Federal Practitioner

Anxiety and depression symptoms increased in adults last winter as COVID-19 surged in the United States but declined in the spring as COVID activity approached its nadir, according to an analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The relative increases and decreases in frequency of reported symptoms of anxiety and depression at both the national and state levels mirrored the national weekly number of new COVID-19 cases during the same period,” Haomiao Jia, PhD, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a national survey conducted Aug. 19-31, 2020, the average anxiety severity score was 2.0 and the average depression score was 1.6 among adults in all 50 states. Those scores rose to 2.3 (+13.0%) and 2.0 (+14.8%), respectively, by Dec. 9-21, but then fell to 1.7 (–26.8%) and 1.4 (–24.8%) during the survey conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2021, the investigators reported.

Despite that decrease in the spring, however, “the frequency of symptoms ... in June 2021 remained elevated compared with estimates from” 2019, said Dr. Jia of Columbia University, New York, and associates. Data from the National Health Interview Survey put the prepandemic severity scores at 0.63 for anxiety and 0.51 for depression.

Weekly symptom frequency in the Household Pulse Survey, which began in April 2020, was assessed with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, which includes two questions on anxiety and two on depression. Each answer scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms at all) to 3 (symptoms nearly every day), making a total of 6 possible for each severity score, they explained. Sample sizes for the biweekly surveys ranged from 58,729 to 110,019.

Among the states, there was something of a pattern involving the drop in scores during the fall and the rise over the winter and spring months. “States with larger increases in severity scores during August–December 2020 also tended to have larger decreases during January–June 2021,” the researchers noted.

That group includes Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah for anxiety and Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for depression, the survey data show.

Florida and New York had the smallest increases in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, from August to December, and New York had the smallest decrease in both anxiety and depression from January to June, Dr. Jia and associates said.

“Real-time monitoring of mental health symptoms can provide important information for responding to surges in the demand for mental health services during national emergencies. The observed differences in severity score magnitude and peaks across states in this study indicate that these efforts are important at both the national and state levels,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Anxiety and depression symptoms increased in adults last winter as COVID-19 surged in the United States but declined in the spring as COVID activity approached its nadir, according to an analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The relative increases and decreases in frequency of reported symptoms of anxiety and depression at both the national and state levels mirrored the national weekly number of new COVID-19 cases during the same period,” Haomiao Jia, PhD, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a national survey conducted Aug. 19-31, 2020, the average anxiety severity score was 2.0 and the average depression score was 1.6 among adults in all 50 states. Those scores rose to 2.3 (+13.0%) and 2.0 (+14.8%), respectively, by Dec. 9-21, but then fell to 1.7 (–26.8%) and 1.4 (–24.8%) during the survey conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2021, the investigators reported.

Despite that decrease in the spring, however, “the frequency of symptoms ... in June 2021 remained elevated compared with estimates from” 2019, said Dr. Jia of Columbia University, New York, and associates. Data from the National Health Interview Survey put the prepandemic severity scores at 0.63 for anxiety and 0.51 for depression.

Weekly symptom frequency in the Household Pulse Survey, which began in April 2020, was assessed with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, which includes two questions on anxiety and two on depression. Each answer scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms at all) to 3 (symptoms nearly every day), making a total of 6 possible for each severity score, they explained. Sample sizes for the biweekly surveys ranged from 58,729 to 110,019.

Among the states, there was something of a pattern involving the drop in scores during the fall and the rise over the winter and spring months. “States with larger increases in severity scores during August–December 2020 also tended to have larger decreases during January–June 2021,” the researchers noted.

That group includes Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah for anxiety and Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for depression, the survey data show.

Florida and New York had the smallest increases in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, from August to December, and New York had the smallest decrease in both anxiety and depression from January to June, Dr. Jia and associates said.

“Real-time monitoring of mental health symptoms can provide important information for responding to surges in the demand for mental health services during national emergencies. The observed differences in severity score magnitude and peaks across states in this study indicate that these efforts are important at both the national and state levels,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Anxiety and depression symptoms increased in adults last winter as COVID-19 surged in the United States but declined in the spring as COVID activity approached its nadir, according to an analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The relative increases and decreases in frequency of reported symptoms of anxiety and depression at both the national and state levels mirrored the national weekly number of new COVID-19 cases during the same period,” Haomiao Jia, PhD, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In a national survey conducted Aug. 19-31, 2020, the average anxiety severity score was 2.0 and the average depression score was 1.6 among adults in all 50 states. Those scores rose to 2.3 (+13.0%) and 2.0 (+14.8%), respectively, by Dec. 9-21, but then fell to 1.7 (–26.8%) and 1.4 (–24.8%) during the survey conducted from May 26 to June 7, 2021, the investigators reported.

Despite that decrease in the spring, however, “the frequency of symptoms ... in June 2021 remained elevated compared with estimates from” 2019, said Dr. Jia of Columbia University, New York, and associates. Data from the National Health Interview Survey put the prepandemic severity scores at 0.63 for anxiety and 0.51 for depression.

Weekly symptom frequency in the Household Pulse Survey, which began in April 2020, was assessed with the four-item Patient Health Questionnaire, which includes two questions on anxiety and two on depression. Each answer scored on a scale from 0 (no symptoms at all) to 3 (symptoms nearly every day), making a total of 6 possible for each severity score, they explained. Sample sizes for the biweekly surveys ranged from 58,729 to 110,019.

Among the states, there was something of a pattern involving the drop in scores during the fall and the rise over the winter and spring months. “States with larger increases in severity scores during August–December 2020 also tended to have larger decreases during January–June 2021,” the researchers noted.

That group includes Minnesota, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah for anxiety and Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin for depression, the survey data show.

Florida and New York had the smallest increases in depression and anxiety scores, respectively, from August to December, and New York had the smallest decrease in both anxiety and depression from January to June, Dr. Jia and associates said.

“Real-time monitoring of mental health symptoms can provide important information for responding to surges in the demand for mental health services during national emergencies. The observed differences in severity score magnitude and peaks across states in this study indicate that these efforts are important at both the national and state levels,” they wrote.

[email protected]

The outpouring of support for a longtime New Jersey oncology nurse who died after being knocked to the ground in Times Square by a fleeing cellphone thief culminated in a Mass Monday in New York City. The Mass was promoted by the local consulate general of the Philippines.

Maria Ambrocio, 58, was visiting Times Square with a friend on October 1 when she was shoved to the ground by a man who reportedly snatched a cellphone and was running away. He later collided with a police officer before being arrested.

Ms. Ambrosio, of Bayonne, N.J., was taken to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan with a traumatic brain injury. She was taken off life support a day later.

Jermaine Foster, 26, was charged with murder and robbery and is scheduled to appear in New York Criminal Court Thursday, according to court records.

Ms. Ambrocio, who had been a nurse for 25 years at Bayonne Medical Center in New Jersey, treated cancer patients, even during the height of the pandemic. The medical community at the hospital posted on social media, “Maria’s untimely death is a profound loss to us all, especially those whose lives she touched each day at Bayonne Medical Center.”

