MDedge Infectious Disease

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

The wide majority of at-home sexually transmitted infection testing kits in the United States appear to be limited to use by adults, a new study finds, and many have limitations that make them less than ideal for young people to use.

While at-home kits do allow more access to STI testing, “we need to create programs that are specific for youth because they have extra needs,” said lead author Saumya Sao, a research assistant at the department of gynecology & obstetrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, in an interview. “The only platform that did meet our needs was the program that we developed specifically.”

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the 2022 annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Session A117).

According to Ms. Sao, companies began to offer more at-home testing kits during the pandemic as in-person STI clinics shut down. Still, “the fact that we only found 13 self-collect mail-in STI programs shows you that this is pretty new,” she said. “There are not too many companies that do it. We found a lot more platforms that allow users to place orders for testing online, but you’re still required to go into a lab and actually do the testing.”

The researchers gathered information about 13 programs, including the one that they developed at Johns Hopkins known as Violet. Of those, seven limited testing to adults aged 18 and up, and one didn’t list an age requirement. The rest had some age requirements (such as 14 and up) or no age requirements.

The lack of full access for teens is problematic, Ms. Sao said. According to the study, “access to testing among young people is especially important because youth (ages 13-24) bear a disproportionate burden of sexually transmitted infection, accounting for 50% of cases but only 25% of the sexually active population.”

Research has suggested that young people are often wary of visiting STI clinics because they fear stigma from medical professionals or worry about being seen there, Ms. Sao said.

Tests are free in only three of the programs analyzed in the new study. Among the other programs, tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae cost $45-$179; only two accepted insurance. “These out-of-pocket costs are really high in regard to what a young person might be able to afford for testing, especially if they would need to do repeat testing between partners, or 3 months after testing positive,” Ms. Sao said.

Most of the programs will link users to medical professionals if they test positive. This is a key feature, Ms. Sao said, in order to make sure young people have support.

As for location, most of the programs – including all those that offer free testing – are limited to certain states. Planned Parenthood, for example, only offers at-home STI testing in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The program charges patients on a sliding scale, accepts insurance, and is available for ages 14 and up. It connects users who test positive to physicians.

Another free program, TakeMeHome, is restricted to 16 states. It includes an HIV panel for ages 17+ (although it doesn’t have vaginal swab testing). It recommends that patients who are positive consult a doctor.

The researchers also found that some, but not all, of the programs send testing material in discreet packaging. This is important to young people because they may not want their parents to know that they’re getting tested.

Some of the testing programs analyzed don’t make it clear on their web sites whether their packaging is discreet, Ms. Sao said.

At Johns Hopkins, Ms. Sao has helped develop the Violet Project, which is designed to meet the needs of young people and offers free STI testing to residents of Maryland of any age for Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Trichomonas vaginalis. Mailing packages are discreet, and physicians reach out to those who test positive. Fees are covered.

“We don’t have money yet to expand beyond Maryland, but we’re hopeful,” she said.

In an interview, Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health maternal-fetal medicine specialist Sarah Smithson, DO, MS, praised the study and said she supports optimizing at-home testing for young people. It may be useful for youths who first get tested in a clinic but then need follow-up testing or testing of their partners, she said.

Dr. Smithson added that transportation is often a challenge for young people. At her pregnancy clinic in California’s Inland Empire, she said, some patients live in remote areas and make virtual doctor visits because of the distance. STI testing is crucial for pregnant women, she said, “and this could be a game changer for them.”

Fecal matter may be in the fountain of youth

Yes, you read that headline correctly. New research by scientists at Quadram Institute and the University of East Anglia, both in Norwich, England, supports the claim that transferring fecal microbes might actually have some positive effects on reversing the aging process in the eyes, brain, and gut.

How do they know? Mice, of course. In the study, scientists took the gut microbes from older mice and transferred them into the younger mince. The young mice displayed inflamed signs of aging in their guts, brains, and eyes, which, we all know, decline in function as we age. What happens is a chronic inflammation of cells as we get older that can be found in the brain or gut that leads to a degenerative state over time.

