User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
As Omicron surges, hospital beds fill, but ICUs less affected
So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.
“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.
“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.
Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.
Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.
Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.
In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.
“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.
Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.
In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.
“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.
“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.
“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.
Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.
Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.
Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.
In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.
“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.
Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.
In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.
“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
So far, hospitalizations caused by the Omicron variant appear to be milder than in previous waves.
“We are seeing an increase in the number of hospitalizations,” Rahul Sharma, MD, emergency physician-in-chief for New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medicine, told the New York Times.
“We’re not sending as many patients to the ICU, we’re not intubating as many patients, and actually, most of our patients that are coming to the emergency department that do test positive are actually being discharged,” he said.
Most Omicron patients in ICUs are unvaccinated or have severely compromised immune systems, doctors told the newspaper.
Currently, about 113,000 COVID-19 patients are hospitalized across the country, according to the latest data from the Department of Health & Human Services. About 76% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, with about 16% of inpatient beds in use for COVID-19.
Early data suggests that the Omicron variant may cause less severe disease. But it’s easier to catch the variant, so more people are getting the virus, including people who have some immunity through prior infection or vaccination, which is driving up hospitalization numbers.
In New York, for instance, COVID-19 hospitalizations have surpassed the peak of last winter’s surge, the newspaper reported. In addition, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan declared a state of emergency on Jan. 4, noting that the state had more hospitalized COVID-19 patients than at any other time during the pandemic.
“We’re in truly crushed mode,” Gabe Kelen, MD, chair of the department of emergency medicine for the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, told the Times.
Earlier in the pandemic, hospitals faced challenges with stockpiling ventilators and personal protective equipment, doctors told the newspaper. Now they’re dealing with limits on hospital beds and staffing as health care workers test positive. The increase in COVID-19 cases has also come along with a rise in hospitalizations for other conditions such as heart attacks and strokes.
In response, some hospitals are considering cutting elective surgeries because of staff shortages and limited bed capacity, the newspaper reported. In the meantime, hospital staff and administrators are watching case numbers to see how high hospitalizations may soar because of the Omicron variant.
“How high will it go? Can’t tell you. Don’t know,” James Musser, MD, chair of pathology and genomic medicine at Houston Methodist, told the Times. “We’re all watching it, obviously, very, very closely.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Benign adrenal tumors linked to hypertension, type 2 diabetes
In more than 15% of people with benign adrenal tumors, the growths produce clinically relevant levels of serum cortisol that are significantly linked with an increased prevalence of hypertension and, in 5% of those with Cushing syndrome (CS), an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, based on data from more than 1,300 people with benign adrenal tumors, the largest reported prospective study of the disorder.
The study results showed that mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) from benign adrenal tumors “is very frequent and is an important risk condition for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, especially in older women,” said Alessandro Prete, MD, lead author of the study which was published online Jan. 3, 2022, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The impact of MACS on high blood pressure and risk for type 2 diabetes has been underestimated until now,” said Dr. Prete, an endocrinologist at the University of Birmingham (England), in a written statement.
Results from previous studies “suggested that MACS is associated with poor health. Our study is the largest to establish conclusively the extent of the risk and severity of high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in patients with MACS,” said Wiebke Arlt, MD, DSc, senior author and director of the Institute of Metabolism & Systems Research at the University of Birmingham.
All patients found to have a benign adrenal tumor should undergo testing for MACS and have their blood pressure and glucose levels measured regularly, Dr. Arlt advised in the statement released by the University of Birmingham.
MACS more common than previously thought
The new findings show that MACS “is more common and may have a more negative impact on health than previously thought, including increasing the risk for type 2 diabetes,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK. “The findings suggest that screening for MACS could help identify people – particularly women, in whom the condition was found to be more common – who may benefit from support to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes.”
The study included 1,305 people with newly diagnosed, benign adrenal tumors greater than 1 cm, a subset of patients prospectively enrolled in a study with the primary purpose of validating a novel way to diagnose adrenocortical carcinomas. Patients underwent treatment in 2011-2016 at any of 14 tertiary centers in 11 countries.
Researchers used a MACS definition of failure to suppress morning serum cortisol concentration to less than 50 nmol/L after treatment with 1 mg oral dexamethasone at 11 p.m. the previous evening in those with no clinical features of CS.
Roughly half of patients (n = 649) showed normal cortisol suppression with dexamethasone, identifying them as having nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, and about 35% showed possible MACS based on having moderate levels of excess cortisol.
Nearly 11% (n = 140) showed definitive MACS with more robust cortisol levels, and 5% (n = 65) received a diagnosis of clinically overt CS despite selection criteria meant to exclude people with clinical signs of CS.
There was a clear relationship between patient sex and severity of autonomous cortisol production. Among those with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, 64% were women, which rose to 74% women in those with definitive MACS and 86% women among those with CS. The median age of participants was 60 years old.
Increasing cortisol levels linked with cardiometabolic disease
Analysis of the prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index showed that, compared with people with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, those with definitive MACS had a significant 15% higher rate of hypertension and those with overt CS had a 37% higher rate.
Higher levels of excess cortisol were also directly linked with an increased need for treatment with three or more antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure. Those with definitive MACS had a significant 31% higher rate of being on three or more drugs, and those with overt CS had a greater than twofold higher rate.
People with overt CS also had a significant 62% higher rate of type 2 diabetes, compared with those with a nonfunctioning tumor, but in those with definitive MACS the association was not significant. However, people with definitive MACS or overt CS who had type 2 diabetes and also had significantly increased rates of requiring insulin treatment.
The findings show that “people with definitive MACS carry an increased cardiometabolic burden similar to that seen in CS even if they do not display typical features of clinically overt cortisol excess,” the authors wrote in the report.
Even among those with apparently nonfunctioning tumors, each 10 nmol/L rise in cortisol level during a dexamethasone-suppression test was associated with a higher cardiometabolic disease burden. This observation suggests that current diagnostic cutoffs for the suppression test may miss some people with clinically relevant autonomous cortisol secretion, the report said. The study findings also suggest that people with benign adrenal tumors show a progressive continuum of excess cortisol with clinical consequences that increase as levels increase.
Determine the consequences of cortisol secretion
“These data clearly support the European Society of Endocrinology guideline recommendations that clinicians should determine precisely the cardiometabolic consequences of mild cortisol secretion in patients with adrenal lesions,” André Lacroix, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
But Dr. Lacroix included some caveats. He noted the “potential pitfalls in relying on a single total serum cortisol value after the 1-mg dexamethasone test.” He also wondered whether the analysis used optimal cortisol values to distinguish patient subgroups.
Plus, “even in patients with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension is higher than in the general population, raising concerns about the cardiometabolic consequences of barely detectable cortisol excess,” wrote Dr. Lacroix, an endocrinologist at the CHUM Research Center and professor of medicine at the University of Montreal.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Prete, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Lacroix have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Arlt is listed as an inventor on a patent on the use of steroid profiling as a biomarker tool for the differential diagnosis of adrenal tumors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In more than 15% of people with benign adrenal tumors, the growths produce clinically relevant levels of serum cortisol that are significantly linked with an increased prevalence of hypertension and, in 5% of those with Cushing syndrome (CS), an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, based on data from more than 1,300 people with benign adrenal tumors, the largest reported prospective study of the disorder.