New York organizations expressed sympathy after the incident. Tom Harris, president of the Times Square Alliance, said in a statement shared with this news organization, “Our deepest condolences to the family of Maria Ambrocio. The killing of Maria Ambrocio near Times Square highlights one of our city’s greatest public safety challenges, the proliferation of people with untreated mental illness and drug addictions on our streets committing crimes without an effective strategy to address them. Our city needs to come together and solve these problems and those of us who work in these areas are willing and able to help. Let her death not be in vain.”

The New York Philippine consulate reported on its Facebook page that Ms. Ambrocio had just visited its office when the incident occurred. “We grieve with the rest of the Filipino Community over the death of our kababayan [countryman], Maria Ambrocio, a 58-year-old health frontliner from Bayonne, New Jersey....

“Maria’s passing was announced shortly after she was removed from life support a few hours ago. She had been on life support for the head trauma she sustained on Friday afternoon after she was knocked down by someone who was described as a mentally disturbed homeless man. Maria was walking with a kababayan near Times Square after visiting the Philippine consulate general when she was struck by the suspect, who was reportedly being chased after grabbing a mobile phone from someone.”

On the day she passed away, Bayonne Mayor Jimmy Davis shared an emotional message on Facebook: “I’m asking for all Bayonne people to say a prayer for Maria Ambrocio. Maria, an Oncology nurse at Bayonne Medical Center, was viciously attacked in an unprovoked assault by a deranged man in Times Square yesterday.

“Please keep Maria and her family in your thoughts through these difficult days.”

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

The outpouring of support for a longtime New Jersey oncology nurse who died after being knocked to the ground in Times Square by a fleeing cellphone thief culminated in a Mass Monday in New York City. The Mass was promoted by the local consulate general of the Philippines.

Maria Ambrocio, 58, was visiting Times Square with a friend on October 1 when she was shoved to the ground by a man who reportedly snatched a cellphone and was running away. He later collided with a police officer before being arrested.

Ms. Ambrosio, of Bayonne, N.J., was taken to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan with a traumatic brain injury. She was taken off life support a day later.

Jermaine Foster, 26, was charged with murder and robbery and is scheduled to appear in New York Criminal Court Thursday, according to court records.

Ms. Ambrocio, who had been a nurse for 25 years at Bayonne Medical Center in New Jersey, treated cancer patients, even during the height of the pandemic. The medical community at the hospital posted on social media, “Maria’s untimely death is a profound loss to us all, especially those whose lives she touched each day at Bayonne Medical Center.”

New York organizations expressed sympathy after the incident. Tom Harris, president of the Times Square Alliance, said in a statement shared with this news organization, “Our deepest condolences to the family of Maria Ambrocio. The killing of Maria Ambrocio near Times Square highlights one of our city’s greatest public safety challenges, the proliferation of people with untreated mental illness and drug addictions on our streets committing crimes without an effective strategy to address them. Our city needs to come together and solve these problems and those of us who work in these areas are willing and able to help. Let her death not be in vain.”

The New York Philippine consulate reported on its Facebook page that Ms. Ambrocio had just visited its office when the incident occurred. “We grieve with the rest of the Filipino Community over the death of our kababayan [countryman], Maria Ambrocio, a 58-year-old health frontliner from Bayonne, New Jersey....

“Maria’s passing was announced shortly after she was removed from life support a few hours ago. She had been on life support for the head trauma she sustained on Friday afternoon after she was knocked down by someone who was described as a mentally disturbed homeless man. Maria was walking with a kababayan near Times Square after visiting the Philippine consulate general when she was struck by the suspect, who was reportedly being chased after grabbing a mobile phone from someone.”

On the day she passed away, Bayonne Mayor Jimmy Davis shared an emotional message on Facebook: “I’m asking for all Bayonne people to say a prayer for Maria Ambrocio. Maria, an Oncology nurse at Bayonne Medical Center, was viciously attacked in an unprovoked assault by a deranged man in Times Square yesterday.

“Please keep Maria and her family in your thoughts through these difficult days.”

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

The outpouring of support for a longtime New Jersey oncology nurse who died after being knocked to the ground in Times Square by a fleeing cellphone thief culminated in a Mass Monday in New York City. The Mass was promoted by the local consulate general of the Philippines.

Maria Ambrocio, 58, was visiting Times Square with a friend on October 1 when she was shoved to the ground by a man who reportedly snatched a cellphone and was running away. He later collided with a police officer before being arrested.

Ms. Ambrosio, of Bayonne, N.J., was taken to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan with a traumatic brain injury. She was taken off life support a day later.

Jermaine Foster, 26, was charged with murder and robbery and is scheduled to appear in New York Criminal Court Thursday, according to court records.

Ms. Ambrocio, who had been a nurse for 25 years at Bayonne Medical Center in New Jersey, treated cancer patients, even during the height of the pandemic. The medical community at the hospital posted on social media, “Maria’s untimely death is a profound loss to us all, especially those whose lives she touched each day at Bayonne Medical Center.”

New York organizations expressed sympathy after the incident. Tom Harris, president of the Times Square Alliance, said in a statement shared with this news organization, “Our deepest condolences to the family of Maria Ambrocio. The killing of Maria Ambrocio near Times Square highlights one of our city’s greatest public safety challenges, the proliferation of people with untreated mental illness and drug addictions on our streets committing crimes without an effective strategy to address them. Our city needs to come together and solve these problems and those of us who work in these areas are willing and able to help. Let her death not be in vain.”

The New York Philippine consulate reported on its Facebook page that Ms. Ambrocio had just visited its office when the incident occurred. “We grieve with the rest of the Filipino Community over the death of our kababayan [countryman], Maria Ambrocio, a 58-year-old health frontliner from Bayonne, New Jersey....

“Maria’s passing was announced shortly after she was removed from life support a few hours ago. She had been on life support for the head trauma she sustained on Friday afternoon after she was knocked down by someone who was described as a mentally disturbed homeless man. Maria was walking with a kababayan near Times Square after visiting the Philippine consulate general when she was struck by the suspect, who was reportedly being chased after grabbing a mobile phone from someone.”

On the day she passed away, Bayonne Mayor Jimmy Davis shared an emotional message on Facebook: “I’m asking for all Bayonne people to say a prayer for Maria Ambrocio. Maria, an Oncology nurse at Bayonne Medical Center, was viciously attacked in an unprovoked assault by a deranged man in Times Square yesterday.

“Please keep Maria and her family in your thoughts through these difficult days.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members are unvaccinated or only partially vaccinated against COVID-19 as the first vaccine mandate deadlines approach, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.
 

Overall, the military’s vaccination rate has climbed since August, when the Pentagon announced that COVID-19 immunization would become mandatory for the nation’s 2.1 million troops, the newspaper reported. Acting on a directive from President Joe Biden, leaders said exemptions would be rare and unvaccinated service members would face consequences.

But compliance has varied across the services, the newspaper found. About 90% of the active-duty Navy is fully vaccinated, compared with 76% of the active-duty Marine Corps. Both have a November 28 deadline to show proof of full vaccination.

About 81% of the active-duty Air Force is fully vaccinated, leaving more than 60,000 personnel about 3 weeks to get a shot before a November 2 deadline.

Military officials said the variance in vaccination rates is related to the different deadlines, the newspaper reported. As the dates approach, most troops are expected to meet the order.