Albrecht Fietz/Pixabay

When the older mice received the gut microbes from younger mice, the investigators saw the reverse: Gut, brain, and eye functionality improved. In a way, minimizing the inflammation.

There’s tons of research out there that suggests gut health is the key to a healthy life, but this study points directly to an improvement in brain and vision functionality as a result of the transfer.

Now, we’re not insinuating you get a poo transfer as you reach old age. And the shift to human studies on microbiota replacement therapy is still in the works. But this definitely is a topic to watch and could be a game changer in the age-old quest to bottle youth or at least improve quality of life as we age.

For now, the scientists did find some connections between the beneficial bacteria in the transplants and the human diet that could have similar effects, like changes in the metabolism of certain fats and vitamin that could have effects on the inflammatory cells in the eye and brain.

The more you know!
 

It’s not lying, it’s preemptive truth

Lying is bad. Bold statement, we know, but a true one. After all, God spent an entire commandment telling people not to do the whole bearing false witness thing, and God is generally known for not joking around. He’s a pretty serious dude.

In case you’ve been wandering around the desert for a while and haven’t had wifi, we have a bit of a misinformation problem these days. People lie all the time about a lot of things, and a lot of people believe the lies. According to new research, however, there are also a lot of people who recognize the lies but accept them anyway because they believe that the lies will become true in the future.

Peter Timmerhues/Pixabay

Imagine the following scenario: A friend gets a job he’s not qualified for because he listed a skill he doesn’t have. That’s bad, right? And the people the researchers interviewed agreed, at least initially. But when informed that our friend is planning on obtaining the skill in summer classes in the near future, the study participants became far more willing to excuse the initial lie.

A friend jumping the gun on training he doesn’t have yet is fairly innocuous as far as lying goes, but as the researchers found, this willingness to forgive lies because they could become true extends far further. For example, millions of people do not vote illegally in U.S. elections, nor do White people get approved for mortgages at rates 300% higher than minorities, but when asked to imagine scenarios in which those statements could be true, study participants were less likely to condemn the lie and prevent it from spreading further, especially if their political viewpoints aligned with the respective falsehood.

It seems, then, that while we may aspire to not tell lies, we take after another guy with magic powers who spent too much time in the desert: “What I told you was true, from a certain point of view.”
 

It tastes like feng shui, but it’s not

You know about biomes. You’ve read about various microbiomes. Allow us to introduce you to the envirome,

The envirome “includes all the natural and man-made elements of our environment throughout the lifespan, notably the built environment,” said Robert Schneider, dean of the College of Integrative Medicine at Maharishi International University. Located in – you guessed it – Fairfield, Iowa, and home of the Fighting Transcendentalists. MAHARISHI RULES!

Free-Photos/Pixabay

• The headboard of a bed should be oriented to the east or south when you sleep. This will improve mental health.
• While sitting at a desk or work area, a person should face east or north to improve brain coherence.
• The main entrance of a house should face east because morning light is superior to afternoon light.

And you were worried about feng shui. Well, forget feng shui. Feng shui is for amateurs. MVA is the way to go. MVA is the GOAT. MAHARISHI RULES!

Fecal matter may be in the fountain of youth

Yes, you read that headline correctly. New research by scientists at Quadram Institute and the University of East Anglia, both in Norwich, England, supports the claim that transferring fecal microbes might actually have some positive effects on reversing the aging process in the eyes, brain, and gut.

How do they know? Mice, of course. In the study, scientists took the gut microbes from older mice and transferred them into the younger mince. The young mice displayed inflamed signs of aging in their guts, brains, and eyes, which, we all know, decline in function as we age. What happens is a chronic inflammation of cells as we get older that can be found in the brain or gut that leads to a degenerative state over time.

Albrecht Fietz/Pixabay

When the older mice received the gut microbes from younger mice, the investigators saw the reverse: Gut, brain, and eye functionality improved. In a way, minimizing the inflammation.

There’s tons of research out there that suggests gut health is the key to a healthy life, but this study points directly to an improvement in brain and vision functionality as a result of the transfer.