The study results showed that mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) from benign adrenal tumors “is very frequent and is an important risk condition for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, especially in older women,” said Alessandro Prete, MD, lead author of the study which was published online Jan. 3, 2022, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The impact of MACS on high blood pressure and risk for type 2 diabetes has been underestimated until now,” said Dr. Prete, an endocrinologist at the University of Birmingham (England), in a written statement.
Results from previous studies “suggested that MACS is associated with poor health. Our study is the largest to establish conclusively the extent of the risk and severity of high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in patients with MACS,” said Wiebke Arlt, MD, DSc, senior author and director of the Institute of Metabolism & Systems Research at the University of Birmingham.
All patients found to have a benign adrenal tumor should undergo testing for MACS and have their blood pressure and glucose levels measured regularly, Dr. Arlt advised in the statement released by the University of Birmingham.
MACS more common than previously thought
The new findings show that MACS “is more common and may have a more negative impact on health than previously thought, including increasing the risk for type 2 diabetes,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK. “The findings suggest that screening for MACS could help identify people – particularly women, in whom the condition was found to be more common – who may benefit from support to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes.”
The study included 1,305 people with newly diagnosed, benign adrenal tumors greater than 1 cm, a subset of patients prospectively enrolled in a study with the primary purpose of validating a novel way to diagnose adrenocortical carcinomas. Patients underwent treatment in 2011-2016 at any of 14 tertiary centers in 11 countries.
Researchers used a MACS definition of failure to suppress morning serum cortisol concentration to less than 50 nmol/L after treatment with 1 mg oral dexamethasone at 11 p.m. the previous evening in those with no clinical features of CS.
Roughly half of patients (n = 649) showed normal cortisol suppression with dexamethasone, identifying them as having nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, and about 35% showed possible MACS based on having moderate levels of excess cortisol.
Nearly 11% (n = 140) showed definitive MACS with more robust cortisol levels, and 5% (n = 65) received a diagnosis of clinically overt CS despite selection criteria meant to exclude people with clinical signs of CS.
There was a clear relationship between patient sex and severity of autonomous cortisol production. Among those with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, 64% were women, which rose to 74% women in those with definitive MACS and 86% women among those with CS. The median age of participants was 60 years old.
Increasing cortisol levels linked with cardiometabolic disease
Analysis of the prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index showed that, compared with people with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, those with definitive MACS had a significant 15% higher rate of hypertension and those with overt CS had a 37% higher rate.
Higher levels of excess cortisol were also directly linked with an increased need for treatment with three or more antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure. Those with definitive MACS had a significant 31% higher rate of being on three or more drugs, and those with overt CS had a greater than twofold higher rate.
People with overt CS also had a significant 62% higher rate of type 2 diabetes, compared with those with a nonfunctioning tumor, but in those with definitive MACS the association was not significant. However, people with definitive MACS or overt CS who had type 2 diabetes and also had significantly increased rates of requiring insulin treatment.
The findings show that “people with definitive MACS carry an increased cardiometabolic burden similar to that seen in CS even if they do not display typical features of clinically overt cortisol excess,” the authors wrote in the report.
Even among those with apparently nonfunctioning tumors, each 10 nmol/L rise in cortisol level during a dexamethasone-suppression test was associated with a higher cardiometabolic disease burden. This observation suggests that current diagnostic cutoffs for the suppression test may miss some people with clinically relevant autonomous cortisol secretion, the report said. The study findings also suggest that people with benign adrenal tumors show a progressive continuum of excess cortisol with clinical consequences that increase as levels increase.
Determine the consequences of cortisol secretion
“These data clearly support the European Society of Endocrinology guideline recommendations that clinicians should determine precisely the cardiometabolic consequences of mild cortisol secretion in patients with adrenal lesions,” André Lacroix, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
But Dr. Lacroix included some caveats. He noted the “potential pitfalls in relying on a single total serum cortisol value after the 1-mg dexamethasone test.” He also wondered whether the analysis used optimal cortisol values to distinguish patient subgroups.
Plus, “even in patients with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension is higher than in the general population, raising concerns about the cardiometabolic consequences of barely detectable cortisol excess,” wrote Dr. Lacroix, an endocrinologist at the CHUM Research Center and professor of medicine at the University of Montreal.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Prete, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Lacroix have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Arlt is listed as an inventor on a patent on the use of steroid profiling as a biomarker tool for the differential diagnosis of adrenal tumors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In more than 15% of people with benign adrenal tumors, the growths produce clinically relevant levels of serum cortisol that are significantly linked with an increased prevalence of hypertension and, in 5% of those with Cushing syndrome (CS), an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, based on data from more than 1,300 people with benign adrenal tumors, the largest reported prospective study of the disorder.
The study results showed that mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) from benign adrenal tumors “is very frequent and is an important risk condition for high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes, especially in older women,” said Alessandro Prete, MD, lead author of the study which was published online Jan. 3, 2022, in Annals of Internal Medicine.
“The impact of MACS on high blood pressure and risk for type 2 diabetes has been underestimated until now,” said Dr. Prete, an endocrinologist at the University of Birmingham (England), in a written statement.
Results from previous studies “suggested that MACS is associated with poor health. Our study is the largest to establish conclusively the extent of the risk and severity of high blood pressure and type 2 diabetes in patients with MACS,” said Wiebke Arlt, MD, DSc, senior author and director of the Institute of Metabolism & Systems Research at the University of Birmingham.
All patients found to have a benign adrenal tumor should undergo testing for MACS and have their blood pressure and glucose levels measured regularly, Dr. Arlt advised in the statement released by the University of Birmingham.
MACS more common than previously thought
The new findings show that MACS “is more common and may have a more negative impact on health than previously thought, including increasing the risk for type 2 diabetes,” commented Lucy Chambers, PhD, head of research communications at Diabetes UK. “The findings suggest that screening for MACS could help identify people – particularly women, in whom the condition was found to be more common – who may benefit from support to reduce their risk of type 2 diabetes.”
The study included 1,305 people with newly diagnosed, benign adrenal tumors greater than 1 cm, a subset of patients prospectively enrolled in a study with the primary purpose of validating a novel way to diagnose adrenocortical carcinomas. Patients underwent treatment in 2011-2016 at any of 14 tertiary centers in 11 countries.
Researchers used a MACS definition of failure to suppress morning serum cortisol concentration to less than 50 nmol/L after treatment with 1 mg oral dexamethasone at 11 p.m. the previous evening in those with no clinical features of CS.
Roughly half of patients (n = 649) showed normal cortisol suppression with dexamethasone, identifying them as having nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, and about 35% showed possible MACS based on having moderate levels of excess cortisol.
Nearly 11% (n = 140) showed definitive MACS with more robust cortisol levels, and 5% (n = 65) received a diagnosis of clinically overt CS despite selection criteria meant to exclude people with clinical signs of CS.
There was a clear relationship between patient sex and severity of autonomous cortisol production. Among those with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, 64% were women, which rose to 74% women in those with definitive MACS and 86% women among those with CS. The median age of participants was 60 years old.
Increasing cortisol levels linked with cardiometabolic disease
Analysis of the prevalence of hypertension and type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex, and body mass index showed that, compared with people with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors, those with definitive MACS had a significant 15% higher rate of hypertension and those with overt CS had a 37% higher rate.
Higher levels of excess cortisol were also directly linked with an increased need for treatment with three or more antihypertensive agents to control blood pressure. Those with definitive MACS had a significant 31% higher rate of being on three or more drugs, and those with overt CS had a greater than twofold higher rate.