At the same time, some deadlines are spaced farther out, with the Army Reserve and National Guard required to be fully vaccinated by next summer. About 40% of the Army Reserve and 38% of the National Guard are fully vaccinated. Combined, they account for a quarter of the U.S. military and 40% of the COVID-19 deaths among service members.

“The Army’s policy is incentivizing inaction until the latest possible date,” Katherine Kuzminski, a military policy expert at the Center for a New American Security, told the Post.“The way we’ve seen the virus evolve tells us looking out to June 30 may need to be reconsidered,” she said.

COVID-19 deaths have surged in some of the services in recent months, the newspaper reported. More military personnel died from COVID-19 in September than in all of 2020. None of those who died were fully vaccinated.

Throughout the pandemic, more than 246,000 COVID-19 cases have been reported among service members, according to the latest data from the Defense Department. More than 2,200 have been hospitalized, and 62 personnel died, including 32 in August and September.

For the Army Reserve and National Guard, the June deadline allows “necessary time to update records and process exemption requests,” Lt. Col. Terence Kelley, an Army spokesman, told the Post.

Lt. Col. Kelley noted that the extended date reflects how large the groups are, compared to the other services and their military reserves, as well as the broad geographic distribution of its members. Still, vaccine mandates will apply.

“We expect all unvaccinated soldiers to receive the vaccine as soon as possible,” Lt. Col. Kelley said. “Individual soldiers are required to receive the vaccine when available.”

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

Fear of antibiotic overuse and frustration with physicians who prescribe them too freely are key sentiments expressed by women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs), according to findings from a study involving six focus groups.

“Here in our female pelvic medicine reconstructive urology clinic at Cedars-Sinai and at UCLA, we see many women who are referred for evaluation of rUTIs who are very frustrated with their care,” Victoria Scott, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“So with these focus groups, we saw an opportunity to explore why women are so frustrated and to try and improve the care delivered,” she added.

Findings from the study were published online Sept. 1 in The Journal of Urology.

“There is a need for physicians to modify management strategies ... and to devote more research efforts to improving nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as management strategies that better empower patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Six focus groups

Four or five participants were included in each of the six focus groups – a total of 29 women. All participants reported a history of symptomatic, culture-proven UTI episodes. They had experienced two or more infections in 6 months or three or more infections within 1 year. Women were predominantly White. Most were employed part- or full-time and held a college degree.

From a qualitative analysis of all focus group transcripts, two main themes emerged:

• The negative impact of taking antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of rUTIs.
• Resentment of the medical profession for the way it managed rUTIs.

The researchers found that participants had a good understanding of the deleterious effects from inappropriate antibiotic use, largely gleaned from media sources and the Internet. “Numerous women stated that they had reached such a level of concern about antibiotics that they would resist taking them for prevention or treatment of infections,” Dr. Scott and colleagues pointed out.

These concerns centered around the risk of developing resistance to antibiotics and the ill effects that antibiotics can have on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary microbiomes. Several women reported that they had developed Clostridium difficile infections after taking antibiotics; one of the patients required hospitalization for the infection.

Women also reported concerns that they had been given an antibiotic needlessly for symptoms that might have been caused by a genitourinary condition other than a UTI. They also reported feeling resentful toward practitioners, particularly if they felt the practitioner was overprescribing antibiotics. Some had resorted to consultations with alternative practitioners, such as herbalists. “A second concern discussed by participants was the feeling of being ignored by physicians,” the authors observed.

In this regard, the women felt that their physicians underestimated the burden that rUTIs had on their lives and the detrimental effect that repeated infections had on their relationships, work, and overall quality of life. “These perceptions led to a prevalent mistrust of physicians,” the investigators wrote. This prompted many women to insist that the medical community devote more effort to the development of nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of UTIs.
 

Improved management strategies

Asked how physicians might improve their management of rUTIs, Dr. Scott shared a number of suggestions. Cardinal rule No. 1: Have the patient undergo a urinalysis to make sure she does have a UTI. “There is a subset of patients among women with rUTIs who come in with a diagnosis of an rUTI but who really have not had documentation of more than one positive urine culture,” Dr. Scott noted. Such a history suggests that they do not have an rUTI.

It’s imperative that physicians rule out commonly misdiagnosed disorders, such as overactive bladder, as a cause of the patient’s symptoms. Symptoms of overactive bladder and rUTIs often overlap. While waiting for results from the urinalysis to confirm or rule out a UTI, young and healthy women may be prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as naproxen, which can help ameliorate symptoms.

Because UTIs are frequently self-limiting, Dr. Scott and others have found that for young, otherwise healthy women, NSAIDs alone can often resolve symptoms of the UTI without use of an antibiotic. For relatively severe symptoms, a urinary analgesic, such as phenazopyridine (Pyridium), may soothe the lining of the urinary tract and relieve pain. Cystex is an over-the-counter urinary analgesic that women can procure themselves, Dr. Scott added.

If an antibiotic is indicated, those most commonly prescribed for a single episode of acute cystitis are nitrofurantoin and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (Bactrim). For recurrent UTIs, “patients are a bit more complicated,” Dr. Scott admitted. “I think the best practice is to look back at a woman’s prior urine culture and select an antibiotic that showed good sensitivity in the last positive urine test,” she said.

Prevention starts with behavioral strategies, such as voiding after sexual intercourse and wiping from front to back following urination to avoid introducing fecal bacteria into the urethra. Evidence suggests that premenopausal women who drink at least 1.5 L of water a day have significantly fewer UTI episodes, Dr. Scott noted. There is also “pretty good” evidence that cranberry supplements (not juice) can prevent rUTIs. Use of cranberry supplements is supported by the American Urological Association (conditional recommendation; evidence level of grade C).

For peri- and postmenopausal women, vaginal estrogen may be effective. It’s use for UTI prevention is well supported by the literature. Although not as well supported by evidence, some women find that a supplement such as D-mannose may prevent or treat UTIs by causing bacteria to bind to it rather than to the bladder wall. Probiotics are another possibility, she noted. Empathy can’t hurt, she added.

“A common theme among satisfied women was the sentiment that their physicians understood their problems and had a system in place to allow rapid diagnosis and treatment for UTI episodes,” the authors emphasized.

“[Such attitudes] highlight the need to investigate each patient’s experience and perceptions to allow for shared decision making regarding the management of rUTIs,” they wrote.
 

Further commentary

Asked to comment on the findings, editorialist Michelle Van Kuiken, MD, assistant professor of urology, University of California, San Francisco, acknowledged that there is not a lot of good evidence to support many of the strategies recommended by the American Urological Association to prevent and treat rUTIs, but she often follows these recommendations anyway. “The one statement in the guidelines that is the most supported by evidence is the use of cranberry supplements, and I do routinely recommended daily use of some form of concentrated cranberry supplements for all of my patients with rUTIs,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Van Kuiken said that vaginal estrogen is a very good option for all postmenopausal women who suffer from rUTIs and that there is growing acceptance of its use for this and other indications. There is some evidence to support D-mannose as well, although it’s not that robust, she acknowledged.

She said the evidence supporting the use of probiotics for this indication is very thin. She does not routinely recommend them for rUTIs, although they are not inherently harmful. “I think for a lot of women who have rUTIs, it can be pretty debilitating and upsetting for them – it can impact travel plans, work, and social events,” Dr. Van Kuiken said.