Now, we’re not insinuating you get a poo transfer as you reach old age. And the shift to human studies on microbiota replacement therapy is still in the works. But this definitely is a topic to watch and could be a game changer in the age-old quest to bottle youth or at least improve quality of life as we age.

For now, the scientists did find some connections between the beneficial bacteria in the transplants and the human diet that could have similar effects, like changes in the metabolism of certain fats and vitamin that could have effects on the inflammatory cells in the eye and brain.

The more you know!
 

It’s not lying, it’s preemptive truth

Lying is bad. Bold statement, we know, but a true one. After all, God spent an entire commandment telling people not to do the whole bearing false witness thing, and God is generally known for not joking around. He’s a pretty serious dude.

In case you’ve been wandering around the desert for a while and haven’t had wifi, we have a bit of a misinformation problem these days. People lie all the time about a lot of things, and a lot of people believe the lies. According to new research, however, there are also a lot of people who recognize the lies but accept them anyway because they believe that the lies will become true in the future.

Peter Timmerhues/Pixabay

Imagine the following scenario: A friend gets a job he’s not qualified for because he listed a skill he doesn’t have. That’s bad, right? And the people the researchers interviewed agreed, at least initially. But when informed that our friend is planning on obtaining the skill in summer classes in the near future, the study participants became far more willing to excuse the initial lie.

A friend jumping the gun on training he doesn’t have yet is fairly innocuous as far as lying goes, but as the researchers found, this willingness to forgive lies because they could become true extends far further. For example, millions of people do not vote illegally in U.S. elections, nor do White people get approved for mortgages at rates 300% higher than minorities, but when asked to imagine scenarios in which those statements could be true, study participants were less likely to condemn the lie and prevent it from spreading further, especially if their political viewpoints aligned with the respective falsehood.

It seems, then, that while we may aspire to not tell lies, we take after another guy with magic powers who spent too much time in the desert: “What I told you was true, from a certain point of view.”
 

It tastes like feng shui, but it’s not

You know about biomes. You’ve read about various microbiomes. Allow us to introduce you to the envirome,

The envirome “includes all the natural and man-made elements of our environment throughout the lifespan, notably the built environment,” said Robert Schneider, dean of the College of Integrative Medicine at Maharishi International University. Located in – you guessed it – Fairfield, Iowa, and home of the Fighting Transcendentalists. MAHARISHI RULES!

Free-Photos/Pixabay

• The headboard of a bed should be oriented to the east or south when you sleep. This will improve mental health.
• While sitting at a desk or work area, a person should face east or north to improve brain coherence.
• The main entrance of a house should face east because morning light is superior to afternoon light.

And you were worried about feng shui. Well, forget feng shui. Feng shui is for amateurs. MVA is the way to go. MVA is the GOAT. MAHARISHI RULES!

Fecal matter may be in the fountain of youth

Yes, you read that headline correctly. New research by scientists at Quadram Institute and the University of East Anglia, both in Norwich, England, supports the claim that transferring fecal microbes might actually have some positive effects on reversing the aging process in the eyes, brain, and gut.

How do they know? Mice, of course. In the study, scientists took the gut microbes from older mice and transferred them into the younger mince. The young mice displayed inflamed signs of aging in their guts, brains, and eyes, which, we all know, decline in function as we age. What happens is a chronic inflammation of cells as we get older that can be found in the brain or gut that leads to a degenerative state over time.

Albrecht Fietz/Pixabay

When the older mice received the gut microbes from younger mice, the investigators saw the reverse: Gut, brain, and eye functionality improved. In a way, minimizing the inflammation.

There’s tons of research out there that suggests gut health is the key to a healthy life, but this study points directly to an improvement in brain and vision functionality as a result of the transfer.

Now, we’re not insinuating you get a poo transfer as you reach old age. And the shift to human studies on microbiota replacement therapy is still in the works. But this definitely is a topic to watch and could be a game changer in the age-old quest to bottle youth or at least improve quality of life as we age.

For now, the scientists did find some connections between the beneficial bacteria in the transplants and the human diet that could have similar effects, like changes in the metabolism of certain fats and vitamin that could have effects on the inflammatory cells in the eye and brain.

The more you know!
 