People with overt CS also had a significant 62% higher rate of type 2 diabetes, compared with those with a nonfunctioning tumor, but in those with definitive MACS the association was not significant. However, people with definitive MACS or overt CS who had type 2 diabetes and also had significantly increased rates of requiring insulin treatment.
The findings show that “people with definitive MACS carry an increased cardiometabolic burden similar to that seen in CS even if they do not display typical features of clinically overt cortisol excess,” the authors wrote in the report.
Even among those with apparently nonfunctioning tumors, each 10 nmol/L rise in cortisol level during a dexamethasone-suppression test was associated with a higher cardiometabolic disease burden. This observation suggests that current diagnostic cutoffs for the suppression test may miss some people with clinically relevant autonomous cortisol secretion, the report said. The study findings also suggest that people with benign adrenal tumors show a progressive continuum of excess cortisol with clinical consequences that increase as levels increase.
Determine the consequences of cortisol secretion
“These data clearly support the European Society of Endocrinology guideline recommendations that clinicians should determine precisely the cardiometabolic consequences of mild cortisol secretion in patients with adrenal lesions,” André Lacroix, MD, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
But Dr. Lacroix included some caveats. He noted the “potential pitfalls in relying on a single total serum cortisol value after the 1-mg dexamethasone test.” He also wondered whether the analysis used optimal cortisol values to distinguish patient subgroups.
Plus, “even in patients with nonfunctioning adrenal tumors the prevalence of diabetes and hypertension is higher than in the general population, raising concerns about the cardiometabolic consequences of barely detectable cortisol excess,” wrote Dr. Lacroix, an endocrinologist at the CHUM Research Center and professor of medicine at the University of Montreal.
The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Prete, Dr. Chambers, and Dr. Lacroix have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Arlt is listed as an inventor on a patent on the use of steroid profiling as a biomarker tool for the differential diagnosis of adrenal tumors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
CDC panel recommends Pfizer COVID-19 boosters for ages 12-15
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC had already said 16- and 17-year-olds “may” receive a Pfizer booster but the new recommendation adds the 12- to 15-year-old group and strengthens the “may” to “should” for 16- and 17-year-olds.
The committee voted 13-1 to recommend the booster for ages 12-17. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, must still approve the recommendation for it to take effect.
The vote comes after the FDA on Jan. 3 authorized the Pfizer vaccine booster dose for 12- to 15-year-olds.
The FDA action updated the authorization for the Pfizer vaccine, and the agency also shortened the recommended time between a second dose and the booster to 5 months or more (from 6 months). A third primary series dose is also now authorized for certain immunocompromised children between 5 and 11 years old. Full details are available in an FDA news release.
The CDC on Jan. 4 also backed the shortened time frame and a third primary series dose for some immunocompromised children 5-11 years old. But the CDC delayed a decision on a booster for 12- to 15-year-olds until it heard from its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Jan. 5.
The decision came as school districts nationwide are wrestling with decisions of whether to keep schools open or revert to a virtual format as cases surge, and as pediatric COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reach new highs.
The only dissenting vote came from Helen Keipp Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.
She said after the vote, “I am just fine with kids getting a booster. This is not me against all boosters. I just really want the U.S. to move forward with all kids.”
Dr. Talbot said earlier in the comment period, “If we divert our public health from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, we are not going to make a big impact. Boosters are incredibly important but they won’t solve this problem of the crowded hospitals.”
She said vaccinating the unvaccinated must be the priority.
“If you are a parent out there who has not yet vaccinated your child because you have questions, please, please talk to a health care provider,” she said.
Among the 13 supporters of the recommendation was Oliver Brooks, MD, chief medical officer of Watts HealthCare Corporation in Los Angeles.
Dr. Brooks said extending the population for boosters is another tool in the toolbox.
“If it’s a hammer, we should hit that nail hard,” he said.
Sara Oliver, MD, ACIP’s lead for the COVID-19 work group, presented the case behind the recommendation.
She noted the soaring Omicron cases.
“As of Jan. 3, the 7-day average had reached an all-time high of nearly 500,000 cases,” Dr. Oliver noted.
Since this summer, she said, adolescents have had a higher rate of incidence than that of adults.
“The majority of COVID cases continue to occur among the unvaccinated,” she said, “with unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds having a 7-times-higher risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds. Unvaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds have around 11 times higher risk of hospitalization than vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds.
“Vaccine effectiveness in adolescents 12-15 years old remains high,” Dr. Oliver said, but evidence shows there may be “some waning over time.”
Discussion of risk centered on myocarditis.
Dr. Oliver said myocarditis rates reported after the Pfizer vaccine in Israel across all populations as of Dec. 15 show that “the rates of myocarditis after a third dose are lower than what is seen after the second dose.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Who needs self-driving cars when we’ve got goldfish?
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
If a fish can drive …
Have you ever seen a sparrow swim? Have you ever seen an elephant fly? How about a goldfish driving a car? Well, one of these is not just something out of a children’s book.
In a recent study, investigators from Ben-Gurion University did the impossible and got a fish to drive a robotic car on land. How?
No, there wasn’t a tiny steering wheel inside the tank. The researchers created a tank with video recognition ability to sync with the fish. This video shows that the car, on which the tank sat, would navigate in the direction that the fish swam. The goal was to get the fish to “drive” toward a visual target, and with a little training the fish was successful regardless of start point, the researchers explained.
So what does that tell us about the brain and behavior? Shachar Givon, who was part of the research team, said the “study hints that navigational ability is universal rather than specific to the environment.”
The study’s domain transfer methodology (putting one species in the environment of another and have them cope with an unfamiliar task) shows that other animals also have the cognitive ability to transfer skills from one terrestrial environment to another.
That leads us to lesson two. Goldfish are much smarter than we think. So please don’t tap on the glass.
We prefer ‘It’s not writing a funny LOTME article’!
So many medical journals spend all their time grappling with such silly dilemmas as curing cancer or beating COVID-19. Boring! Fortunately, the BMJ dares to stand above the rest by dedicating its Christmas issue to answering the real issues in medicine. And what was the biggest question? Which is the more accurate idiom: “It’s not rocket science,” or “It’s not brain surgery”?
English researchers collected data from 329 aerospace engineers and 72 neurosurgeons who took the Great British Intelligence Test and compared the results against 18,000 people in the general public.
The engineers and neurosurgeons were basically identical in four of the six domains, but neurosurgeons had the advantage when it came to semantic problem solving and engineers had an edge at mental manipulation and attention. The aerospace engineers were identical to the public in all domains, but neurosurgeons held an advantage in problem-solving speed and a disadvantage in memory recall speed.
The researchers noted that exposure to Latin and Greek etymologies during their education gave neurosurgeons the advantage in semantic problem solving, while the aerospace engineers’ advantage in mental manipulation stems from skills taught during engineering training.
But is there a definitive answer to the question? If you’ve got an easy task in front of you, which is more accurate to say: “It’s not rocket science” or “It’s not brain surgery”? Can we get a drum roll?
It’s not brain surgery! At least, as long as the task doesn’t involve rapid problem solving. The investigators hedged further by saying that “It’s a walk in the park” is probably more accurate. Plus, “other specialties might deserve to be on that pedestal, and future work should aim to determine the most deserving profession,” they wrote. Well, at least we’ve got something to look forward to in BMJ’s next Christmas issue.
For COVID-19, a syringe is the sheep of things to come
The logical approach to fighting COVID-19 hasn’t really worked with a lot of people, so how about something more emotional?