“Until we develop better diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, validating women’s experiences and concerns with rUTI while limiting unnecessary antibiotics remains our best option,” she wrote.

Dr. Scott and Dr. Van Kuiken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fear of antibiotic overuse and frustration with physicians who prescribe them too freely are key sentiments expressed by women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs), according to findings from a study involving six focus groups.

“Here in our female pelvic medicine reconstructive urology clinic at Cedars-Sinai and at UCLA, we see many women who are referred for evaluation of rUTIs who are very frustrated with their care,” Victoria Scott, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“So with these focus groups, we saw an opportunity to explore why women are so frustrated and to try and improve the care delivered,” she added.

Findings from the study were published online Sept. 1 in The Journal of Urology.

“There is a need for physicians to modify management strategies ... and to devote more research efforts to improving nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as management strategies that better empower patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Six focus groups

Four or five participants were included in each of the six focus groups – a total of 29 women. All participants reported a history of symptomatic, culture-proven UTI episodes. They had experienced two or more infections in 6 months or three or more infections within 1 year. Women were predominantly White. Most were employed part- or full-time and held a college degree.

From a qualitative analysis of all focus group transcripts, two main themes emerged:

• The negative impact of taking antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of rUTIs.
• Resentment of the medical profession for the way it managed rUTIs.

The researchers found that participants had a good understanding of the deleterious effects from inappropriate antibiotic use, largely gleaned from media sources and the Internet. “Numerous women stated that they had reached such a level of concern about antibiotics that they would resist taking them for prevention or treatment of infections,” Dr. Scott and colleagues pointed out.

These concerns centered around the risk of developing resistance to antibiotics and the ill effects that antibiotics can have on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary microbiomes. Several women reported that they had developed Clostridium difficile infections after taking antibiotics; one of the patients required hospitalization for the infection.

Women also reported concerns that they had been given an antibiotic needlessly for symptoms that might have been caused by a genitourinary condition other than a UTI. They also reported feeling resentful toward practitioners, particularly if they felt the practitioner was overprescribing antibiotics. Some had resorted to consultations with alternative practitioners, such as herbalists. “A second concern discussed by participants was the feeling of being ignored by physicians,” the authors observed.

In this regard, the women felt that their physicians underestimated the burden that rUTIs had on their lives and the detrimental effect that repeated infections had on their relationships, work, and overall quality of life. “These perceptions led to a prevalent mistrust of physicians,” the investigators wrote. This prompted many women to insist that the medical community devote more effort to the development of nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of UTIs.
 

Improved management strategies

Asked how physicians might improve their management of rUTIs, Dr. Scott shared a number of suggestions. Cardinal rule No. 1: Have the patient undergo a urinalysis to make sure she does have a UTI. “There is a subset of patients among women with rUTIs who come in with a diagnosis of an rUTI but who really have not had documentation of more than one positive urine culture,” Dr. Scott noted. Such a history suggests that they do not have an rUTI.

It’s imperative that physicians rule out commonly misdiagnosed disorders, such as overactive bladder, as a cause of the patient’s symptoms. Symptoms of overactive bladder and rUTIs often overlap. While waiting for results from the urinalysis to confirm or rule out a UTI, young and healthy women may be prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as naproxen, which can help ameliorate symptoms.

Because UTIs are frequently self-limiting, Dr. Scott and others have found that for young, otherwise healthy women, NSAIDs alone can often resolve symptoms of the UTI without use of an antibiotic. For relatively severe symptoms, a urinary analgesic, such as phenazopyridine (Pyridium), may soothe the lining of the urinary tract and relieve pain. Cystex is an over-the-counter urinary analgesic that women can procure themselves, Dr. Scott added.

If an antibiotic is indicated, those most commonly prescribed for a single episode of acute cystitis are nitrofurantoin and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (Bactrim). For recurrent UTIs, “patients are a bit more complicated,” Dr. Scott admitted. “I think the best practice is to look back at a woman’s prior urine culture and select an antibiotic that showed good sensitivity in the last positive urine test,” she said.

Prevention starts with behavioral strategies, such as voiding after sexual intercourse and wiping from front to back following urination to avoid introducing fecal bacteria into the urethra. Evidence suggests that premenopausal women who drink at least 1.5 L of water a day have significantly fewer UTI episodes, Dr. Scott noted. There is also “pretty good” evidence that cranberry supplements (not juice) can prevent rUTIs. Use of cranberry supplements is supported by the American Urological Association (conditional recommendation; evidence level of grade C).

For peri- and postmenopausal women, vaginal estrogen may be effective. It’s use for UTI prevention is well supported by the literature. Although not as well supported by evidence, some women find that a supplement such as D-mannose may prevent or treat UTIs by causing bacteria to bind to it rather than to the bladder wall. Probiotics are another possibility, she noted. Empathy can’t hurt, she added.

“A common theme among satisfied women was the sentiment that their physicians understood their problems and had a system in place to allow rapid diagnosis and treatment for UTI episodes,” the authors emphasized.

“[Such attitudes] highlight the need to investigate each patient’s experience and perceptions to allow for shared decision making regarding the management of rUTIs,” they wrote.
 

Further commentary

Asked to comment on the findings, editorialist Michelle Van Kuiken, MD, assistant professor of urology, University of California, San Francisco, acknowledged that there is not a lot of good evidence to support many of the strategies recommended by the American Urological Association to prevent and treat rUTIs, but she often follows these recommendations anyway. “The one statement in the guidelines that is the most supported by evidence is the use of cranberry supplements, and I do routinely recommended daily use of some form of concentrated cranberry supplements for all of my patients with rUTIs,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Van Kuiken said that vaginal estrogen is a very good option for all postmenopausal women who suffer from rUTIs and that there is growing acceptance of its use for this and other indications. There is some evidence to support D-mannose as well, although it’s not that robust, she acknowledged.

She said the evidence supporting the use of probiotics for this indication is very thin. She does not routinely recommend them for rUTIs, although they are not inherently harmful. “I think for a lot of women who have rUTIs, it can be pretty debilitating and upsetting for them – it can impact travel plans, work, and social events,” Dr. Van Kuiken said.

“Until we develop better diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, validating women’s experiences and concerns with rUTI while limiting unnecessary antibiotics remains our best option,” she wrote.

Dr. Scott and Dr. Van Kuiken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fear of antibiotic overuse and frustration with physicians who prescribe them too freely are key sentiments expressed by women with recurrent urinary tract infections (rUTIs), according to findings from a study involving six focus groups.

“Here in our female pelvic medicine reconstructive urology clinic at Cedars-Sinai and at UCLA, we see many women who are referred for evaluation of rUTIs who are very frustrated with their care,” Victoria Scott, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

“So with these focus groups, we saw an opportunity to explore why women are so frustrated and to try and improve the care delivered,” she added.

Findings from the study were published online Sept. 1 in The Journal of Urology.

“There is a need for physicians to modify management strategies ... and to devote more research efforts to improving nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections, as well as management strategies that better empower patients,” the authors wrote.
 

Six focus groups

Four or five participants were included in each of the six focus groups – a total of 29 women. All participants reported a history of symptomatic, culture-proven UTI episodes. They had experienced two or more infections in 6 months or three or more infections within 1 year. Women were predominantly White. Most were employed part- or full-time and held a college degree.

