Infectious Disease Practitioner

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians often struggle with telling patients when they are unsure about a diagnosis. In the absence of clarity, doctors may fear losing a patient’s trust by appearing unsure.

Yet diagnostic uncertainty is an inevitable part of medicine.

“It’s often uncertain what is really going on. People have lots of unspecific symptoms,” said Gordon D. Schiff, MD, a patient safety researcher at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

By one estimate, more than one-third of patients are discharged from an emergency department without a clear diagnosis. Physicians may order more tests to try to resolve uncertainty, but this method is not foolproof and may lead to increased health care costs. Physicians can use an uncertain diagnosis as an opportunity to improve conversations with patients, Dr. Schiff said.

“How do you talk to patients about that? How do you convey that?” Dr. Schiff asked.

To begin to answer these questions, Dr. Schiff and colleagues developed four clinical scenarios carrying unclear diagnoses and asked primary care physicians how they would convey the lack of clarity to patients. The scenarios included an enlarged lymph node in a patient in remission for lymphoma, which could suggest recurrence of the disease but not necessarily; a patient with a new-onset headache; and another patient with an unexplained fever and a respiratory tract infection.

For each vignette, the researchers also asked patient advocates – many of whom had experienced receiving an incorrect diagnosis – for their thoughts on how the conversation should go.

Almost 70 people were consulted (24 primary care physicians, 40 patients, and five experts in informatics and quality and safety). Dr. Schiff and his colleagues produced six standardized elements that should be part of a conversation whenever a diagnosis is unclear.

• The most likely diagnosis, along with any alternatives if this isn’t certain, with phrases such as, “Sometimes we don’t have the answers, but we will keep trying to figure out what is going on.”
• Next steps – lab tests, return visits, etc.
• Expected time frame for patient’s improvement and recovery.
• Full disclosure of the limitations of the physical examination or any lab tests.
• Ways to contact the physician going forward.
• Patient insights on their experience and reaction to what they just heard.

The researchers, who published their findings in JAMA Network Open, recommend that the conversation be transcribed in real time using voice recognition software and a microphone, and then printed for the patient to take home. The physician should make eye contact with the patient during the conversation, they suggested.

“Patients felt it was a conversation, that they actually understood what was said. Most patients felt like they were partners during the encounter,” said Maram Khazen, PhD, a coauthor of the paper, who studies communication dynamics. Dr. Khazen was a visiting postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Schiff during the study, and is now a lecturer at the Max Stern Yezreel Valley College in Israel.

Hardeep Singh, MD, MPH, a patient safety researcher at the Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, called the new work “a great start,” but said that the complexity of the field warrants more research into the tool. Dr. Singh was not involved in the study.

Dr. Singh pointed out that many of the patient voices came from spokespeople for advocacy groups, and that these participants are not necessarily representative of actual people with unclear diagnoses.

“The choice of words really matters,” said Dr. Singh, who led a 2018 study that showed that people reacted more negatively when physicians bluntly acknowledged uncertainty than when they walked patients through different possible diagnoses. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen’s framework offers good principles for discussing uncertainty, he added, but further research is needed on the optimal language to use during conversations.

“It’s really encouraging that we’re seeing high-quality research like this, that leverages patient engagement principles,” said Dimitrios Papanagnou, MD, MPH, an emergency medicine physician and vice dean of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. 

Dr. Papanagnou, who was not part of the study, called for diverse patients to be part of conversations about diagnostic uncertainty. 

“Are we having patients from diverse experiences, from underrepresented groups, participate in this kind of work?” Dr. Papanagnou asked. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen said they agree that the tool needs to be tested in larger samples of diverse patients.

Some common themes about how to communicate diagnostic uncertainty are emerging in multiple areas of medicine. Dr. Papanagnou helped develop an uncertainty communication checklist for discharging patients from an emergency department to home, with principles similar to those that Dr. Schiff and Dr. Khazen recommend for primary care providers.

The study was funded by Harvard Hospitals’ malpractice insurer, the Controlled Risk Insurance Company. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

With 3 years of the COVID-19 experience now past, it’s safe to say that SARS-CoV-2 changed American society in ways that could not have been predicted when the first U.S. cases were reported in January of 2020.

Who would have guessed back then that not one but two vaccines would be developed, approved, and widely distributed before the end of the year? Or that those vaccines would be rejected by large segments of the population on ideological grounds? Could anyone have predicted in early 2020 that schools in 21 states would be forbidden by law to require COVID-19 vaccination in students?

Vaccination is generally considered to be an activity of childhood, but that practice has been turned upside down with COVID-19. Among Americans aged 65 years and older, 95% have received at least one dose of vaccine, versus 27.9% of children younger than 12 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The vaccine situation for children mirrors that of the population as a whole. The oldest children have the highest vaccination rates, and the rates decline along with age: 72.0% of those aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose, compared with 39.8% of 5- to 11-year-olds, 10.5% of 2- to 4-year-olds, and 8.0% of children under age 2, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The youngest children were, of course, the last ones to be eligible for the vaccine, but their uptake has been much slower since emergency use was authorized in June of 2022. In the nearly 9 months since then, 9.5% of children aged 4 and under have received at least one dose, versus 66% of children aged 12-15 years in the first 9 months (May 2021 to March 2022).

Altogether, a total of 31.7 million, or 43%, of all children under age 18 had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of March 8, 2023, according to the most recent CDC data.
 

Incidence: Counting COVID

Vaccination and other prevention efforts have tried to stem the tide, but what has COVID actually done to children since the Trump administration declared a nationwide emergency on March 13, 2020?

• 16.6 million cases.
• 186,035 new hospital admissions.
• 2,122 deaths.

Severe illness has been less of an issue in children, who represent 3.1% of all new hospitalizations with diagnosed COVID and just 0.2% of all deaths, despite being 22.3% of the overall U.S. population. Even the proportion of total COVID cases in children, 17.2%, is less than might be expected, given their relatively undervaccinated status.

Seroprevalence estimates seem to support the undercounting of pediatric cases. A survey of commercial laboratories working with the CDC put the seroprevalance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children at 96.3% as of late 2022, based on tests of almost 27,000 specimens performed over an 8-week period from mid-October to mid-December. That would put the number of infected children at 65.7 million children.
 

Since Omicron

There has not been another major COVID-19 surge since the winter of 2021-2022, when the weekly rate of new cases reached 1,900 per 100,000 population in children aged 16-17 years in early January 2022 – the highest seen among children of any of the CDC’s age groups (0-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-17) during the entire pandemic. Since the Omicron surge, the highest weekly rate was 221 per 100,000 during the week of May 15-21, again in 16- to 17-year-olds, the CDC reports.