People love animals, so they might be a good way to promote the use of vaccines and masks. Puppies are awfully cute, and so are koalas and pandas. And who can say no to a sea otter?
Well, forget it. Instead, we’ve got elephants … and sheep … and goats. Oh my.
First, elephant Santas. The Jirasartwitthaya school in Ayutthaya, Thailand, was recently visited by five elephants in Santa Claus costumes who handed out hand sanitizer and face masks to the students, Reuters said.
“I’m so glad that I got a balloon from the elephant. My heart is pounding very fast,” student Biuon Greham said. And balloons. The elephants handed out sanitizer and masks and balloons. There’s a sentence we never thought we’d write.
And those sheep and goats we mentioned? That was a different party.
Hanspeter Etzold, who “works with shepherds, companies, and animals to run team-building events in the northern German town of Schneverdingen,” according to Reuters, had an idea to promote the use of the COVID-19 vaccine. And yes, it involved sheep and goats.
Mr. Etzold worked with shepherd Wiebke Schmidt-Kochan, who arranged her 700 goats and sheep into the shape of a 100-meter-long syringe using bits of bread laying on the ground. “Sheep are such likable animals – maybe they can get the message over better,” Mr. Etzold told AP.
If those are the carrots in an animals-as-carrots-and-sticks approach, then maybe this golf-club-chomping crab could be the stick. We’re certainly not going to argue with it.
To be or not to be … seen
Increased Zoom meetings have been another side effect of the COVID-19 pandemic as more and more people have been working and learning from home.
A recent study from Washington State University looked at two groups of people who Zoomed on a regular basis: employees and students. Individuals who made the change to remote work/learning were surveyed in the summer and fall of 2020. They completed assessments with questions on their work/classes and their level of self-consciousness.
Those with low self-esteem did not enjoy having to see themselves on camera, and those with higher self-esteem actually enjoyed it more. “Most people believe that seeing yourself during virtual meetings contributes to making the overall experience worse, but that’s not what showed up in my data,” said Kristine Kuhn, PhD, the study’s author.
Dr. Kuhn found that having the choice of whether to have the camera on made a big difference in how the participants felt. Having that control made it a more positive experience. Most professors/bosses would probably like to see the faces of those in the Zoom meetings, but it might be better to let people choose for themselves. The unbrushed-hair club would certainly agree.
CDC defends new COVID guidance as doctors raise concerns
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, Director Rochelle Walenksy, MD, said during a White House briefing Jan. 5.
Health officials recently shortened the recommended COVID-19 isolation and quarantine period from 10 days to 5, creating confusion amid an outbreak of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, which now accounts for 95% of cases in the United States.
Then, in slightly updated guidance, the CDC recommended using an at-home antigen test after 5 days of isolation if possible, even though these tests having aren’t as sensitive to the Omicron variant, according to the FDA.
“After we released our recs early last week, it became very clear people were interested in using the rapid test, though not authorized for this purpose after the end of their isolation period,” Dr. Walensky said. “We then provided guidance on how they should be used.”
“If that test is negative, people really do need to understand they must continue to wear their mask for those 5 days,” Dr. Walensky said.
But for many, the CDC guidelines are murky and seem to always change.
“Nearly 2 years into this pandemic, with Omicron cases surging across the country, the American people should be able to count on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for timely, accurate, clear guidance to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their communities,” American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, said in a statement. “Instead, the new recommendations on quarantine and isolation are not only confusing, but are risking further spread of the virus.”
About 31% of people remain infectious 5 days after a positive COVID-19 test, Dr. Harmon said, quoting the CDC’s own rationale for changing its guidance.
“With hundreds of thousands of new cases daily and more than a million positive reported cases on January 3, tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands of people – could return to work and school infectious if they follow the CDC’s new guidance on ending isolation after 5 days without a negative test,” he said. “Physicians are concerned that these recommendations put our patients at risk and could further overwhelm our health care system.”
Instead, Dr. Harmon said a negative test should be required for ending isolation.
“Reemerging without knowing one’s status unnecessarily risks further transmission of the virus,” he said.
Meanwhile, also during the White House briefing, officials said that early data continue to show that Omicron infections are less severe than those from other variants, but skyrocketing cases will still put a strain on the health care system.
“The big caveat is we should not be complacent,” presidential Chief Medical Adviser Anthony Fauci, MD, said a White House briefing Jan. 5.
He added that Omicron “could still stress our hospital system because a certain proportion of a large volume of cases, no matter what, are going to be severe.”
Cases continue to increase greatly. This week’s 7-day daily average of infections is 491,700 -- an increase of 98% over last week, Dr. Walensky said. Hospitalizations, while lagging behind case numbers, are still rising significantly: The daily average is 14,800 admissions, up 63% from last week. Daily deaths this week are 1,200, an increase of only 5%.
Dr. Walensky continues to encourage vaccinations, boosters, and other precautions.
“Vaccines and boosters are protecting people from the severe and tragic outcomes that can occur from COVID-19 infection,” she said. “Get vaccinated and get boosted if eligible, wear a mask, stay home when you’re sick, and take a test if you have symptoms or are looking for greater reassurance before you gather with others.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FDA approves levoketoconazole for Cushing syndrome
The Food and Drug Administration has approved levoketoconazole (Recorlev, Xeris Biopharma) for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adults with Cushing syndrome for whom surgery is not possible or was not curative.
Endogenous Cushing syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by chronically elevated cortisol levels, typically arising from a benign pituitary tumor. Left untreated, it can lead to reproductive problems and hirsutism in women, as well as serious complications, including diabetes, hypertension, tissue fragility, and mood disorders. Half of patients will die within 5 years if left untreated.
Levoketoconazole inhibits cortisol synthesis. The FDA approval was based on efficacy and safety data from two phase 3 studies involving a total of 166 patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome. In both the open-label, single-arm SONICS study and the randomized, placebo-controlled LOGICS trial, the drug significantly reduced and normalized mean urinary free cortisol levels and improved several secondary endpoints. The ongoing open-label OPTICS study will gather long-term data.
The Recorlev label includes boxed warnings about the potential for life-threatening hepatotoxicity and QT prolongation. Prior to and during treatment, patients should undergo liver enzyme testing, ECG, and correction of hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia.
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in less than 20%) include nausea/vomiting, hypokalemia, hemorrhage/contusion, systemic hypertension, headache, hepatic injury, abnormal uterine bleeding, erythema, fatigue, abdominal pain/dyspepsia, arthritis, upper respiratory infection, myalgia, arrhythmia, back pain, insomnia/sleep disturbances, and peripheral edema.
“Cushing syndrome is a rare disease that can be physically and emotionally devastating to the patient. Most patients endure years of symptoms prior to obtaining a diagnosis and are then faced with limited effective treatment options ... We are excited to see that the long and complicated path of rare drug development has reached FDA approval on a new therapeutic option for our underserved Cushing’s community,” Leslie Edwin, president of the Cushing’s Support & Research Foundation, said in a Xeris statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved levoketoconazole (Recorlev, Xeris Biopharma) for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adults with Cushing syndrome for whom surgery is not possible or was not curative.
Endogenous Cushing syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by chronically elevated cortisol levels, typically arising from a benign pituitary tumor. Left untreated, it can lead to reproductive problems and hirsutism in women, as well as serious complications, including diabetes, hypertension, tissue fragility, and mood disorders. Half of patients will die within 5 years if left untreated.