From a qualitative analysis of all focus group transcripts, two main themes emerged:

• The negative impact of taking antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of rUTIs.
• Resentment of the medical profession for the way it managed rUTIs.

The researchers found that participants had a good understanding of the deleterious effects from inappropriate antibiotic use, largely gleaned from media sources and the Internet. “Numerous women stated that they had reached such a level of concern about antibiotics that they would resist taking them for prevention or treatment of infections,” Dr. Scott and colleagues pointed out.

These concerns centered around the risk of developing resistance to antibiotics and the ill effects that antibiotics can have on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary microbiomes. Several women reported that they had developed Clostridium difficile infections after taking antibiotics; one of the patients required hospitalization for the infection.

Women also reported concerns that they had been given an antibiotic needlessly for symptoms that might have been caused by a genitourinary condition other than a UTI. They also reported feeling resentful toward practitioners, particularly if they felt the practitioner was overprescribing antibiotics. Some had resorted to consultations with alternative practitioners, such as herbalists. “A second concern discussed by participants was the feeling of being ignored by physicians,” the authors observed.

In this regard, the women felt that their physicians underestimated the burden that rUTIs had on their lives and the detrimental effect that repeated infections had on their relationships, work, and overall quality of life. “These perceptions led to a prevalent mistrust of physicians,” the investigators wrote. This prompted many women to insist that the medical community devote more effort to the development of nonantibiotic options for the prevention and treatment of UTIs.
 

Improved management strategies

Asked how physicians might improve their management of rUTIs, Dr. Scott shared a number of suggestions. Cardinal rule No. 1: Have the patient undergo a urinalysis to make sure she does have a UTI. “There is a subset of patients among women with rUTIs who come in with a diagnosis of an rUTI but who really have not had documentation of more than one positive urine culture,” Dr. Scott noted. Such a history suggests that they do not have an rUTI.

It’s imperative that physicians rule out commonly misdiagnosed disorders, such as overactive bladder, as a cause of the patient’s symptoms. Symptoms of overactive bladder and rUTIs often overlap. While waiting for results from the urinalysis to confirm or rule out a UTI, young and healthy women may be prescribed a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), such as naproxen, which can help ameliorate symptoms.

Because UTIs are frequently self-limiting, Dr. Scott and others have found that for young, otherwise healthy women, NSAIDs alone can often resolve symptoms of the UTI without use of an antibiotic. For relatively severe symptoms, a urinary analgesic, such as phenazopyridine (Pyridium), may soothe the lining of the urinary tract and relieve pain. Cystex is an over-the-counter urinary analgesic that women can procure themselves, Dr. Scott added.

If an antibiotic is indicated, those most commonly prescribed for a single episode of acute cystitis are nitrofurantoin and sulfamethoxazole plus trimethoprim (Bactrim). For recurrent UTIs, “patients are a bit more complicated,” Dr. Scott admitted. “I think the best practice is to look back at a woman’s prior urine culture and select an antibiotic that showed good sensitivity in the last positive urine test,” she said.

Prevention starts with behavioral strategies, such as voiding after sexual intercourse and wiping from front to back following urination to avoid introducing fecal bacteria into the urethra. Evidence suggests that premenopausal women who drink at least 1.5 L of water a day have significantly fewer UTI episodes, Dr. Scott noted. There is also “pretty good” evidence that cranberry supplements (not juice) can prevent rUTIs. Use of cranberry supplements is supported by the American Urological Association (conditional recommendation; evidence level of grade C).

For peri- and postmenopausal women, vaginal estrogen may be effective. It’s use for UTI prevention is well supported by the literature. Although not as well supported by evidence, some women find that a supplement such as D-mannose may prevent or treat UTIs by causing bacteria to bind to it rather than to the bladder wall. Probiotics are another possibility, she noted. Empathy can’t hurt, she added.

“A common theme among satisfied women was the sentiment that their physicians understood their problems and had a system in place to allow rapid diagnosis and treatment for UTI episodes,” the authors emphasized.

“[Such attitudes] highlight the need to investigate each patient’s experience and perceptions to allow for shared decision making regarding the management of rUTIs,” they wrote.
 

Further commentary

Asked to comment on the findings, editorialist Michelle Van Kuiken, MD, assistant professor of urology, University of California, San Francisco, acknowledged that there is not a lot of good evidence to support many of the strategies recommended by the American Urological Association to prevent and treat rUTIs, but she often follows these recommendations anyway. “The one statement in the guidelines that is the most supported by evidence is the use of cranberry supplements, and I do routinely recommended daily use of some form of concentrated cranberry supplements for all of my patients with rUTIs,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Van Kuiken said that vaginal estrogen is a very good option for all postmenopausal women who suffer from rUTIs and that there is growing acceptance of its use for this and other indications. There is some evidence to support D-mannose as well, although it’s not that robust, she acknowledged.

She said the evidence supporting the use of probiotics for this indication is very thin. She does not routinely recommend them for rUTIs, although they are not inherently harmful. “I think for a lot of women who have rUTIs, it can be pretty debilitating and upsetting for them – it can impact travel plans, work, and social events,” Dr. Van Kuiken said.

“Until we develop better diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, validating women’s experiences and concerns with rUTI while limiting unnecessary antibiotics remains our best option,” she wrote.

Dr. Scott and Dr. Van Kuiken have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A secondary consequence of public health measures to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 included a concurrent reduction in risk for children to acquire and spread other respiratory viral infectious diseases. In the Rochester, N.Y., area, we had an ongoing prospective study in primary care pediatric practices that afforded an opportunity to assess the effect of the pandemic control measures on all infectious disease illness visits in young children. Specifically, in children aged 6-36 months old, our study was in place when the pandemic began with a primary objective to evaluate the changing epidemiology of acute otitis media (AOM) and nasopharyngeal colonization by potential bacterial respiratory pathogens in community-based primary care pediatric practices. As the public health measures mandated by New York State Department of Health were implemented, we prospectively quantified their effect on physician-diagnosed infectious disease illness visits. The incidence of infectious disease visits by a cohort of young children during the COVID-19 pandemic period March 15, 2020, through Dec. 31, 2020, was compared with the same time frame in the preceding year, 2019.¹

Recommendations of the New York State Department of Health for public health, changes in school and day care attendance, and clinical practice during the study time frame

On March 7, 2020, a state of emergency was declared in New York because of the COVID-19 pandemic. All schools were required to close. A mandated order for public use of masks in adults and children more than 2 years of age was enacted. In the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York, where the two primary care pediatric practices reside, complete lockdown was partially lifted on May 15, 2020, and further lifted on June 26, 2020. Almost all regional school districts opened to at least hybrid learning models for all students starting Sept. 8, 2020. On March 6, 2020, video telehealth and telephone call visits were introduced as routine practice. Well-child visits were limited to those less than 2 years of age, then gradually expanded to all ages by late May 2020. During the “stay at home” phase of the New York State lockdown, day care services were considered an essential business. Day care child density was limited. All children less than 2 years old were required to wear a mask while in the facility. Upon arrival, children with any respiratory symptoms or fever were excluded. For the school year commencing September 2020, almost all regional school districts opened to virtual, hybrid, or in-person learning models. Exclusion occurred similar to that of the day care facilities.