The widely anticipated surge of COVID in the fall and winter of 2022 and 2023 – the so-called “tripledemic” involving influenza and respiratory syncytial virus – did not occur, possibly because so many Americans were vaccinated or previously infected, experts suggested. New-case rates, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in children have continued to drop as winter comes to a close, CDC data show.

With 3 years of the COVID-19 experience now past, it’s safe to say that SARS-CoV-2 changed American society in ways that could not have been predicted when the first U.S. cases were reported in January of 2020.

Who would have guessed back then that not one but two vaccines would be developed, approved, and widely distributed before the end of the year? Or that those vaccines would be rejected by large segments of the population on ideological grounds? Could anyone have predicted in early 2020 that schools in 21 states would be forbidden by law to require COVID-19 vaccination in students?

Vaccination is generally considered to be an activity of childhood, but that practice has been turned upside down with COVID-19. Among Americans aged 65 years and older, 95% have received at least one dose of vaccine, versus 27.9% of children younger than 12 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The vaccine situation for children mirrors that of the population as a whole. The oldest children have the highest vaccination rates, and the rates decline along with age: 72.0% of those aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose, compared with 39.8% of 5- to 11-year-olds, 10.5% of 2- to 4-year-olds, and 8.0% of children under age 2, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The youngest children were, of course, the last ones to be eligible for the vaccine, but their uptake has been much slower since emergency use was authorized in June of 2022. In the nearly 9 months since then, 9.5% of children aged 4 and under have received at least one dose, versus 66% of children aged 12-15 years in the first 9 months (May 2021 to March 2022).

Altogether, a total of 31.7 million, or 43%, of all children under age 18 had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of March 8, 2023, according to the most recent CDC data.
 

Incidence: Counting COVID

Vaccination and other prevention efforts have tried to stem the tide, but what has COVID actually done to children since the Trump administration declared a nationwide emergency on March 13, 2020?

• 16.6 million cases.
• 186,035 new hospital admissions.
• 2,122 deaths.

Severe illness has been less of an issue in children, who represent 3.1% of all new hospitalizations with diagnosed COVID and just 0.2% of all deaths, despite being 22.3% of the overall U.S. population. Even the proportion of total COVID cases in children, 17.2%, is less than might be expected, given their relatively undervaccinated status.

Seroprevalence estimates seem to support the undercounting of pediatric cases. A survey of commercial laboratories working with the CDC put the seroprevalance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children at 96.3% as of late 2022, based on tests of almost 27,000 specimens performed over an 8-week period from mid-October to mid-December. That would put the number of infected children at 65.7 million children.
 

Since Omicron

There has not been another major COVID-19 surge since the winter of 2021-2022, when the weekly rate of new cases reached 1,900 per 100,000 population in children aged 16-17 years in early January 2022 – the highest seen among children of any of the CDC’s age groups (0-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-17) during the entire pandemic. Since the Omicron surge, the highest weekly rate was 221 per 100,000 during the week of May 15-21, again in 16- to 17-year-olds, the CDC reports.

The widely anticipated surge of COVID in the fall and winter of 2022 and 2023 – the so-called “tripledemic” involving influenza and respiratory syncytial virus – did not occur, possibly because so many Americans were vaccinated or previously infected, experts suggested. New-case rates, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in children have continued to drop as winter comes to a close, CDC data show.

With 3 years of the COVID-19 experience now past, it’s safe to say that SARS-CoV-2 changed American society in ways that could not have been predicted when the first U.S. cases were reported in January of 2020.

Who would have guessed back then that not one but two vaccines would be developed, approved, and widely distributed before the end of the year? Or that those vaccines would be rejected by large segments of the population on ideological grounds? Could anyone have predicted in early 2020 that schools in 21 states would be forbidden by law to require COVID-19 vaccination in students?

Vaccination is generally considered to be an activity of childhood, but that practice has been turned upside down with COVID-19. Among Americans aged 65 years and older, 95% have received at least one dose of vaccine, versus 27.9% of children younger than 12 years old, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The vaccine situation for children mirrors that of the population as a whole. The oldest children have the highest vaccination rates, and the rates decline along with age: 72.0% of those aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose, compared with 39.8% of 5- to 11-year-olds, 10.5% of 2- to 4-year-olds, and 8.0% of children under age 2, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

The youngest children were, of course, the last ones to be eligible for the vaccine, but their uptake has been much slower since emergency use was authorized in June of 2022. In the nearly 9 months since then, 9.5% of children aged 4 and under have received at least one dose, versus 66% of children aged 12-15 years in the first 9 months (May 2021 to March 2022).

Altogether, a total of 31.7 million, or 43%, of all children under age 18 had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine as of March 8, 2023, according to the most recent CDC data.
 

Incidence: Counting COVID

Vaccination and other prevention efforts have tried to stem the tide, but what has COVID actually done to children since the Trump administration declared a nationwide emergency on March 13, 2020?

• 16.6 million cases.
• 186,035 new hospital admissions.
• 2,122 deaths.

Severe illness has been less of an issue in children, who represent 3.1% of all new hospitalizations with diagnosed COVID and just 0.2% of all deaths, despite being 22.3% of the overall U.S. population. Even the proportion of total COVID cases in children, 17.2%, is less than might be expected, given their relatively undervaccinated status.

Seroprevalence estimates seem to support the undercounting of pediatric cases. A survey of commercial laboratories working with the CDC put the seroprevalance of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in children at 96.3% as of late 2022, based on tests of almost 27,000 specimens performed over an 8-week period from mid-October to mid-December. That would put the number of infected children at 65.7 million children.
 

Since Omicron

There has not been another major COVID-19 surge since the winter of 2021-2022, when the weekly rate of new cases reached 1,900 per 100,000 population in children aged 16-17 years in early January 2022 – the highest seen among children of any of the CDC’s age groups (0-4, 5-11, 12-15, 16-17) during the entire pandemic. Since the Omicron surge, the highest weekly rate was 221 per 100,000 during the week of May 15-21, again in 16- to 17-year-olds, the CDC reports.

The widely anticipated surge of COVID in the fall and winter of 2022 and 2023 – the so-called “tripledemic” involving influenza and respiratory syncytial virus – did not occur, possibly because so many Americans were vaccinated or previously infected, experts suggested. New-case rates, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations in children have continued to drop as winter comes to a close, CDC data show.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

Overall risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low, but some of those patients may have factors that increase the risk and warrant more surveillance, according to a new retrospective cohort study.

Though VTE risk is well studied and significant in those hospitalized with COVID, little is known about the risk in the outpatient setting, said the authors of the new research published online in JAMA Network Open.

The study was conducted at two integrated health care delivery systems in northern and southern California. Data were gathered from the Kaiser Permanente Virtual Data Warehouse and electronic health records.
 

Nearly 400,000 patients studied

Researchers, led by Margaret Fang, MD, with the division of hospital medicine, University of California, San Francisco, identified 398,530 outpatients with COVID-19 from Jan. 1, 2020, through Jan. 31, 2021.