It’s not lying, it’s preemptive truth

Lying is bad. Bold statement, we know, but a true one. After all, God spent an entire commandment telling people not to do the whole bearing false witness thing, and God is generally known for not joking around. He’s a pretty serious dude.

In case you’ve been wandering around the desert for a while and haven’t had wifi, we have a bit of a misinformation problem these days. People lie all the time about a lot of things, and a lot of people believe the lies. According to new research, however, there are also a lot of people who recognize the lies but accept them anyway because they believe that the lies will become true in the future.

Peter Timmerhues/Pixabay

Imagine the following scenario: A friend gets a job he’s not qualified for because he listed a skill he doesn’t have. That’s bad, right? And the people the researchers interviewed agreed, at least initially. But when informed that our friend is planning on obtaining the skill in summer classes in the near future, the study participants became far more willing to excuse the initial lie.

A friend jumping the gun on training he doesn’t have yet is fairly innocuous as far as lying goes, but as the researchers found, this willingness to forgive lies because they could become true extends far further. For example, millions of people do not vote illegally in U.S. elections, nor do White people get approved for mortgages at rates 300% higher than minorities, but when asked to imagine scenarios in which those statements could be true, study participants were less likely to condemn the lie and prevent it from spreading further, especially if their political viewpoints aligned with the respective falsehood.

It seems, then, that while we may aspire to not tell lies, we take after another guy with magic powers who spent too much time in the desert: “What I told you was true, from a certain point of view.”
 

It tastes like feng shui, but it’s not

You know about biomes. You’ve read about various microbiomes. Allow us to introduce you to the envirome,

The envirome “includes all the natural and man-made elements of our environment throughout the lifespan, notably the built environment,” said Robert Schneider, dean of the College of Integrative Medicine at Maharishi International University. Located in – you guessed it – Fairfield, Iowa, and home of the Fighting Transcendentalists. MAHARISHI RULES!

Free-Photos/Pixabay

• The headboard of a bed should be oriented to the east or south when you sleep. This will improve mental health.
• While sitting at a desk or work area, a person should face east or north to improve brain coherence.
• The main entrance of a house should face east because morning light is superior to afternoon light.

And you were worried about feng shui. Well, forget feng shui. Feng shui is for amateurs. MVA is the way to go. MVA is the GOAT. MAHARISHI RULES!

A South African study based on blood samples found that the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of Omicron were more likely to evade antibodies produced by previous Omicron infections than the immunity provided by vaccinations.

Scientists took blood samples from 39 people infected with Omicron, with 24 people not vaccinated and 15 vaccinated with the Pfizer or the Johnson & Johnson vaccines, Reuters reported.

“The vaccinated group showed about a fivefold higher neutralization capacity ... and should be better protected,” the investigators found, according to Reuters.

There was an eightfold decrease in antibody protection in unvaccinated blood samples when exposed to the subvariants compared to a threefold decrease in the blood samples from vaccinated people.

“Based on neutralization escape, BA.4 and BA.5 have potential to result in a new infection wave,” the investigators found.

The finding is important because health authorities say cases caused by the sublineages are increasing in South Africa to a degree that the nation may be entering a fifth wave of COVID, Reuters said.

Health Minister Joe Phaahla said recently that hospitalizations were increasing but that ICU admissions had not greatly gone up yet.

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

A South African study based on blood samples found that the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of Omicron were more likely to evade antibodies produced by previous Omicron infections than the immunity provided by vaccinations.

Scientists took blood samples from 39 people infected with Omicron, with 24 people not vaccinated and 15 vaccinated with the Pfizer or the Johnson & Johnson vaccines, Reuters reported.

“The vaccinated group showed about a fivefold higher neutralization capacity ... and should be better protected,” the investigators found, according to Reuters.

There was an eightfold decrease in antibody protection in unvaccinated blood samples when exposed to the subvariants compared to a threefold decrease in the blood samples from vaccinated people.

“Based on neutralization escape, BA.4 and BA.5 have potential to result in a new infection wave,” the investigators found.

The finding is important because health authorities say cases caused by the sublineages are increasing in South Africa to a degree that the nation may be entering a fifth wave of COVID, Reuters said.