Levoketoconazole inhibits cortisol synthesis. The FDA approval was based on efficacy and safety data from two phase 3 studies involving a total of 166 patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome. In both the open-label, single-arm SONICS study and the randomized, placebo-controlled LOGICS trial, the drug significantly reduced and normalized mean urinary free cortisol levels and improved several secondary endpoints. The ongoing open-label OPTICS study will gather long-term data.
The Recorlev label includes boxed warnings about the potential for life-threatening hepatotoxicity and QT prolongation. Prior to and during treatment, patients should undergo liver enzyme testing, ECG, and correction of hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia.
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in less than 20%) include nausea/vomiting, hypokalemia, hemorrhage/contusion, systemic hypertension, headache, hepatic injury, abnormal uterine bleeding, erythema, fatigue, abdominal pain/dyspepsia, arthritis, upper respiratory infection, myalgia, arrhythmia, back pain, insomnia/sleep disturbances, and peripheral edema.
“Cushing syndrome is a rare disease that can be physically and emotionally devastating to the patient. Most patients endure years of symptoms prior to obtaining a diagnosis and are then faced with limited effective treatment options ... We are excited to see that the long and complicated path of rare drug development has reached FDA approval on a new therapeutic option for our underserved Cushing’s community,” Leslie Edwin, president of the Cushing’s Support & Research Foundation, said in a Xeris statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved levoketoconazole (Recorlev, Xeris Biopharma) for the treatment of endogenous hypercortisolemia in adults with Cushing syndrome for whom surgery is not possible or was not curative.
Endogenous Cushing syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by chronically elevated cortisol levels, typically arising from a benign pituitary tumor. Left untreated, it can lead to reproductive problems and hirsutism in women, as well as serious complications, including diabetes, hypertension, tissue fragility, and mood disorders. Half of patients will die within 5 years if left untreated.
Levoketoconazole inhibits cortisol synthesis. The FDA approval was based on efficacy and safety data from two phase 3 studies involving a total of 166 patients with endogenous Cushing syndrome. In both the open-label, single-arm SONICS study and the randomized, placebo-controlled LOGICS trial, the drug significantly reduced and normalized mean urinary free cortisol levels and improved several secondary endpoints. The ongoing open-label OPTICS study will gather long-term data.
The Recorlev label includes boxed warnings about the potential for life-threatening hepatotoxicity and QT prolongation. Prior to and during treatment, patients should undergo liver enzyme testing, ECG, and correction of hypokalemia and hypomagnesemia.
The most common adverse reactions (occurring in less than 20%) include nausea/vomiting, hypokalemia, hemorrhage/contusion, systemic hypertension, headache, hepatic injury, abnormal uterine bleeding, erythema, fatigue, abdominal pain/dyspepsia, arthritis, upper respiratory infection, myalgia, arrhythmia, back pain, insomnia/sleep disturbances, and peripheral edema.
“Cushing syndrome is a rare disease that can be physically and emotionally devastating to the patient. Most patients endure years of symptoms prior to obtaining a diagnosis and are then faced with limited effective treatment options ... We are excited to see that the long and complicated path of rare drug development has reached FDA approval on a new therapeutic option for our underserved Cushing’s community,” Leslie Edwin, president of the Cushing’s Support & Research Foundation, said in a Xeris statement.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AAN updates treatment guidance on painful diabetic neuropathy
Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.
“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
Multiple options
To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.
The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.
Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.
The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.
All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.
In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.
When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
Pain reduction, not elimination
Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.
For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.
“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”
Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.
The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.
“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
Multiple options
To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.
The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.
Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.
The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.
All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.
In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.
When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
Pain reduction, not elimination
Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.
For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.
“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”
Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.
The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Painful diabetic neuropathy is very common and can greatly affect an individual’s quality of life, guideline author Brian Callaghan, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, noted in a news release.
“This guideline aims to help neurologists and other doctors provide the highest quality patient care based on the latest evidence,” Dr. Callaghan said.
The recommendations update the 2011 AAN guideline on the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy. The new guidance was published online Dec. 27, 2021, in Neurology and has been endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine.
Multiple options
To update the guideline, an expert panel reviewed data from more than 100 randomized controlled trials published from January 2008 to April 2020.
The panel noted that more than 16% of individuals with diabetes experience painful diabetic neuropathy, but it often goes unrecognized and untreated. The guideline recommends clinicians assess patients with diabetes for peripheral neuropathic pain and its effect on their function and quality of life.
Before prescribing treatment, health providers should determine if the patient also has mood or sleep problems as both can influence pain perception.
The guideline recommends offering one of four classes of oral medications found to be effective for neuropathic pain: tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or imipramine; serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors such as duloxetine, venlafaxine, or desvenlafaxine; gabapentinoids such as gabapentin or pregabalin; and/or sodium channel blockers such as carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, or lacosamide.
All four classes of medications have “comparable effect sizes just above or just below our cutoff for a medium effect size” (standardized median difference, 0.5), the panel noted.
In addition, “new studies on sodium channel blockers published since the last guideline have resulted in these drugs now being recommended and considered as effective at providing pain relief as the other drug classes recommended in this guideline,” said Dr. Callaghan.
When an initial medication fails to provide meaningful improvement in pain, or produces significant side effects, a trial of another medication from a different class is recommended.
Pain reduction, not elimination
Opioids are not recommended for painful diabetic neuropathy. Not only do they come with risks, there is also no strong evidence they are effective for painful diabetic neuropathy in the long term, the panel wrote. Tramadol and tapentadol are also not recommended for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy.
“Current evidence suggests that the risks of the use of opioids for painful diabetic neuropathy therapy outweigh the benefits, so they should not be prescribed,” Dr. Callaghan said.
For patients interested in trying topical, nontraditional, or nondrug interventions to reduce pain, the guideline recommends a number of options including capsaicin, glyceryl trinitrate spray, and Citrullus colocynthis. Ginkgo biloba, exercise, mindfulness, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and tai chi are also suggested.
“It is important to note that the recommended drugs and topical treatments in this guideline may not eliminate pain, but they have been shown to reduce pain,” Dr. Callaghan said. “The good news is there are many treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy, so a treatment plan can be tailored specifically to each person living with this condition.”
Along with the updated guideline, the AAN has also published a new Polyneuropathy Quality Measurement Set to assist neurologists and other health care providers in treating patients with painful diabetic neuropathy.
The updated guideline was developed with financial support from the AAN.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY
Obesity prevention in infants benefits second-born too
According to a statement from the National Institutes of Health, who funded the study, it is the first such infant obesity intervention to show the spillover effect. Findings were published online Dec. 21, 2021, in Obesity.
The program is called Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories (INSIGHT) responsive parenting (RP) intervention, and it included guidance on feeding, sleep, interactive play, and regulating emotion.
Parents were given guidance by nurses who came to their homes on how to respond when their child is drowsy, sleeping, fussy, and alert. They also learned how to put infants to bed drowsy, but awake, and avoid feeding infants to get them to sleep; how to respond to infants waking up at night; when to start solid foods; how to limit inactive time; and how to use growth charts.
The control group program focused on safety and matched the guidance categories. For example, early visits included information on prevention of sudden infant death syndrome for sleep, breast milk storage and formula for feeding, and safe bathing.