VTE risk was low overall for ambulatory COVID patients.

“It is a reassuring study,” Dr. Fang said in an interview.

The researchers found that the risk is highest in the first 30 days after COVID-19 diagnosis (unadjusted rate, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.67 per 100 person-years vs. 0.09; 95% CI, 0.08-0.11 per 100 person-years after 30 days).
 

Factors linked with high VTE risk

They also found that several factors were linked with a higher risk of blood clots in the study population, including being at least 55 years old; being male; having a history of blood clots or thrombophilia; and a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m².

The authors write, “These findings may help identify subsets of patients with COVID-19 who could benefit from VTE preventive strategies and more intensive short-term surveillance.”
 

Are routine anticoagulants justified?

Previously, randomized clinical trials have found that hospitalized patients with moderate COVID-19 may benefit from therapeutically dosed heparin anticoagulants but that therapeutic anticoagulation had no net benefit – and perhaps could even harm – patients who were critically ill with COVID.

“[M]uch less is known about the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for people with milder presentations of COVID-19 who do not require hospitalization,” they write.
 

Mild COVID VTE risk similar to general population

The authors note that rates of blood clots linked with COVID-19 are not much higher than the average blood clot rate in the general population, which is about 0.1-0.2 per 100 person-years.

Therefore, the results don’t justify routine administration of anticoagulation given the costs, inconvenience, and bleeding risks, they acknowledge.

Dr. Fang told this publication that it’s hard to know what to tell patients, given the overall low VTE risk. She said their study wasn’t designed to advise when to give prophylaxis.
 

Physicians should inform patients of their higher risk

“We should tell our patients who fall into these risk categories that blood clot is a concern after the development of COVID, especially in those first 30 days. And some people might benefit from increased surveillance,” Dr. Fang said.

”I think this study would support ongoing studies that look at whether selected patients benefit from VTE prophylaxis, for example low-dose anticoagulants,” she said.

Dr. Fang said the subgroup factors they found increased risk of blood clots for all patients, not just COVID-19 patients. It’s not clear why factors such as being male may increase blood clot risk, though that is consistent with previous literature, but higher risk with higher BMI might be related to a combination of inflammation or decreased mobility, she said.
 

Unanswered questions

Robert H. Hopkins Jr., MD, says the study helps answer a couple of important questions – that the VTE risk in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients is low and when and for which patients risk may be highest.

However, there are several unanswered questions that argue against routine initiation of anticoagulants, notes the professor of internal medicine and pediatrics chief, division of general internal medicine, at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock.

One is the change in the COVID variant landscape.

“We do not know whether rates of VTE are same or lower or higher with current circulating variants,” Dr. Hopkins said.

The authors acknowledge this as a limitation. Study data predate Omicron and subvariants, which appear to lower clinical severity, so it’s unclear whether VTE risk is different in this Omicron era.

Dr. Hopkins added another unknown: “We do not know whether vaccination affects rates of VTE in ambulatory breakthrough infection.”

Dr. Hopkins and the authors also note the lack of a control group in the study, to better compare risk.

Coauthor Dr. Prasad reports consultant fees from EpiExcellence LLC outside the submitted work. Coauthor Dr. Go reports grants paid to the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, from CSL Behring, Novartis, Bristol Meyers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance, and Janssen outside the submitted work.

The research was funded through Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Dr. Hopkins reports no relevant financial relationships.

In Western diets, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Researchers from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) suspect that such zoonoses are possibly widespread and are therefore recommending that infants not be given dairy products until they are at least age 1 year. However, in two joint statements, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Max Rubner Institute (MRI) have rejected such theories.

In 2008, Harald zur Hausen, MD, DSc, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that human papillomaviruses cause cervical cancer. His starting point was the observation that sexually abstinent women, such as nuns, rarely develop this cancer. So it was possible to draw the conclusion that pathogens are transmitted during sexual intercourse, explain Dr. zur Hausen and his wife Ethel-Michele de Villiers, PhD, both of DKFZ Heidelberg.

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.
 

Acid radicals

However, viruses – just like bacteria and parasites – can also indirectly trigger cancer. One mechanism for this triggering is the disruption of immune defenses, as shown by the sometimes drastically increased tumor incidence with AIDS or with immunosuppressants after transplants. Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C viruses.

According to Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen, there are good reasons to believe that other pathogens could cause chronic inflammation and thereby lead to cancer. Epidemiologic data suggest that dairy and meat products from European cows (Bos taurus) are a potential source. This is because colon cancer and breast cancer commonly occur in places where these foods are heavily consumed (that is, in North America, Argentina, Europe, and Australia). In contrast, the rate is low in India, where cows are revered as holy animals. Also noteworthy is that women with a lactose intolerance rarely develop breast cancer.
 

Viral progeny

In fact, the researchers found single-stranded DNA rings that originated in viruses, which they named bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), in the intestines of patients with colon cancer. They reported, “This new class of pathogen deserves, in our opinion at least, to become the focus of cancer development and further chronic diseases.” They also detected elevated levels of acid radicals in these areas (that is, oxidative stress), which is typical for chronic inflammation.

The researchers assume that infants, whose immune system is not yet fully matured, ingest the BMMF as soon as they have dairy. Therefore, there is no need for adults to avoid dairy or beef because everyone is infected anyway, said Dr. zur Hausen.
 

‘Breast milk is healthy’

Dr. De Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen outlined more evidence of cancer-triggering pathogens. Mothers who have breastfed are less likely, especially after multiple pregnancies, to develop tumors in various organs or to have MS and type 2 diabetes. The authors attribute the protective effect to oligosaccharides in breast milk, which begin to be formed midway through the pregnancy. They bind to lectin receptors and, in so doing, mask the terminal molecule onto which the viruses need to dock. As a result, their port of entry into the cells is blocked.

The oligosaccharides also protect the baby against life-threatening infections by blocking access by rotaviruses and noroviruses. In this way, especially if breastfeeding lasts a long time – around 1 year – the period of incomplete immunocompetence is bridged.
 

Colon cancer

To date, it has been assumed that around 20% of all cancerous diseases globally are caused by infections, said the researchers. But if the suspected BMMF cases are included, this figure rises to 50%, even to around 80%, for colon cancer. If the suspicion is confirmed, the consequences for prevention and therapy would be significant.

The voice of a Nobel prize winner undoubtedly carries weight, but at the time, Dr. zur Hausen still had to convince a host of skeptics with his discovery that a viral infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, some indicators suggest that he and his wife have found a dead end this time.
 