Health Minister Joe Phaahla said recently that hospitalizations were increasing but that ICU admissions had not greatly gone up yet.

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

A South African study based on blood samples found that the BA.4 and BA.5 sublineages of Omicron were more likely to evade antibodies produced by previous Omicron infections than the immunity provided by vaccinations.

Scientists took blood samples from 39 people infected with Omicron, with 24 people not vaccinated and 15 vaccinated with the Pfizer or the Johnson & Johnson vaccines, Reuters reported.

“The vaccinated group showed about a fivefold higher neutralization capacity ... and should be better protected,” the investigators found, according to Reuters.

There was an eightfold decrease in antibody protection in unvaccinated blood samples when exposed to the subvariants compared to a threefold decrease in the blood samples from vaccinated people.

“Based on neutralization escape, BA.4 and BA.5 have potential to result in a new infection wave,” the investigators found.

The finding is important because health authorities say cases caused by the sublineages are increasing in South Africa to a degree that the nation may be entering a fifth wave of COVID, Reuters said.

Health Minister Joe Phaahla said recently that hospitalizations were increasing but that ICU admissions had not greatly gone up yet.

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

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

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

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

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

People with metabolic dysfunction–associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) – a newly defined condition – may be more likely to die from COVID-19, researchers say.

A cohort of people hospitalized for COVID-19 in Central Military Hospital, Mexico City, who met the criteria for MAFLD died at a higher rate than a control group without fatty liver disease, said Martín Uriel Vázquez-Medina, MSc, a researcher in the National Polytechnic Institute in Mexico City.

Patients who met only the criteria for the traditional classification, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), also died of COVID-19 at a higher rate than the control group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

“It is important to screen for MAFLD,” Mr. Vázquez-Medina told this news organization. “It’s a new definition, but it has really helped us to identify which patients are going to get worse by COVID-19.”

The study was published in Hepatology Communications.
 

More evidence for clinical relevance of MAFLD

The finding lends support to an initiative to use MAFLD instead of NAFLD to identify patients whose liver steatosis poses a threat to their health, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.

NAFLD affects as much as a quarter of the world’s population. No drugs have been approved to treat it. Some researchers have reasoned that the imprecision of the definition of NAFLD could be one reason for the lack of progress in treatment.

“NAFLD is something that doesn’t have positive criteria to be diagnosed,” said Mr. Vázquez-Medina. “You only say NAFLD when you don’t find hepatitis or another disease.”

In an article published in Gastroenterology, an international consensus panel proposed MAFLD as an alternative, arguing that a focus on metabolic dysfunction could more accurately reflect the pathogenesis of the disease and help stratify patients.

Previous research has suggested that patients with MAFLD have a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that the prevalence of colorectal adenomas is a higher in these patients, compared with patients with NAFLD.

The high prevalence of MAFLD in Mexico – about 30% – could help explain the country’s high rate of mortality from COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. Almost 6% of people diagnosed with COVID in Mexico have died from it, according to the Johns Hopkins University and Medical Center Coronavirus Resource Center.
 

Sorting COVID outcomes by liver steatosis

To understand the interaction of MAFLD, NAFLD, liver fibrosis, and COVID-19, Mr. Vázquez-Medina and his colleagues analyzed the records of all patients admitted to the Central Military Hospital with COVID-19 from April 4, 2020, to June 24, 2020.

They excluded patients for whom complete data were lacking or for whom a liver function test was not conducted in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Also excluded were patients with significant consumption of alcohol (> 30 g/day for men and > 20 g/day for women) and those with a history of autoimmune liver disease, liver cancer, decompensated cirrhosis, platelet disorders, or myopathies.

The remaining patients were divided into three groups – 220 who met the criteria for MAFLD, 79 who met the criteria for NAFLD but not MAFLD, and 60 other patients as a control group.

The researchers defined MAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis detected with a noninvasive method and one of the following: overweight (body mass index, 25-29.9 kg/m2), type 2 diabetes, or the presence of two metabolic abnormalities (blood pressure > 140/90 mm Hg, plasma triglycerides > 150 mg/dL, plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 40 mg/dL in men and < 50 mg/dL in women, and prediabetes).