Incidence of respiratory infectious disease illnesses

Clinical diagnoses and healthy visits of 144 children from March 15 to Dec. 31, 2020 (beginning of the pandemic) were compared to 215 children during the same months in 2019 (prepandemic). Pediatric SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates trended up alongside community spread. Pediatric practice positivity rates rose from 1.9% in October 2020 to 19% in December 2020.

The table shows the incidence of significantly different infectious disease illness visits in the two study cohorts.

Change in care practices

In the prepandemic period, virtual visits, leading to a diagnosis and treatment and referring children to an urgent care or hospital emergency department during regular office hours were rare. During the pandemic, this changed. Significantly increased use of telemedicine visits (P < .0001) and significantly decreased office and urgent care visits (P < .0001) occurred during the pandemic. Telehealth visits peaked the week of April 12, 2020, at 45% of all pediatric visits. In-person illness visits gradually returned to year-to-year volumes in August-September 2020 with school opening. Early in the pandemic, both pediatric offices limited patient encounters to well-child visits in the first 2 years of life to not miss opportunities for childhood vaccinations. However, some parents were reluctant to bring their children to those visits. There was no significant change in frequency of healthy child visits during the pandemic.

To our knowledge, this was the first study from primary care pediatric practices in the United States to analyze the effect on infectious diseases during the first 9 months of the pandemic, including the 6-month time period after the reopening from the first 3 months of lockdown. One prior study from a primary care network in Massachusetts reported significant decreases in respiratory infectious diseases for children aged 0-17 years during the first months of the pandemic during lockdown.² A study in Tennessee that included hospital emergency department, urgent care, primary care, and retail health clinics also reported respiratory infection diagnoses as well as antibiotic prescription were reduced in the early months of the pandemic.³

Our study shows an overall reduction in frequency of respiratory illness visits in children 6-36 months old during the first 9 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. We learned the value of using technology in the form of virtual visits to render care. Perhaps as the pandemic subsides, many of the hand-washing and sanitizing practices will remain in place and lead to less frequent illness in children in the future. However, there may be temporary negative consequences from the “immune debt” that has occurred from a prolonged time span when children were not becoming infected with respiratory pathogens.⁴ We will see what unfolds in the future.
 

Dr. Pichichero is a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases and director of the Research Institute at Rochester (N.Y.) General Hospital. Dr. Schulz is pediatric medical director at Rochester (N.Y.) Regional Health. Dr. Pichichero and Dr. Schulz have no conflicts of interest to disclose. This study was funded in part by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

1. Kaur R et al. Front Pediatr. 2021;(9)722483:1-8.

2. Hatoun J et al. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4):e2020006460.

3. Katz SE et al. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2021;10(1):62-4.

4. Cohen R et al. Infect. Dis Now. 2021; 51(5)418-23.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

A study that compared three types of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) found that rivaroxaban was associated with a much higher risk of overall and major gastrointestinal bleeding than apixaban or dabigatran.

The results, which were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, could help guide DOAC selection for high-risk groups with a prior history of peptic ulcer disease or major GI bleeding, said lead study authors Arnar Bragi Ingason, MD and Einar S. Björnsson, MD, PhD, in an email.

DOACs treat conditions such as atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, and ischemic stroke and are known to cause GI bleeding. Previous studies have suggested that rivaroxaban poses a higher GI-bleeding risk than other DOACs.

These studies, which used large administrative databases, “had an inherent risk of selection bias due to insurance status, age, and comorbidities due to their origin from insurance/administrative databases. In addition, they lacked phenotypic details on GI bleeding events,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason, who are both of Landspitali University Hospital, Reykjavik, Iceland,

Daily dosage may exacerbate risk

Rivaroxaban is administered as a single daily dose, compared with apixaban’s and dabigatran’s twice-daily regimens. “We hypothesized that this may lead to a greater variance in drug plasma concentration, making these patients more susceptible to GI bleeding,” the lead authors said.

Using data from the Icelandic Medicine Registry, a national database of outpatient prescription information, they compared rates of GI bleeding among new users of apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban from 2014 to 2019. Overall, 5,868 patients receiving one of the DOACs took part in the study. Among these participants, 3,217 received rivaroxaban, 2,157 received apixaban, and 494 received dabigatran. The researchers used inverse probability weighting, Kaplan–Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression to compare GI bleeding.

Compared with dabigatran, rivaroxaban was associated with a 63%-104% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 39%-95% higher risk for major GI bleeding. Rivaroxaban also had a 40%-42% higher overall risk for GI bleeding and 49%-50% higher risk for major GI bleeding, compared with apixaban.

The investigators were surprised by the low rate of upper GI bleeding for dabigatran, compared with the other two drugs. “However, these results must be interpreted in the context that the dabigatran group was relatively small,” said Dr. Björnsson and Dr. Ingason via email.

Overall, the study cohort was small, compared with previous registry studies.

Investigators also did not account for account for socioeconomic status or lifestyle factors, such as alcohol consumption or smoking. “However, because the cost of all DOACs is similar in Iceland, selection bias due to socioeconomic status is unlikely,” the investigators reported in their paper. “We are currently working on comparing the rates of thromboembolisms and overall major bleeding events between the drugs,” the lead authors said.
 

Clinicians should consider location of bleeding

Though retrospective, the study by Ingason et. al. “is likely as close as is feasible to a randomized trial as is possible,” said Don C. Rockey, MD, a professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, in an interview.

“From the clinician’s perspective, it is important to take away that there may be differences among the DOACs in terms of where in the GI tract the bleeding occurs,” said Dr. Rockey. In the study, the greatest differences appeared to be in the upper GI tract, with rivaroxaban outpacing apixaban and dabigatran. In patients who are at risk for upper GI bleeding, it may be reasonable to consider use of dabigatran or apixaban, he suggested.

“A limitation of the study is that it is likely underpowered overall,” said Dr. Rockey. It also wasn’t clear how many deaths occurred either directly from GI bleeding or as a complication of GI bleeding, he said.The study also didn’t differentiate major bleeding among DOACs specifically in the upper or lower GI tract, Dr. Rockey added.
 

Other studies yield similar results

Dr. Ingason and Dr. Björnsson said their work complements previous studies, and Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSc , who has conducted a similar investigation to the new study, agreed with that statement.

Data from the last 4 years overwhelmingly show that rivaroxaban is most likely to cause GI bleeding, said Dr. Abraham, professor of medicine and a consultant with Mayo Clinic’s division of gastroenterology and hepatology, in an interview.

A comparative safety study Dr. Abraham coauthored in 2017 of rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran in a much larger U.S. cohort of 372,380 patients revealed that rivaroxaban had the worst GI bleeding profile. Apixaban was 66% safer than rivaroxaban and 64% safer than dabigatran to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding.

“I believe our group was the first to conduct this study and show clinically significant differences in GI safety of the available direct oral anticoagulants,” she said. Other investigators have since published similar results, and the topic of the new study needs no further investigation, according to Dr. Abraham.

“It is time for physicians to choose a better choice when prescribing a direct oral anticoagulant to their atrial fibrillation patients, and that choice is not rivaroxaban,” she said.