Institutional skepticism

When his working group made the results public in February 2019, the DKFZ felt the need to give an all-clear signal in response to alarmed press reports. There is no reason to see dairy and meat consumption as something negative. Similarly, in their first joint statement, the BfR and the MRI judged the data to be insufficient and called for further studies. Multiple research teams began to focus on BMMF as a result. In what foods can they be found? Are they more common in patients with cancer than in healthy people? Are they infectious? Do they cause inflammation and cancer?

The findings presented in a second statement by the BfR and MRI at the end of November 2022 contradicted the claims made by the DKFZ scientists across the board. In no way do BMMF represent new pathogens. They are variants of already known DNA sequences. In addition, they are present in numerous animal-based and plant-based foods, including pork, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.

BMMF do not possess the ability to infect human cells, the institutes said. The proof that they are damaging to one’s health was also absent. It is true that the incidence of intestinal tumors correlates positively with the consumption of red and processed meat – which in no way signifies causality – but dairy products are linked to a reduced risk. On the other hand, breast cancer cannot be associated with the consumption of beef or dairy.

Therefore, both institutes recommend continuing to use these products as supplementary diet for infants because of their micronutrients. They further stated that the products are safe for people of all ages.
 

Association with MS?

Unperturbed, Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen went one step further in their current article. They posited that MS is also associated with the consumption of dairy products and beef. Here too geographic distribution prompted the idea to look for BMMF in the brain lesions of patients with MS. The researchers isolated ring-shaped DNA molecules that proved to be closely related to BMMF from dairy and cattle blood. “The result was electrifying for us.”

However, there are several other factors to consider, such as vitamin D3 deficiency. This is because the incidence of MS decreases the further you travel from the poles toward the equator (that is, as solar radiation increases). Also, EBV clearly plays a role because patients with MS display increased titers of EBV antibodies. One study also showed that people in Antarctica excreted reactivated EBV in their saliva during winter and that vitamin D3 stopped the viral secretion.

Under these conditions, the researchers hypothesized that MS is caused by a double infection of brain cells by EBV and BMMF. EBV is reactivated by a lack of vitamin D3, and the BMMF multiply and are eventually converted into proteins. A focal immunoreaction causes the Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes to malfunction, which leads to the destruction of the myelin sheaths around the nerve fibers.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In Western diets, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Researchers from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) suspect that such zoonoses are possibly widespread and are therefore recommending that infants not be given dairy products until they are at least age 1 year. However, in two joint statements, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Max Rubner Institute (MRI) have rejected such theories.

In 2008, Harald zur Hausen, MD, DSc, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that human papillomaviruses cause cervical cancer. His starting point was the observation that sexually abstinent women, such as nuns, rarely develop this cancer. So it was possible to draw the conclusion that pathogens are transmitted during sexual intercourse, explain Dr. zur Hausen and his wife Ethel-Michele de Villiers, PhD, both of DKFZ Heidelberg.

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.
 

Acid radicals

However, viruses – just like bacteria and parasites – can also indirectly trigger cancer. One mechanism for this triggering is the disruption of immune defenses, as shown by the sometimes drastically increased tumor incidence with AIDS or with immunosuppressants after transplants. Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C viruses.

According to Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen, there are good reasons to believe that other pathogens could cause chronic inflammation and thereby lead to cancer. Epidemiologic data suggest that dairy and meat products from European cows (Bos taurus) are a potential source. This is because colon cancer and breast cancer commonly occur in places where these foods are heavily consumed (that is, in North America, Argentina, Europe, and Australia). In contrast, the rate is low in India, where cows are revered as holy animals. Also noteworthy is that women with a lactose intolerance rarely develop breast cancer.
 

Viral progeny

In fact, the researchers found single-stranded DNA rings that originated in viruses, which they named bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), in the intestines of patients with colon cancer. They reported, “This new class of pathogen deserves, in our opinion at least, to become the focus of cancer development and further chronic diseases.” They also detected elevated levels of acid radicals in these areas (that is, oxidative stress), which is typical for chronic inflammation.

The researchers assume that infants, whose immune system is not yet fully matured, ingest the BMMF as soon as they have dairy. Therefore, there is no need for adults to avoid dairy or beef because everyone is infected anyway, said Dr. zur Hausen.
 

‘Breast milk is healthy’

Dr. De Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen outlined more evidence of cancer-triggering pathogens. Mothers who have breastfed are less likely, especially after multiple pregnancies, to develop tumors in various organs or to have MS and type 2 diabetes. The authors attribute the protective effect to oligosaccharides in breast milk, which begin to be formed midway through the pregnancy. They bind to lectin receptors and, in so doing, mask the terminal molecule onto which the viruses need to dock. As a result, their port of entry into the cells is blocked.

The oligosaccharides also protect the baby against life-threatening infections by blocking access by rotaviruses and noroviruses. In this way, especially if breastfeeding lasts a long time – around 1 year – the period of incomplete immunocompetence is bridged.
 

Colon cancer

To date, it has been assumed that around 20% of all cancerous diseases globally are caused by infections, said the researchers. But if the suspected BMMF cases are included, this figure rises to 50%, even to around 80%, for colon cancer. If the suspicion is confirmed, the consequences for prevention and therapy would be significant.

The voice of a Nobel prize winner undoubtedly carries weight, but at the time, Dr. zur Hausen still had to convince a host of skeptics with his discovery that a viral infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, some indicators suggest that he and his wife have found a dead end this time.
 

Institutional skepticism

When his working group made the results public in February 2019, the DKFZ felt the need to give an all-clear signal in response to alarmed press reports. There is no reason to see dairy and meat consumption as something negative. Similarly, in their first joint statement, the BfR and the MRI judged the data to be insufficient and called for further studies. Multiple research teams began to focus on BMMF as a result. In what foods can they be found? Are they more common in patients with cancer than in healthy people? Are they infectious? Do they cause inflammation and cancer?

The findings presented in a second statement by the BfR and MRI at the end of November 2022 contradicted the claims made by the DKFZ scientists across the board. In no way do BMMF represent new pathogens. They are variants of already known DNA sequences. In addition, they are present in numerous animal-based and plant-based foods, including pork, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.

BMMF do not possess the ability to infect human cells, the institutes said. The proof that they are damaging to one’s health was also absent. It is true that the incidence of intestinal tumors correlates positively with the consumption of red and processed meat – which in no way signifies causality – but dairy products are linked to a reduced risk. On the other hand, breast cancer cannot be associated with the consumption of beef or dairy.

Therefore, both institutes recommend continuing to use these products as supplementary diet for infants because of their micronutrients. They further stated that the products are safe for people of all ages.
 

Association with MS?

Unperturbed, Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen went one step further in their current article. They posited that MS is also associated with the consumption of dairy products and beef. Here too geographic distribution prompted the idea to look for BMMF in the brain lesions of patients with MS. The researchers isolated ring-shaped DNA molecules that proved to be closely related to BMMF from dairy and cattle blood. “The result was electrifying for us.”