Jennifer S. Savage, Center for Childhood Obesity Research, Penn State University, University Park, led the study that enrolled 117 infants in a randomized controlled trial. Mother and firstborn children were randomized to the RP or home safety intervention (control) group 10-14 days after delivery. Their second-born siblings were enrolled in an observation-only ancillary study.
Second-born children were delivered 2.5 (standard deviation, 0.9) years after firstborns. Anthropometrics were measured in both siblings at ages 3, 16, 28, and 52 weeks.
Firstborn children at 1 year had a body mass index (BMI) that was 0.44 kg/m2 lower than the control group (95% confidence interval, −0.82 to −0.06), and second-born children whose parents received the RP intervention with their first child had BMI that was 0.36 kg/m2 lower.
“What we saw here is that it worked again,” coauthor Ian Paul, MD, MSc, professor of pediatrics and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview.
“Once we imprint them with a certain approach to parenting with the first child, they’re doing the same thing with the second child, which is wonderful to see,” he said.
He noted that this happened with second children without any reinforcements or booster information.
Dr. Paul said it’s still not clear which of the interventions – whether related to feeding techniques or sleeping or activity – helps most. And for each family the problematic behaviors may be different.
Responsive parenting programs have shown success previously among firstborns, the authors wrote, but 80% of those children grow up with younger siblings, so an intervention that also benefits them is important.
Weighing the costs of the intervention
The intervention was extensive. It involved four hour-plus nurse visits a year, often by the same nurse who built a relationship with the family.
But Ms. Savage said that it is possible to replicate INSIGHT on a larger scale in the United States with the dozens of home visitation models.
“Currently, 21 home visitation models meet the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services criteria for evidence of effectiveness, such as Nurse Family Partnership, Family Check-up, and Early Head Start Home Based Option. There is an opportunity to use home visitation models at the national scale to potentially interrupt the cycle of poor multigenerational outcomes such as obesity,” she said.
Dr. Paul said the initial investment “can save money in the long term,” given what’s at stake. “We know that 20%-25% of 2- to 5-year-olds are already overweight or obese and if they are already overweight or obese at that age, that;’s likely to persist.”
However, he acknowledged that staff shortages and costs are a challenge.
“Other countries have made that investment in their health care system,” he said. “In the U.S. only a fraction of new mothers and babies get home visitation. The kind of work that we did for obesity prevention has not yet been incorporated into evidence-based models of home visitation, though it certainly could be.”
Dr. Paul said his team is hoping to collaborate with others in the near future on expanding this program to such models of home visitation.
Telehealth, though a less desirable option, compared with in-home visits, could also be utilized, he said.
Short of the comprehensive intervention, he said, many of the concepts can be put into practice by pediatricians and parents.
Dr. Paul noted that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has endorsed “responsive feeding” as the preferred approach to feeding infants and toddlers. Responsive feeding – helping parents recognize hunger and satiety cues as opposed to other distress cues – is a big part of the intervention.
“Feeding to soothe is not the preferred approach,” he said. “Food and milk and formula should be used for hunger.” That’s something pediatricians may not be stressing to parents, he said.
Pediatricians can also counsel parents on not using food as a reward. “We shouldn’t be giving kids M&Ms to teach them how to potty train,” he said.
‘Promising’ findings
Charles Wood, MD, a childhood obesity specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was not part of the study, called the findings “very promising.”
It also makes sense that the “aha moments” of first-time parents learning from the INSIGHT intervention would carry over to the second sibling, he said.
Dr. Wood agreed costs are a big factor. However, he said, the potential downstream costs of not preventing obesity are worse. And this study indicates the benefits may keep spreading with future siblings.
Dr. Wood said accessing obesity interventions outside the pediatrician visit can also help. Connecting patients with support groups or dietitians or with a counselor from Women, Infants, and Children can help. However, consistent messaging among the providers is key, he noted.
Dr. Wood’s research group is investigating text messaging platforms so parents can get answer to real-time questions, such as those about feeding behaviors.
He pointed to a limitation the authors mention, which is that the study was done in mostly White, highly educated, higher-income families.
“There’s a big problem with racial disparities and obesity,” Dr. Wood noted. “We definitely need solutions that address disparities as well.”
Mothers included in the study had given birth for the first time and their infants were enrolled after birth from a single maternity ward between January 2012 and March 2014. Major eligibility criteria were that the babies were full term (at least 37 weeks’ gestation), single births, and delivered to English-speaking mothers at least 20 years of age. Infants who weighed less than 2,500 g at birth were excluded.
The paper’s authors and Dr. Wood declared no relevant financial relationships.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; and the Department of Agriculture.
According to a statement from the National Institutes of Health, who funded the study, it is the first such infant obesity intervention to show the spillover effect. Findings were published online Dec. 21, 2021, in Obesity.
The program is called Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories (INSIGHT) responsive parenting (RP) intervention, and it included guidance on feeding, sleep, interactive play, and regulating emotion.
Parents were given guidance by nurses who came to their homes on how to respond when their child is drowsy, sleeping, fussy, and alert. They also learned how to put infants to bed drowsy, but awake, and avoid feeding infants to get them to sleep; how to respond to infants waking up at night; when to start solid foods; how to limit inactive time; and how to use growth charts.
The control group program focused on safety and matched the guidance categories. For example, early visits included information on prevention of sudden infant death syndrome for sleep, breast milk storage and formula for feeding, and safe bathing.
Jennifer S. Savage, Center for Childhood Obesity Research, Penn State University, University Park, led the study that enrolled 117 infants in a randomized controlled trial. Mother and firstborn children were randomized to the RP or home safety intervention (control) group 10-14 days after delivery. Their second-born siblings were enrolled in an observation-only ancillary study.
Second-born children were delivered 2.5 (standard deviation, 0.9) years after firstborns. Anthropometrics were measured in both siblings at ages 3, 16, 28, and 52 weeks.
Firstborn children at 1 year had a body mass index (BMI) that was 0.44 kg/m2 lower than the control group (95% confidence interval, −0.82 to −0.06), and second-born children whose parents received the RP intervention with their first child had BMI that was 0.36 kg/m2 lower.
“What we saw here is that it worked again,” coauthor Ian Paul, MD, MSc, professor of pediatrics and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview.
“Once we imprint them with a certain approach to parenting with the first child, they’re doing the same thing with the second child, which is wonderful to see,” he said.
He noted that this happened with second children without any reinforcements or booster information.
Dr. Paul said it’s still not clear which of the interventions – whether related to feeding techniques or sleeping or activity – helps most. And for each family the problematic behaviors may be different.
Responsive parenting programs have shown success previously among firstborns, the authors wrote, but 80% of those children grow up with younger siblings, so an intervention that also benefits them is important.
Weighing the costs of the intervention
The intervention was extensive. It involved four hour-plus nurse visits a year, often by the same nurse who built a relationship with the family.
But Ms. Savage said that it is possible to replicate INSIGHT on a larger scale in the United States with the dozens of home visitation models.
“Currently, 21 home visitation models meet the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services criteria for evidence of effectiveness, such as Nurse Family Partnership, Family Check-up, and Early Head Start Home Based Option. There is an opportunity to use home visitation models at the national scale to potentially interrupt the cycle of poor multigenerational outcomes such as obesity,” she said.
Dr. Paul said the initial investment “can save money in the long term,” given what’s at stake. “We know that 20%-25% of 2- to 5-year-olds are already overweight or obese and if they are already overweight or obese at that age, that;’s likely to persist.”
However, he acknowledged that staff shortages and costs are a challenge.