The Icelandic Centre for Research and the Landspítali University Hospital Research Fund provided funds for this study. Dr. Ingason, Dr. Björnsson, Dr. Rockey, and Dr. Abraham reported no disclosures.

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Recent literature features new descriptions of myocarditis linked to the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. They tell a story largely consistent with experience to date, and support what might be its most useful public health message: The associated myocarditis is usually mild and self-limiting, and is far less likely to occur than myocarditis or death in unvaccinated people with COVID-19.

In line with previous research, the new analyses suggest the myocarditis – with onset usually a few days to a week after injection – has an overall incidence that ranges from less than 1 to perhaps 3 per 100,000 people who received at least one of the full mRNA-vaccine regimen’s two injections. Also, as in earlier studies, the incidence climbed higher – sometimes sharply – in certain groups by age and sex, particularly in young men and older male teens.

The new studies “are confirmatory, in terms of the risk being low,” but underscore that clinicians still must be wary of myocarditis as a potential complication of the mRNA vaccines, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

Dr. Bozkurt, a leading heart failure specialist and researcher, did not contribute to any of the new reports but does study the myocarditis of COVID-19 and was lead author on a recent review of the potential vaccine complication’s features and possible mechanisms.

In the new myocarditis reports, she observed, more than 90% of the cases were mild and “resolved on their own without a major adverse outcome.” Dr. Bozkurt emphasized the need for perspective regarding the risk. For example, the myocarditis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is not only more likely than the vaccine-related myocarditis, but it’s also usually far more severe.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed to a recent study in which the mRNA vaccines, compared with no vaccination, appeared to escalate the myocarditis risk by a factor of 3, whereas the risk for myocarditis in SARS-CoV-2 infection was increased 18 times.

In contrast, she observed, the new myocarditis cases reported this week feature a few that are novel or are at least very rare, including the case of a patient who developed cardiogenic shock and another with fulminant myocarditis who died.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in May publicly described the apparent link between myocarditis and the two available mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2: BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna). The next month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning about the risk to the labeling.
 

Less than 1 case per 100,000

Fifteen confirmed cases of myocarditis were identified among about 2.4 million members of Kaiser Permanente Southern California aged 18 or older who received at least one injection of the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines between December 2020 and July 2021, in a report published in JAMA Internal Medicine. The study counted cases up to 10 days after the first or second injection, of which there were 2 and 13, respectively.

All eight patients who received the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and the eight given the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine were male with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 20-32 years).

“The main takeaway messages from our study are that the incidence of myocarditis after COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations is very low, that this condition is primarily observed in young men within a few days after the second dose, and that most patients recover quickly,” senior author Mingsum Lee, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center, told this news organization.

“The incidence of vaccine-related myocarditis was significantly lower than rates of COVID-19 hospitalization during the same period and population area,” she added.

The group saw a per-million incidence of 0.8 and 5.8 myocarditis cases in the 10 days after first and second injections, respectively. That made for an incidence of 0.58 per 100,000, or 1 case per 172,414 fully vaccinated adults.

The group also considered a cohort of 1,577,741 unvaccinated people with a median age of 39 years (interquartile range, 28-53 years) during the same period. Of the 75 cases of myocarditis, 52% were in men, they reported.

Comparing the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts, they saw a 10-day vaccine-associated myocarditis incidence rate ratio of 0.38 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.40; P = .15) after the first dose, and 2.7 (95% CI, 1.4-4.8; P = .004) after the second dose.

In a comparison of the vaccinated group with itself using data from a 10-day period in the previous year, the corresponding myocarditis IRRs were 1.0 (P > .99) and 3.3 (P = .03), respectively.

Dr. Lee said none of the 15 patients required admission to an intensive care unit. “All patients with myocarditis responded well to treatment and felt better quickly,” she noted.

Myocarditis after an mRNA vaccine injection is rare and, Dr. Lee said emphatically, and “the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine greatly outweigh the risks.”
 

Sex- and age-stratified rates

In a separate analysis of 5,442,696 people given a first dose of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine and 5,125,635 given a second dose, there were 142 cases of myocarditis with onset 21 days after dose 1 and 30 days after dose 2. Of those cases, 136 were documented as “definite or probable” in an Israeli Ministry of Health database that covered up to the end of May 2021.

There were also 40 cases among vaccinated people seen after the 30-day window, which were considered not related to the vaccination, and 101 cases among unvaccinated people; of the latter, 29 had confirmed diagnoses of COVID-19.

Of the 136 people with definite or probable cases, the myocarditis was “generally mild” in 129 and usually resolved on its own, notes the report on the study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, with lead author Dror Mevorach, MD, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

The estimated myocarditis incidence after a second such vaccine dose across the entire Israeli population, based on the current study, was about one per 26,000 males and one per 218,000 females, the group writes. Those figures compare with one case per 10,857 among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Again, the risk was concentrated among younger men and male adolescents. In an analysis limited to vaccinated people aged 16-19 years, myocarditis in the 21 days after a second mRNA injection was seen in about one of 6,637 males and one of 99,853 females, the group reported.

The standardized incidence ratio of 5.34 (95% CI, 4.48-6.40) after a second injection, across all groups, “was driven mostly by the diagnosis of myocarditis in younger male recipients.” Among that male subgroup, the ratios by age group were 13.60 (95% CI, 9.30-19.20) for 16-19 years, 8.53 (95% CI, 5.57-12.50) for 20-24 years, and 6.96 (95% CI, 4.25-10.75) for 25-29 years.

Among people who received a second injection, compared with unvaccinated people, the 30-day rate ratio was 2.35 (95% CI, 1.10-5.02). Again, the effect was concentrated in males aged 16-19 years. Among them, the myocarditis rate ratios in the 30 days after a second mRNA vaccine injection were 8.96 (95% CI, 4.50-17.83) for the 16-19 years group, 6.13 (95% CI, 3.16-11.88) for the 20-24 group, and 3.58 (95% CI, 1.82-7.01) for 25-29 years.

Most of the patients with myocarditis showed “significant clinical improvement,” with a mean hospitalization time of only 3-4 days, the report notes. Treatment consisted of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs “with or without colchicine for presumed pericardial inflammation.”

However, seven patients (4.9%) developed important complications, including left-ventricular dysfunction, ventricular arrhythmias, and heart failure. Among them was a 22-year-old patient who died of fulminant myocarditis within 24 hours of diagnosis, the group wrote.
 

From an Israeli health care organization

Published by the same journal as the study by Dr. Menvorach and associates, an analysis of a separate database showed largely consistent findings among patients in the largest of Israel’s four health care organizations charged by the government to administer health services.

The report, with authors led by Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, focused on members of the health care organization aged 16 years or older who had received at least one Pfizer mRNA vaccine dose by the end of May 2021.

The cohorts from the two separate reports surely overlap substantially, as the Ministry of Health analysis from Dr. Mevorach and colleagues derived from a nationwide database, and – as Dr. Witberg and associates wrote – the health care organization providing their data covers 52% of the Israeli population.