However, there are several other factors to consider, such as vitamin D3 deficiency. This is because the incidence of MS decreases the further you travel from the poles toward the equator (that is, as solar radiation increases). Also, EBV clearly plays a role because patients with MS display increased titers of EBV antibodies. One study also showed that people in Antarctica excreted reactivated EBV in their saliva during winter and that vitamin D3 stopped the viral secretion.

Under these conditions, the researchers hypothesized that MS is caused by a double infection of brain cells by EBV and BMMF. EBV is reactivated by a lack of vitamin D3, and the BMMF multiply and are eventually converted into proteins. A focal immunoreaction causes the Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes to malfunction, which leads to the destruction of the myelin sheaths around the nerve fibers.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

In Western diets, dairy and beef are ubiquitous: Milk goes with coffee, melted cheese with pizza, and chili with rice. But what if dairy products and beef contained a new kind of pathogen that could infect you as a child and trigger cancer or multiple sclerosis (MS) 40-70 years later?

Researchers from the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) suspect that such zoonoses are possibly widespread and are therefore recommending that infants not be given dairy products until they are at least age 1 year. However, in two joint statements, the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and the Max Rubner Institute (MRI) have rejected such theories.

In 2008, Harald zur Hausen, MD, DSc, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his discovery that human papillomaviruses cause cervical cancer. His starting point was the observation that sexually abstinent women, such as nuns, rarely develop this cancer. So it was possible to draw the conclusion that pathogens are transmitted during sexual intercourse, explain Dr. zur Hausen and his wife Ethel-Michele de Villiers, PhD, both of DKFZ Heidelberg.

Papillomaviruses, as well as human herpes and Epstein-Barr viruses (EBV), polyomaviruses, and retroviruses, cause cancer in a direct way: by inserting their genes into the DNA of human cells. With a latency of a few years to a few decades, the proteins formed through expression stimulate malignant growth by altering the regulating host gene.
 

Acid radicals

However, viruses – just like bacteria and parasites – can also indirectly trigger cancer. One mechanism for this triggering is the disruption of immune defenses, as shown by the sometimes drastically increased tumor incidence with AIDS or with immunosuppressants after transplants. Chronic inflammation is a second mechanism that generates acid radicals and thereby causes random mutations in replicating cells. Examples include stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori and liver cancer caused by Schistosoma, liver fluke, and hepatitis B and C viruses.

According to Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen, there are good reasons to believe that other pathogens could cause chronic inflammation and thereby lead to cancer. Epidemiologic data suggest that dairy and meat products from European cows (Bos taurus) are a potential source. This is because colon cancer and breast cancer commonly occur in places where these foods are heavily consumed (that is, in North America, Argentina, Europe, and Australia). In contrast, the rate is low in India, where cows are revered as holy animals. Also noteworthy is that women with a lactose intolerance rarely develop breast cancer.
 

Viral progeny

In fact, the researchers found single-stranded DNA rings that originated in viruses, which they named bovine meat and milk factors (BMMF), in the intestines of patients with colon cancer. They reported, “This new class of pathogen deserves, in our opinion at least, to become the focus of cancer development and further chronic diseases.” They also detected elevated levels of acid radicals in these areas (that is, oxidative stress), which is typical for chronic inflammation.

The researchers assume that infants, whose immune system is not yet fully matured, ingest the BMMF as soon as they have dairy. Therefore, there is no need for adults to avoid dairy or beef because everyone is infected anyway, said Dr. zur Hausen.
 

‘Breast milk is healthy’

Dr. De Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen outlined more evidence of cancer-triggering pathogens. Mothers who have breastfed are less likely, especially after multiple pregnancies, to develop tumors in various organs or to have MS and type 2 diabetes. The authors attribute the protective effect to oligosaccharides in breast milk, which begin to be formed midway through the pregnancy. They bind to lectin receptors and, in so doing, mask the terminal molecule onto which the viruses need to dock. As a result, their port of entry into the cells is blocked.

The oligosaccharides also protect the baby against life-threatening infections by blocking access by rotaviruses and noroviruses. In this way, especially if breastfeeding lasts a long time – around 1 year – the period of incomplete immunocompetence is bridged.
 

Colon cancer

To date, it has been assumed that around 20% of all cancerous diseases globally are caused by infections, said the researchers. But if the suspected BMMF cases are included, this figure rises to 50%, even to around 80%, for colon cancer. If the suspicion is confirmed, the consequences for prevention and therapy would be significant.

The voice of a Nobel prize winner undoubtedly carries weight, but at the time, Dr. zur Hausen still had to convince a host of skeptics with his discovery that a viral infection is a major cause of cervical cancer. Nonetheless, some indicators suggest that he and his wife have found a dead end this time.
 

Institutional skepticism

When his working group made the results public in February 2019, the DKFZ felt the need to give an all-clear signal in response to alarmed press reports. There is no reason to see dairy and meat consumption as something negative. Similarly, in their first joint statement, the BfR and the MRI judged the data to be insufficient and called for further studies. Multiple research teams began to focus on BMMF as a result. In what foods can they be found? Are they more common in patients with cancer than in healthy people? Are they infectious? Do they cause inflammation and cancer?

The findings presented in a second statement by the BfR and MRI at the end of November 2022 contradicted the claims made by the DKFZ scientists across the board. In no way do BMMF represent new pathogens. They are variants of already known DNA sequences. In addition, they are present in numerous animal-based and plant-based foods, including pork, fish, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.

BMMF do not possess the ability to infect human cells, the institutes said. The proof that they are damaging to one’s health was also absent. It is true that the incidence of intestinal tumors correlates positively with the consumption of red and processed meat – which in no way signifies causality – but dairy products are linked to a reduced risk. On the other hand, breast cancer cannot be associated with the consumption of beef or dairy.

Therefore, both institutes recommend continuing to use these products as supplementary diet for infants because of their micronutrients. They further stated that the products are safe for people of all ages.
 

Association with MS?

Unperturbed, Dr. de Villiers and Dr. zur Hausen went one step further in their current article. They posited that MS is also associated with the consumption of dairy products and beef. Here too geographic distribution prompted the idea to look for BMMF in the brain lesions of patients with MS. The researchers isolated ring-shaped DNA molecules that proved to be closely related to BMMF from dairy and cattle blood. “The result was electrifying for us.”

However, there are several other factors to consider, such as vitamin D3 deficiency. This is because the incidence of MS decreases the further you travel from the poles toward the equator (that is, as solar radiation increases). Also, EBV clearly plays a role because patients with MS display increased titers of EBV antibodies. One study also showed that people in Antarctica excreted reactivated EBV in their saliva during winter and that vitamin D3 stopped the viral secretion.