“Other countries have made that investment in their health care system,” he said. “In the U.S. only a fraction of new mothers and babies get home visitation. The kind of work that we did for obesity prevention has not yet been incorporated into evidence-based models of home visitation, though it certainly could be.”
Dr. Paul said his team is hoping to collaborate with others in the near future on expanding this program to such models of home visitation.
Telehealth, though a less desirable option, compared with in-home visits, could also be utilized, he said.
Short of the comprehensive intervention, he said, many of the concepts can be put into practice by pediatricians and parents.
Dr. Paul noted that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has endorsed “responsive feeding” as the preferred approach to feeding infants and toddlers. Responsive feeding – helping parents recognize hunger and satiety cues as opposed to other distress cues – is a big part of the intervention.
“Feeding to soothe is not the preferred approach,” he said. “Food and milk and formula should be used for hunger.” That’s something pediatricians may not be stressing to parents, he said.
Pediatricians can also counsel parents on not using food as a reward. “We shouldn’t be giving kids M&Ms to teach them how to potty train,” he said.
‘Promising’ findings
Charles Wood, MD, a childhood obesity specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was not part of the study, called the findings “very promising.”
It also makes sense that the “aha moments” of first-time parents learning from the INSIGHT intervention would carry over to the second sibling, he said.
Dr. Wood agreed costs are a big factor. However, he said, the potential downstream costs of not preventing obesity are worse. And this study indicates the benefits may keep spreading with future siblings.
Dr. Wood said accessing obesity interventions outside the pediatrician visit can also help. Connecting patients with support groups or dietitians or with a counselor from Women, Infants, and Children can help. However, consistent messaging among the providers is key, he noted.
Dr. Wood’s research group is investigating text messaging platforms so parents can get answer to real-time questions, such as those about feeding behaviors.
He pointed to a limitation the authors mention, which is that the study was done in mostly White, highly educated, higher-income families.
“There’s a big problem with racial disparities and obesity,” Dr. Wood noted. “We definitely need solutions that address disparities as well.”
Mothers included in the study had given birth for the first time and their infants were enrolled after birth from a single maternity ward between January 2012 and March 2014. Major eligibility criteria were that the babies were full term (at least 37 weeks’ gestation), single births, and delivered to English-speaking mothers at least 20 years of age. Infants who weighed less than 2,500 g at birth were excluded.
The paper’s authors and Dr. Wood declared no relevant financial relationships.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; and the Department of Agriculture.
According to a statement from the National Institutes of Health, who funded the study, it is the first such infant obesity intervention to show the spillover effect. Findings were published online Dec. 21, 2021, in Obesity.
The program is called Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories (INSIGHT) responsive parenting (RP) intervention, and it included guidance on feeding, sleep, interactive play, and regulating emotion.
Parents were given guidance by nurses who came to their homes on how to respond when their child is drowsy, sleeping, fussy, and alert. They also learned how to put infants to bed drowsy, but awake, and avoid feeding infants to get them to sleep; how to respond to infants waking up at night; when to start solid foods; how to limit inactive time; and how to use growth charts.
The control group program focused on safety and matched the guidance categories. For example, early visits included information on prevention of sudden infant death syndrome for sleep, breast milk storage and formula for feeding, and safe bathing.
Jennifer S. Savage, Center for Childhood Obesity Research, Penn State University, University Park, led the study that enrolled 117 infants in a randomized controlled trial. Mother and firstborn children were randomized to the RP or home safety intervention (control) group 10-14 days after delivery. Their second-born siblings were enrolled in an observation-only ancillary study.
Second-born children were delivered 2.5 (standard deviation, 0.9) years after firstborns. Anthropometrics were measured in both siblings at ages 3, 16, 28, and 52 weeks.
Firstborn children at 1 year had a body mass index (BMI) that was 0.44 kg/m2 lower than the control group (95% confidence interval, −0.82 to −0.06), and second-born children whose parents received the RP intervention with their first child had BMI that was 0.36 kg/m2 lower.
“What we saw here is that it worked again,” coauthor Ian Paul, MD, MSc, professor of pediatrics and public health sciences at Penn State University, Hershey, said in an interview.
“Once we imprint them with a certain approach to parenting with the first child, they’re doing the same thing with the second child, which is wonderful to see,” he said.
He noted that this happened with second children without any reinforcements or booster information.
Dr. Paul said it’s still not clear which of the interventions – whether related to feeding techniques or sleeping or activity – helps most. And for each family the problematic behaviors may be different.
Responsive parenting programs have shown success previously among firstborns, the authors wrote, but 80% of those children grow up with younger siblings, so an intervention that also benefits them is important.
Weighing the costs of the intervention
The intervention was extensive. It involved four hour-plus nurse visits a year, often by the same nurse who built a relationship with the family.
But Ms. Savage said that it is possible to replicate INSIGHT on a larger scale in the United States with the dozens of home visitation models.
“Currently, 21 home visitation models meet the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services criteria for evidence of effectiveness, such as Nurse Family Partnership, Family Check-up, and Early Head Start Home Based Option. There is an opportunity to use home visitation models at the national scale to potentially interrupt the cycle of poor multigenerational outcomes such as obesity,” she said.
Dr. Paul said the initial investment “can save money in the long term,” given what’s at stake. “We know that 20%-25% of 2- to 5-year-olds are already overweight or obese and if they are already overweight or obese at that age, that;’s likely to persist.”
However, he acknowledged that staff shortages and costs are a challenge.
“Other countries have made that investment in their health care system,” he said. “In the U.S. only a fraction of new mothers and babies get home visitation. The kind of work that we did for obesity prevention has not yet been incorporated into evidence-based models of home visitation, though it certainly could be.”
Dr. Paul said his team is hoping to collaborate with others in the near future on expanding this program to such models of home visitation.
Telehealth, though a less desirable option, compared with in-home visits, could also be utilized, he said.
Short of the comprehensive intervention, he said, many of the concepts can be put into practice by pediatricians and parents.
Dr. Paul noted that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has endorsed “responsive feeding” as the preferred approach to feeding infants and toddlers. Responsive feeding – helping parents recognize hunger and satiety cues as opposed to other distress cues – is a big part of the intervention.
“Feeding to soothe is not the preferred approach,” he said. “Food and milk and formula should be used for hunger.” That’s something pediatricians may not be stressing to parents, he said.
Pediatricians can also counsel parents on not using food as a reward. “We shouldn’t be giving kids M&Ms to teach them how to potty train,” he said.
‘Promising’ findings
Charles Wood, MD, a childhood obesity specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C., who was not part of the study, called the findings “very promising.”
It also makes sense that the “aha moments” of first-time parents learning from the INSIGHT intervention would carry over to the second sibling, he said.
Dr. Wood agreed costs are a big factor. However, he said, the potential downstream costs of not preventing obesity are worse. And this study indicates the benefits may keep spreading with future siblings.
Dr. Wood said accessing obesity interventions outside the pediatrician visit can also help. Connecting patients with support groups or dietitians or with a counselor from Women, Infants, and Children can help. However, consistent messaging among the providers is key, he noted.
Dr. Wood’s research group is investigating text messaging platforms so parents can get answer to real-time questions, such as those about feeding behaviors.
He pointed to a limitation the authors mention, which is that the study was done in mostly White, highly educated, higher-income families.
“There’s a big problem with racial disparities and obesity,” Dr. Wood noted. “We definitely need solutions that address disparities as well.”
