Well, there’s carbon dioxide … and ammonia. Those were already known.

Ring Cardé, PhD, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, wasn’t convinced. “I suspected there was something undiscovered about the chemistry of odors luring the yellow fever mosquito. I wanted to nail down the exact blend,” he said in a statement from the university.

Dr. Cardé and his associates eventually figured out that the exact chemical cocktail attracting female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes was a combination of carbon dioxide plus two chemicals, 2-ketoglutaric acid and lactic acid. The odor from these chemicals enables mosquitoes to locate and land on their victim and “also encourages probing, the use of piercing mouthparts to find blood,” the university said.

This amazing destination of science is important, but we have to acknowledge the journey as well. To do that we turn to one of Dr. Cardé’s associates, Jan Bello, PhD, formerly of Cal-Riverside and now with insect pest control company Provivi. Turns out that 2-ketoglutaric acid is tricky stuff because the methods typically used to identify chemicals don’t work on it.

Dr. Bello employed a somewhat unorthodox chemical extraction method: He filled his socks with glass beads and walked around with the beads in his socks.

Jan Bello/UCR

“Wearing the beads felt almost like a massage, like squeezing stress balls full of sand, but with your feet,” Dr. Bello said. “The most frustrating part of doing it for a long time is that they would get stuck in between your toes, so it would be uncomfortable after a while.”

We hate when science gets stuck between our toes, but we love it when scientists write their own punchlines.
 

The MS drugs are better down where it’s wetter, take it from me

The myth of the mermaid is one with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history. The ancient Greeks had the mythological siren, while the Babylonians depicted kulullû (which were mermen – never let the Babylonians be known as noninclusive) in artwork as far back as 1600 BC. Cultures as far flung as Japan, southern Africa, and New Zealand have folkloric figures similar to the mermaid. It is most decidedly not a creation of western Europe, Hans Christian Andersen, or Disney.

AG Kostenis-Gomeza / University of Bonn

With that mild rant out of the way, let’s move to Germany and a group of researchers from the University of Bonn, who have not created a mermaid. They did, however, add human genes to a zebrafish for research purposes, which feels uncomfortably close. Nothing better than unholy animal-human hybrids, right?

Stick with us here, because the researchers did have a good reason for their gene splicing. Zebrafish and humans both have the GPR17 receptor, which is highly active in nerve tissue. When GPR17 is overactivated, diseases such as multiple sclerosis can develop. Because the zebrafish has this receptor, which performs the same function in its body as in ours, it’s a prime candidate for replacement. Also, zebrafish larvae are transparent, which makes it very easy to observe a drug working.

That said, fish and humans are very far apart, genetically speaking. Big shock right there. But by replacing their GPR17 receptor with ours, the scientists have created a fish that we could test drug candidates on and be assured that they would also work on humans. Actually testing drugs for MS on these humanized zebrafish was beyond the scope of the study, but the researchers said that the new genes function normally in the fish larvae, making them a promising new avenue for MS drug development.

Can we all promise not to tell Disney that human DNA can be spliced into a fish without consequence? Otherwise, we’re just going to have to sit through another “Little Mermaid” adaptation in 30 years, this one in super live-action featuring actual, real-life mermaids. And we’re not ready for that level of man-made horror just yet.
 

Beware of the fly vomit

Picture this: You’re outside at a picnic or barbecue, loading a plate with food. In a brief moment of conversation a fly lands right on top of your sandwich. You shoo it away and think nothing more of it, eating the sandwich anyway. We’ve all been there.

A recent study is making us think again.

John Stoffolano, an entomology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, claims that too much attention has been focused on pathogen transmission by the biting, blood-feeding flies when really we should be taking note of the nonbiting, or synanthropic, flies we live with, which may have a greater impact on the transmission of pathogens right in our own homes.

arian.suresh/PxHere