Under these conditions, the researchers hypothesized that MS is caused by a double infection of brain cells by EBV and BMMF. EBV is reactivated by a lack of vitamin D3, and the BMMF multiply and are eventually converted into proteins. A focal immunoreaction causes the Schwann cells and oligodendrocytes to malfunction, which leads to the destruction of the myelin sheaths around the nerve fibers.

This article was translated from the Medscape German Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

All adults should be tested for hepatitis B virus (HBV) at least once in their lifetime, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is the first update to HBV screening guidelines since 2008, the agency said.

“Risk-based testing alone has not identified most persons living with chronic HBV infection and is considered inefficient for providers to implement,” the authors wrote in the new guidance, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Universal screening of adults for HBV infection is cost-effective, compared with risk-based screening and averts liver disease and death. Although a curative treatment is not yet available, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic HBV infections reduces the risk for cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.”

Howard Lee, MD, an assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that risk-based screening has not been effective. A universal screening approach “is the way to go,” he said. With this new screening approach, patients can get tested without having to admit that they may be at risk for a chronic disease like HIV and HBV, which can be stigmatizing, said Dr. Lee, who was not involved with making these recommendations.

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million individuals are living with HBV infection in the United States, and two-thirds may be unaware they are infected, according to the CDC. The virus spreads through contact with blood, semen, and other body fluids of an infected person.

The guidance now recommends using the triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, total anti-HBc) for initial screening.

“It can help identify persons who have an active HBV infection and could be linked to care; have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (for example, immunosuppressed persons); are susceptible and need vaccination; or are vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Patients with previous HBV infection can have the infection reactivated with immunosuppressive treatments, Dr. Lee said, which is why detecting prior infection via the triple panel screening is important.

Women who are pregnant should be screened, ideally, in the first trimester of each pregnancy, regardless of vaccination status or testing history. If they have already received timely triple panel screening for hepatitis B and have no new HBV exposures, pregnant women only need HBsAg screening, the guidelines state.

The guidelines also specify that higher risk groups, specifically those incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, adults with current or past hepatitis C virus infection, and those with current or past sexually transmitted infections and multiple sex partners.

People who are susceptible for infection, refuse vaccination and are at higher risk for HBV should be screened periodically, but how often they should be screened should be based on shared decision-making between the provider and patient as well as individual risk and immune status.

Additional research into the optimal frequency of periodic testing is necessary, the authors say.

“Along with vaccination strategies, universal screening of adults and appropriate testing of persons at increased risk for HBV infection will improve health outcomes, reduce the prevalence of HBV infection in the United States, and advance viral hepatitis elimination goals,” the authors wrote.

The new recommendations now contrast with the 2020 screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that recommend risk-based screening for hepatitis B.

“When that recommendation was published, the Task Force was aligned with several other organizations, including the CDC, in supporting screening for hepatitis B in high-risk populations — and importantly, we’re all still aligned in making sure that people get the care that they need,” said Michael Barry, MD, chair of the USPSTF, in an emailed statement. “The evidence on clinical preventive services is always changing, and the Task Force aims to keep all recommendations current, updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years.”

“In the meantime, we always encourage clinicians to use their judgment as they provide care for their patients — including those who may benefit from screening for hepatitis B — and to decide together with each patient which preventive services can best help them live a long and healthy life,” Dr. Barry said.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases is currently updating their HBV screening recommendations, Dr. Lee said, and he expects other professional societies to follow the CDC recommendations.

“It’s not uncommon that we see the CDC or societies making recommendations and the USPSTF following along, so hopefully that’s the case for hepatitis B as well,” he said.

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

All adults should be tested for hepatitis B virus (HBV) at least once in their lifetime, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is the first update to HBV screening guidelines since 2008, the agency said.

“Risk-based testing alone has not identified most persons living with chronic HBV infection and is considered inefficient for providers to implement,” the authors wrote in the new guidance, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Universal screening of adults for HBV infection is cost-effective, compared with risk-based screening and averts liver disease and death. Although a curative treatment is not yet available, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic HBV infections reduces the risk for cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.”

Howard Lee, MD, an assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that risk-based screening has not been effective. A universal screening approach “is the way to go,” he said. With this new screening approach, patients can get tested without having to admit that they may be at risk for a chronic disease like HIV and HBV, which can be stigmatizing, said Dr. Lee, who was not involved with making these recommendations.

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million individuals are living with HBV infection in the United States, and two-thirds may be unaware they are infected, according to the CDC. The virus spreads through contact with blood, semen, and other body fluids of an infected person.

The guidance now recommends using the triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, total anti-HBc) for initial screening.

“It can help identify persons who have an active HBV infection and could be linked to care; have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (for example, immunosuppressed persons); are susceptible and need vaccination; or are vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Patients with previous HBV infection can have the infection reactivated with immunosuppressive treatments, Dr. Lee said, which is why detecting prior infection via the triple panel screening is important.

Women who are pregnant should be screened, ideally, in the first trimester of each pregnancy, regardless of vaccination status or testing history. If they have already received timely triple panel screening for hepatitis B and have no new HBV exposures, pregnant women only need HBsAg screening, the guidelines state.

The guidelines also specify that higher risk groups, specifically those incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, adults with current or past hepatitis C virus infection, and those with current or past sexually transmitted infections and multiple sex partners.

People who are susceptible for infection, refuse vaccination and are at higher risk for HBV should be screened periodically, but how often they should be screened should be based on shared decision-making between the provider and patient as well as individual risk and immune status.

Additional research into the optimal frequency of periodic testing is necessary, the authors say.

“Along with vaccination strategies, universal screening of adults and appropriate testing of persons at increased risk for HBV infection will improve health outcomes, reduce the prevalence of HBV infection in the United States, and advance viral hepatitis elimination goals,” the authors wrote.

The new recommendations now contrast with the 2020 screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that recommend risk-based screening for hepatitis B.

“When that recommendation was published, the Task Force was aligned with several other organizations, including the CDC, in supporting screening for hepatitis B in high-risk populations — and importantly, we’re all still aligned in making sure that people get the care that they need,” said Michael Barry, MD, chair of the USPSTF, in an emailed statement. “The evidence on clinical preventive services is always changing, and the Task Force aims to keep all recommendations current, updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years.”

“In the meantime, we always encourage clinicians to use their judgment as they provide care for their patients — including those who may benefit from screening for hepatitis B — and to decide together with each patient which preventive services can best help them live a long and healthy life,” Dr. Barry said.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases is currently updating their HBV screening recommendations, Dr. Lee said, and he expects other professional societies to follow the CDC recommendations.

“It’s not uncommon that we see the CDC or societies making recommendations and the USPSTF following along, so hopefully that’s the case for hepatitis B as well,” he said.

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

All adults should be tested for hepatitis B virus (HBV) at least once in their lifetime, according to updated guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is the first update to HBV screening guidelines since 2008, the agency said.