Of 2,558,421 vaccinated people in the analysis, of whom 94% received two doses, 54 developed confirmed myocarditis in the 42 days after the first dose. Their median age was 27 years (interquartile range, 21-35 years) and all but three (94%) were male. Of those 54 cases, 41 were considered mild and 12 intermediate in severity, and one was fulminant with the patient in cardiogenic shock, the group writes. In addition, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and atrial fibrillation developed in 5% and 3% of cases, respectively.

The estimated myocarditis incidence in the 42 days after administration of at least one mRNA vaccine dose was 2.13 per 100,000 vaccinated people. In that group, Dr. Witberg and colleagues note, the corresponding incidences per 100,000 were 4.12 and 0.23 for males and females, respectively.

Also in the current report, incidences per 100,000 vaccinated people aged 16-29 years, by sex, included 5.49 (95% CI, 3.59-7.39) overall, and 10.69 (95% CI, 6.93-14.46) for males (the highest rate in the report).

There was only one case in a female aged 16-29 years, and two cases in females 30 years or older.

Of note, some authors of the current study are also authors on the high-profile report from Noam Barda, MD, and colleagues published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that used the same database to arrive at an mRNA-vaccine-related incidence of myocarditis of 2.7 per 100,000. Eligibility criteria and follow-up time were different in that report, as were case ascertainment criteria.

The myocarditis risk associated with the two mRNA vaccines is small compared with “the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 infection, in which up to 28% of hospitalized patients showed signs of myocardial injury,” wrote Vinay Guduguntla, MD, University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell H. Katz, MD, NYC Health + Hospitals, New York, in an editorial accompanying the report from Dr. Lee and associates.

“Randomized clinical trials show that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines represent a safe and effective method of preventing infection,” they stated. “The identification of rare myocarditis does not change clinical decision-making.”

Dr. Bozkurt, who is immediate past president of the Heart Failure Society of America, has disclosed consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Lee and the report’s other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Mevorach discloses consulting for Enlivex Therapeutics; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Witberg said he has no interests to disclose; disclosures for the other authors are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Guduguntla is an editorial fellow and Dr. Katz a deputy editor at JAMA Internal Medicine; neither had disclosures.

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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


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

Drugmaker Merck announced today that it submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir, an experimental antiviral COVID-19 treatment.

If the FDA grants authorization, the drug would be the first oral antiviral treatment for COVID-19. The capsule, made by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is intended to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults who are at risk of having severe COVID-19 or hospitalization.

“The extraordinary impact of this pandemic demands that we move with unprecedented urgency, and that is what our teams have done by submitting this application for molnupiravir to the FDA within 10 days of receiving the data,” Robert Davis, CEO and president of Merck, said in a statement. On Oct. 1, Merck and Ridgeback released interim data from its phase III clinical trial, which showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by about 50%. About 7% of patients who received the drug were hospitalized within 30 days in the study, as compared with 14% of patients who took a placebo, the company said.

No deaths were reported in the group that received the drug, as compared with eight deaths in the group that received the placebo. None of the trial participants had been vaccinated.

“Medicines and vaccines are both essential to our collective efforts,” Mr. Davis said. “We look forward to working with the FDA on its review of our application, and to working with other regulatory agencies as we do everything we can to bring molnupiravir to patients around the world as quickly as possible.”

Merck has been producing molnupiravir in anticipation of the clinical trial results and FDA authorization. The company expects to produce 10 million courses of treatment by the end of the year, with more expected for 2022.

In June, Merck signed an agreement with the United States to supply 1.7 million courses of molnupiravir once the FDA authorizes the drug. The company has agreed to advance purchase agreements with other countries as well.

Earlier in the year, Merck also announced voluntary licensing agreements with several generics manufacturers in India to provide molnupiravir to more than 100 low- and middle-income countries after approval from local regulatory agencies.

Data from the company’s late-stage clinical trial has not yet been peer-reviewed or published.

Last week, Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said the clinical trial results were “very encouraging” but noted that the FDA should closely scrutinize the drug, CNN reported.

“It is very important that this now must go through the usual process of careful examination of the data by the Food and Drug Administration, both for effectiveness but also for safety, because whenever you introduce a new compound, safety is very important,” Dr. Fauci said, adding that vaccines remain “our best tools against COVID-19.”


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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research. 

However, the risk of developing AFib appears to be “relatively small” for those taking 1 gram or less of fish oil per day, Christine M. Albert, MD, chair of the department of cardiology at the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

The study was published online Oct. 6 in the journal Circulation.

It’s estimated that 7.8% of U.S. adults – almost 19 million in all – take fish oil supplements, often unbeknownst to their health care providers, the researchers noted. Yet, the literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes are mixed.

“Some, but not all” large-scale randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements on cardiovascular outcomes have reported increased risks for AFib. The potential reasons for differing findings may be dose related, the authors note in their paper.

The goal of this meta-analysis was to “bring clarity, answers, and actionable information” to doctors and patients, said Dr. Albert. The results suggest, however, that there may not be a “straightforward answer” to whether fish oil is good or bad for AFib. Instead, the answer may depend on the dose, she added.
 

Pooled data

After screening 4,049 articles and abstracts, the researchers included in their analysis seven large-scale randomized controlled trials reporting cardiovascular outcomes of marine omega-3 fatty acids.

The trials reported results for AFib, either as prespecified outcome, adverse event, or a reason for hospitalization. Each had a minimum of 500 patients and a median follow-up of at least 1 year. 

Trials examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on recurrent AFib in patients with established AFib or postoperative AFib were excluded.

The seven trials enrolled a total of 81,210 patients (mean age, 65 years; 39% women); 72.6% of participants were enrolled in clinical trials testing ≤1 gram of marine omega-3 fatty acids per day and 27.4% were enrolled in clinical trials testing >1 gram of the supplement per day. The weighted average follow-up was 4.9 years.

Overall, use of omega-3 fatty acids was associated with a 25% increased risk for AFib (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.46; P = .013).

In analyses stratified by dose, the risk for AFib was “significantly more pronounced” in trials testing high doses of marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements (>1 gram per day: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.04-2.15; P = .042) compared with those testing lower doses (≤1 gram per day: HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .024; P for interaction < .001).

In meta-regression, the HR for AFib increased per 1 gram increase in daily omega-3 fatty acid dose (HR. 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.15; P = .001).
 

Risk-benefit balance

“This meta-analysis adds new evidence regarding the risk of AFib in patients taking marine omega-3 fatty acid supplements,” wrote Dr. Albert and colleagues.

“Since the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids also appears to be dose dependent, the associated risk of AFib should be balanced against the benefit on atherosclerotic cardiovascular outcomes,” they suggested.

They cautioned that the meta-analysis pooled aggregate-level trial data, not individual patient data. Therefore, subgroup analyses by age or other patient level characteristics were not possible.

The risk of developing AFib increases with advancing age and is more common in men than in women. Additional risk factors include elevated blood pressure, coronary artery disease, heart failure, heart valve defects, obesity, and diabetes.

The authors said the potential risk of developing AFib with high doses of omega-3 fatty acid supplements should be discussed with patients and they should know the signs and symptoms of the condition.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Albert has received grants from St. Jude Medical, Abbott, and Roche Diagnostics.

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

Taking high-doses of marine omega-3 fatty acids, more than 1 gram daily, may raise the risk for atrial fibrillation (AFib), according to a meta-analysis of relevant research.