Mothers included in the study had given birth for the first time and their infants were enrolled after birth from a single maternity ward between January 2012 and March 2014. Major eligibility criteria were that the babies were full term (at least 37 weeks’ gestation), single births, and delivered to English-speaking mothers at least 20 years of age. Infants who weighed less than 2,500 g at birth were excluded.
The paper’s authors and Dr. Wood declared no relevant financial relationships.
This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; and the Department of Agriculture.
FROM OBESITY
New CDC COVID-19 isolation guidelines still up for debate among experts
It’s a true Goldilocks debate: , with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”
The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.
Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.
As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:
- Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.
On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.
A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”
In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days.
“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
Under debate
Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.
Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.
And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.
However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.
Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”
Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”
The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.
Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.
Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.
Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
Tough decisions
The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.
The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.
Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”
Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.
That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a true Goldilocks debate: , with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”
The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.
Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.
As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:
- Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.
On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.
A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”
In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days.
“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
Under debate
Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.
Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.
And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.
However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.
Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”
Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”
The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.
Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.
Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.
Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
Tough decisions
The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.
The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.
Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”
Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.
That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It’s a true Goldilocks debate: , with some calling them suitable, some saying they’re “reckless,” and at least one expert saying they’re “right in the middle.”
The controversy may lead to more updates. On Jan. 2, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, President Joe Biden’s chief medical adviser, said on CNN’s State of the Union that he anticipates further clarification of the guidelines soon.
Sparking the most debate: Infected people are not told to test before leaving isolation, the vaccinated and unvaccinated who are exposed are given some of the same advice, and the mask advice is not specific enough.
As issued on Dec. 27, the guidelines for the general public recommend:
- Anyone who tests positive should stay home and isolate for 5 days (instead of 10) and if the person has no symptoms or the symptoms resolve after 5 days, leaving the house is okay. A mask should be worn around others for 5 more days. In the event of a fever, the person must stay home until it resolves.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they have been boosted, finished the primary series of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within the past 6 months, or finished the primary series of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine within the past 2 months, they should wear a mask around others for 10 days and, if possible, test on day 5. However, if symptoms develop, they should get a test and stay home.
- If people are exposed to someone infected with COVID-19 and they are unvaccinated or are more than 6 months out from their second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine (or more than 2 months after the J&J vaccine) and not boosted, they should quarantine for 5 days and then wear a mask for 5 more days. If quarantine is impossible, a mask should be worn for 10 days. A test on day 5 is suggested if possible. If symptoms occur, they should quarantine and test.
On social media and in interviews with this news organization, public health experts expressed an array of opinions.
A tweet from Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape, posted the day after the new guidelines came out, had an empty box and this: “The data that support the new @CDCgov 5 day isolation period without a negative test.”
In a tweet on Jan. 2, Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said: “Hearing that CDC considering adding testing to isolation guidelines. That would be great. I’ve been arguing for a while that serial negative antigen tests provide a lot of confidence that someone is not contagious.”
Michael Mina, MD, PhD, chief science officer of eMed, a digital point-of-care platform enabling at-home diagnostic testing, tweeted: “CDC’s new guidance to drop isolation of positives to 5 days without a negative test is reckless. Some [people] stay infectious 3 days, some 12. I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] 5 days ago and hasn’t tested Neg. Test Neg to leave isolation early is just smart.”
Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and an infectious disease specialist, disagrees. Typically, he said, an infected person sheds virus for 7 days.
“If you are asymptomatic, the chances that you are shedding a significant amount of virus is very, very small,” he said in an interview.
Under debate
Testing: While many public health experts say a recommendation to test before leaving isolation is needed, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, explained testing was not recommended before leaving isolation because PCR testing can stay positive up to 12 weeks after a person is first infected with COVID-19.
Asked why there was not a recommendation for a rapid antigen test before leaving isolation, Dr. Walensky told CNN that it is not known how these tests perform at the end of infection and that the tests are not Food and Drug Administration–authorized for that purpose.
And while the guidelines suggest that those exposed – whether they are boosted, vaccinated, or not – should test on day 5 if possible, that recommendation should be stronger, some said. “At the very least recommend a test in those who can get it done,” said Dr. Topol.
However, making that recommendation is difficult when experts know how difficult it is for people to obtain tests now, William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview.
“I am sure this was intensely debated,” Dr. Schaffner said of the recommendation on testing.
Vaccination status categories: Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore, questioned the scientific basis behind treating the fully vaccinated (with two mRNA or one J&J vaccine) who are exposed ‘’as the equivalent of the unvaccinated when it comes to the quarantine requirement since the fully vaccinated are protected against what matters.”
Dr. Topol agreed: Guidelines “should be different for vaccinated versus unvaccinated.”
The recommendations for the exposed should definitely be simpler, Dr. Offit said. “I think it would be much simpler to just say, ‘If you are exposed, mask for 10 days,’ “ regardless of vaccination status.
Masks: The guidelines should also be more specific about the type of masks, Dr. Topol said. They should spell out that the masks need to be N95 or KN95, he said.
Science-driven or economy-driven? Was the guidance changed due more to concerns about the economy than to scientific information about infection and transmission? “It was,” Dr. Topol said.
Dr. Adalja sees it differently. “While it is true that this updated guidance will help the economy, it is based on a scientific foundation and should have been issued much earlier than it was.”
Tough decisions
The agency is walking a tightrope, Dr. Schaffner said, adding that he is in general agreement with what the CDC is trying to do. “The tightrope is between the public health ideal and trying to determine what will be acceptable,’’ he said.
The revised guidelines are more practical than before, others said. “The goal is harm reduction and many people just don’t do any isolation if they are faced with a 10-day period,” Dr. Adalja said.
Before issuing the new guidance, the CDC looked at the accumulating science and also took into account stresses on the health care system and other factors, Dr. Schaffner said. “Is it perfect?” Dr. Schaffner said of the new guideline. “No. Is it carefree? No. It’s right in the middle.”
Dr. Schaffner does think the messages about the new recommendations and how they were decided upon could have been communicated better, and in a more understandable manner. Some experts, for instance, led with the economy and the need for people to return to work and school when explaining the guidelines and then brought up the science behind the revisions.
That order should have been reversed, Dr. Schaffner said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 outbreak hits research station in Antarctica
Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.
So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.
The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.
Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.
New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.
“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”
The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.
So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.
The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.
Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.
New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.
“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”
The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Two-thirds of the 25 workers have tested positive at the station, despite all of them being fully vaccinated and going through several testing stages before being allowed entrance, the Belgium publication Le Soir reported.
So far, all the cases are mild at the station, which is owned by Belgium and operated by a private group: the International Polar Foundation.
The first case was discovered Dec. 14 among a group that arrived a week earlier in Antarctica, Le Soir reported. The first three people to test positive evacuated Dec. 23, Le Soir said, but the virus continued to spread among the remaining workers at the base.
Le Soir, citing a virologist, said the Omicron variant probably caused the outbreak, because the crew made its last stop in South Africa before arriving in Antarctica.
New arrivals to the station have been put on hold until the outbreak is brought under control, and one of the missions planned for the base has been postponed, Le Soir said.
“The situation isn’t dramatic,” Joseph Cheek, a project manager for the International Polar Foundation, told the BBC. “While it has been an inconvenience to have to quarantine certain members of the staff who caught the virus, it hasn’t significantly affected our work at the station overall.”
The BBC said there was another COVID outbreak in Antarctica about a year ago at the Bernardo O’Higgins research station operated by Chile.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.