“Risk-based testing alone has not identified most persons living with chronic HBV infection and is considered inefficient for providers to implement,” the authors wrote in the new guidance, published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Universal screening of adults for HBV infection is cost-effective, compared with risk-based screening and averts liver disease and death. Although a curative treatment is not yet available, early diagnosis and treatment of chronic HBV infections reduces the risk for cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.”

Howard Lee, MD, an assistant professor in the section of gastroenterology and hepatology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, agreed that risk-based screening has not been effective. A universal screening approach “is the way to go,” he said. With this new screening approach, patients can get tested without having to admit that they may be at risk for a chronic disease like HIV and HBV, which can be stigmatizing, said Dr. Lee, who was not involved with making these recommendations.

An estimated 580,000 to 2.4 million individuals are living with HBV infection in the United States, and two-thirds may be unaware they are infected, according to the CDC. The virus spreads through contact with blood, semen, and other body fluids of an infected person.

The guidance now recommends using the triple panel (HBsAg, anti-HBs, total anti-HBc) for initial screening.

“It can help identify persons who have an active HBV infection and could be linked to care; have resolved infection and might be susceptible to reactivation (for example, immunosuppressed persons); are susceptible and need vaccination; or are vaccinated,” the authors wrote.

Patients with previous HBV infection can have the infection reactivated with immunosuppressive treatments, Dr. Lee said, which is why detecting prior infection via the triple panel screening is important.

Women who are pregnant should be screened, ideally, in the first trimester of each pregnancy, regardless of vaccination status or testing history. If they have already received timely triple panel screening for hepatitis B and have no new HBV exposures, pregnant women only need HBsAg screening, the guidelines state.

The guidelines also specify that higher risk groups, specifically those incarcerated or formerly incarcerated, adults with current or past hepatitis C virus infection, and those with current or past sexually transmitted infections and multiple sex partners.

People who are susceptible for infection, refuse vaccination and are at higher risk for HBV should be screened periodically, but how often they should be screened should be based on shared decision-making between the provider and patient as well as individual risk and immune status.

Additional research into the optimal frequency of periodic testing is necessary, the authors say.

“Along with vaccination strategies, universal screening of adults and appropriate testing of persons at increased risk for HBV infection will improve health outcomes, reduce the prevalence of HBV infection in the United States, and advance viral hepatitis elimination goals,” the authors wrote.

The new recommendations now contrast with the 2020 screening guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) that recommend risk-based screening for hepatitis B.

“When that recommendation was published, the Task Force was aligned with several other organizations, including the CDC, in supporting screening for hepatitis B in high-risk populations — and importantly, we’re all still aligned in making sure that people get the care that they need,” said Michael Barry, MD, chair of the USPSTF, in an emailed statement. “The evidence on clinical preventive services is always changing, and the Task Force aims to keep all recommendations current, updating each recommendation approximately every 5 years.”

“In the meantime, we always encourage clinicians to use their judgment as they provide care for their patients — including those who may benefit from screening for hepatitis B — and to decide together with each patient which preventive services can best help them live a long and healthy life,” Dr. Barry said.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases is currently updating their HBV screening recommendations, Dr. Lee said, and he expects other professional societies to follow the CDC recommendations.

“It’s not uncommon that we see the CDC or societies making recommendations and the USPSTF following along, so hopefully that’s the case for hepatitis B as well,” he said.

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?

The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
 

RV and RSV

Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.

Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.

Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
 

RSV infection

During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”

Asthma development

The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”

However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.

“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”

Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
 

Reaching adulthood

Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.

Mechanisms of action

“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.

It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).

Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?

The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
 

RV and RSV

Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.

Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.

Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
 

RSV infection

During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”

Asthma development

The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”

However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.

“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”

Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
 

Reaching adulthood

Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.

Mechanisms of action

“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.

It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).

Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?

The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
 

RV and RSV

Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.

Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.

Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
 

RSV infection

During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”

Asthma development

The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”

However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.

“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”

Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
 

Reaching adulthood

Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.

Mechanisms of action

“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.

It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).

Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label because of rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.

The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

The second question: What does it mean?
 

No humans were harmed in this study

The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.

“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.

Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
 

But what if ...

So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.

“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

And not all organisms are harmful.

“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”

Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.

For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

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

Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label because of rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.

The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

The second question: What does it mean?
 

No humans were harmed in this study

The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.

“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.

Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
 

But what if ...

So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.

“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

And not all organisms are harmful.

“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”

Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.

For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

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

Of all the consequences of climate change, here’s one nobody counted on.

A team of European researchers digging into Siberian permafrost discovered and revived 13 types of prehistoric viruses. As the ancient frozen ground slowly loses its “perma” label because of rising temperatures, more and more microbes that have never encountered modern humans are resurfacing.

The researchers coined the isn’t-that-just-great term “zombie viruses” to describe previously dormant viruses that had been frozen in ice for tens of thousands of years – 27,000 to 48,500 years, in fact.

The first question is obvious: This is fascinating, but is it a good idea? We’re still dealing with a certain mutating virus our immune systems have never encountered before.

The second question: What does it mean?
 

No humans were harmed in this study

The quick answer: The viruses observed here were only able to infect amoebae. But viruses that can infect humans do indeed exist in environments like permafrost.

The possibility that an unearthed, unknown virus will one day appear from seemingly nowhere and result in another pandemic is not necessarily zero.

“There is an objective risk, and it is increasing,” says Jean-Michel Claverie, PhD, the lead researcher and an emeritus professor of genomics and bioinformatics at Aix-Marseille University in France. “However, we cannot put a number on this probability, specifically because we refuse to work with and revive human- and animal-infecting viruses. It would be much too dangerous.”

Based on Dr. Claverie and his team’s results, human- and animal-infecting viruses can indeed survive deep within the permafrost for extended periods of time. 

“From our research, we can deduce that other viruses present in the permafrost are likely still infectious,” says Dr. Claverie. “By sequencing the total DNA, we can detect the presence of viruses similar to those infecting animals or humans today.”

That said, the chances of something catastrophic happening from, say, humans exposed to thawed permafrost are slim. “[The microbes] would be quick to decay once they’re exposed to heat, UV light, and oxygen,” he says.

Also, in places like Siberia where permafrost exists, people generally do not. So, some science fiction-inspired fears (we see you, fans of John Carpenter’s “The Thing”) are pretty unfounded. But if more people or companies begin to migrate toward the areas where these microbes are being released, the chances of a virus successfully infecting a host could be greater.
 

But what if ...

So, what would happen – hypothetically – if the next deadly virus to overtake our planet came from the Arctic permafrost? Would we even be remotely prepared?

“There is a small risk that a frozen virus that gets unearthed is able to start an infection chain that ends up in humans,” says Adrian Liston, PhD, an immunologist and senior group leader at the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research institute at the University of Cambridge in England. Dr. Liston was not involved in the research discussed here. “On the one hand, we would not have preexisting immunity against it, so the initial ability to combat the infection is low. On the other hand, the virus would not be adapted to infect (modern-day) humans, so the chance of an initial infection being successful for the virus is extremely low.”

That’s something a lot of folks don’t understand: Today’s viruses and other infectious microbes are infectious only because they exist today. They have evolved to work within our modern immune systems – for either good or ill.

“ ‘Entry events’ do happen, very rarely, and they can shape human evolution,” says Dr. Liston. “Major examples would be smallpox (a virus) and tuberculosis (a bacteria), which strongly influenced human evolution when they entered our species, selecting for the type of immune system that was able to fight them and killing off individuals with the ‘wrong’ type of immune system.”

And not all organisms are harmful.

“There are many, many microbes that are beneficial to humans,” Dr. Liston says. “But generally speaking, these are microbes that have evolved for millions of years to work in harmony with our body, such as our microbiome, or have been selected for thousands of years to do beneficial chores for us, like yeast in making bread or brewing beer.”

Some random frozen microbe is unlikely to affect us directly, but if it does, it is far more likely to be bad, Dr. Liston says.

For now, at least, we can rest easy knowing that Dr. Claverie and his team have no plans to revive dangerous viruses or retrieve more samples. “Because of the Russian-Ukrainian war, all of our collaborations have stopped. We are now focused on studying the viruses already in our lab and understanding how they replicate and interact with their cellular hosts,” he says.

If anything, zombie viruses can at least remind us about the constant increasing effects that climate change will have on our lives and planet in the near future.

“The most important take-home message is that climate change is going to create unexpected problems,” says Dr. Liston. “It isn’t simply changes to weather, climate events, and sea levels rising. A whole cascade of secondary problems will be generated. New infections, some of which could go pandemic, are almost certainly going to happen because of climate change.”

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

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW ORLEANS – In the international FREEDOM COVID trial that randomized non–critically ill hospitalized patients, a therapeutic dose of anticoagulation relative to a prophylactic dose significantly reduced death from COVID-19 at 30 days, even as a larger composite primary endpoint was missed.

The mortality reduction suggests therapeutic-dose anticoagulation “may improve outcomes in non–critically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who are at increased risk for adverse events but do not yet require ICU-level of care,” reported Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

These data provide a suggestion rather than a demonstration of benefit because the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, intubation requiring mechanical ventilation, systemic thromboembolism or ischemic stroke at 30 days was not met. Although this 30-day outcome was lower on the therapeutic dose (11.3% vs. 13.2%), the difference was only a trend (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .11), said Dr. Fuster, physician-in-chief, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
 

Missed primary endpoint blamed on low events

The declining severity of more recent COVID-19 variants (the trial was conducted from August 2022 to September 2022) might be one explanation that the primary endpoint was not met, but the more likely explanation is the relatively good health status – and therefore a low risk of events – among patients randomized in India, 1 of 10 participating countries.

India accounted for roughly 40% of the total number of 3,398 patients in the intention-to-treat population. In India, the rates of events were 0.7 and 1.3 in the prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation arms, respectively. In contrast, they were 17.5 and 9.5, respectively in the United States. In combined data from the other eight countries, the rates were 22.78 and 20.4, respectively.

“These results emphasize that varying country-specific thresholds for hospitalization may affect patient prognosis and the potential utility of advanced therapies” Dr. Fuster said.

In fact, the therapeutic anticoagulation was linked to a nonsignificant twofold increase in the risk of the primary outcome in India (HR, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-7.13) when outcomes were stratified by country. In the United States, where there was a much higher incidence of events, therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a nearly 50% reduction (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.91).

In the remaining countries, which included those in Latin America and Europe as well as the city of Hong Kong, the primary outcome was reduced numerically but not statistically by therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71-1.11).
 

Enoxaparin and apixaban are studied

In FREEDOM COVID, patients were randomized to a therapeutic dose of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) enoxaparin (1 mg/kg every 12 hours), a prophylactic dose of enoxaparin (40 mg once daily), or a therapeutic dose of the direct factor Xa inhibitor apixaban (5 mg every 12 hours). Lower doses of enoxaparin and apixaban were used for those with renal impairment, and lower doses of apixaban were employed for elderly patients (≥ 80 years) and those with low body weight (≤ 60 kg).

The major inclusion criteria were confirmed COVID-19 infection with symptomatic systemic involvement. The major exclusion criteria were need for ICU level of care or active bleeding.

The therapeutic anticoagulation arms performed similarly and were combined for comparison to the prophylactic arm. Despite the failure to show a difference in the primary outcome, the rate of 30-day mortality was substantially lower in the therapeutic arm (4.9% vs. 7.0%), translating into a 30% risk reduction (HR, 0.70; P = .01).

Therapeutic anticoagulation was also associated with a lower rate of intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.4% vs. 8.4%) that reached statistical significance (HR, 0.75; P = .03). The risk reduction was also significant for a combination of these endpoints (HR, 0.77; P = .03).

The lower proportion of patients who eventually required ICU-level of care (9.9% vs. 11.7%) showed a trend in favor of therapeutic anticoagulation (HR, 0.84; P = .11).
 

Bleeding rates did not differ between arms

Bleeding Academic Research Consortium major bleeding types 3 and 5 were slightly numerically higher in the group randomized to therapeutic enoxaparin (0.5%) than prophylactic enoxaparin (0.1%) and therapeutic apixaban (0.3%), but the differences between any groups were not significant.

Numerous anticoagulation trials in patients with COVID-19 have been published previously. One 2021 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine also suggested benefit from a therapeutic relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. In that trial, which compared heparin to usual-care thromboprophylaxis, benefits were derived from a Bayesian analysis. Significant differences were not shown for death or other major outcome assessed individually.

Even though this more recent trial missed its primary endpoint, Gregg Stone, MD, a coauthor of this study and a colleague of Dr. Fuster at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, reiterated that these results support routine anticoagulation in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“These are robust reductions in mortality and intubation rates, which are the most serious outcomes,” said Dr. Stone, who is first author of the paper, which was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology immediately after Dr. Fuster’s presentation.

COVID-19 has proven to be a very thrombogenic virus, but the literature has not been wholly consistent on which anticoagulation treatment provides the best balance of benefits and risks, according to Julia Grapsa, MD, PhD, attending cardiologist, Guys and St. Thomas Hospital, London. She said that this randomized trial, despite its failure to meet the primary endpoint, is useful.

“This demonstrates that a therapeutic dose of enoxaparin is likely to improve outcomes over a prophylactic dose with a low risk of bleeding,” Dr. Grapsa said. On the basis of the randomized study, “I feel more confident with this approach.”

Dr. Fuster reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Stone has financial relationships with more than 30 companies that make pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Dr. Grapsa reported no potential conflicts of interest.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.