They defined NAFLD as the presence of liver steatosis without the other criteria for MAFLD.

The patients with MAFLD were the most likely to be intubated and were the most likely to die (intubation, 44.09%; mortality, 55%), followed by those with NAFLD (intubation, 40.51%; mortality, 51.9%) and those in the control group (intubation, 20%; mortality, 38.33%).

The difference in mortality between the MAFLD group and the control group was statistically significant (P = .02). The mortality difference between the NAFLD and the control group fell just short of statistical significance (P = .07).

For intubation, the difference between the MAFLD and the control group was highly statistically significant (P = .001), and the difference between the NAFLD and the control group was also statistically significant (P = .01)

Patients with advanced fibrosis and either MAFLD or NAFLD were also more likely to die than patients in the control group with advanced fibrosis.

That’s why screening for MAFLD is important, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said.
 

Next steps and new questions

Future research should examine whether patients with MAFLD have elevated levels of biomarkers for inflammation, such as interleukin 6, Mr. Vázquez-Medina said. A “chronic low proinflammatory state” may be the key to understanding the vulnerability of patients to MAFLD to COVID-19, he speculated.

The metabolic traits associated with MAFLD could explain the higher mortality and intubation rates with COVID, said Rohit Loomba, MD, MHSc, a professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not involved in the study.

“Hypertension, diabetes, and obesity increase the risk of complications from COVID in all patients, whether they have been diagnosed with NAFLD or not,” he told this news organization in an email.

Mr. Vasquez-Medina pointed out that the patients with MAFLD had a higher risk of mortality even after adjusting for age, sex, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, overweight, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). MAFLD also was more strongly associated with a poor outcome than either hypertension alone or obesity alone. Only age emerged as a significant independent covariate in the study.

Dr. Loomba also questioned whether the regression model used in this study for liver steatosis was “fully reflective of NAFLD.”

The researchers identified liver steatosis with a diagnostic formula that used noninvasive clinical BMI and laboratory tests (alanine aminotransferase), citing a study that found the regression formula was better at diagnosing NAFLD than FibroScan.

Mr. Vázquez-Medina reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Loomba serves as a consultant to Aardvark Therapeutics, Altimmune, Anylam/Regeneron, Amgen, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CohBar, Eli Lilly, Galmed, Gilead, Glympse Bio, Hightide, Inipharma, Intercept, Inventiva, Ionis, Janssen, Madrigal, Metacrine, NGM Biopharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Merck, Pfizer, Sagimet, Theratechnologies, 89bio, Terns Pharmaceuticals, and Viking Therapeutics. He is co-founder of LipoNexus.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Is fear of missing an infection – call it “FOMI” – leading you to overprescribe antibiotics to your patients?   

Inappropriate use of antibiotics can result in adverse events and toxicity, superinfections such as Clostridioides difficile and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, excess mortality and costs, and resistance to the drugs.   

All that has been well-known for years, and antibiotic resistance has become a leading public health concern. So why are physicians continuing to overprescribe the drugs?

Speaking at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians, James “Brad” Cutrell, MD, medical director of antimicrobial stewardship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said clinicians in the United States and elsewhere appear to be falling into a three-part fallacy when it comes to using the drugs: fear of “missing an infection,” coupled with patient expectations that they will leave the office with a prescription and combined with an overemphasis on the potential benefit to the individual at the expense of the risk to society of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics are the only drugs that lose their efficacy for all patients over time the more they are used. “For example, if I give a beta blocker to a patient, it’s not going to affect other patients down the road,” Dr. Cutrell said. “It’s not going to lose its efficacy.”

“What we need in medicine is a new culture around antibiotic use,” Dr. Cutrell added. “We need more respect for the dangers of antibiotic misuse and to have confidence in [their] benefits and when they can be used wisely.”
 

Rampant misuse

Outpatient prescriptions account for at least 60% of antibiotic use in the United States. The rate is even higher in other countries, Dr. Cutrell said during a presentation at the 2022 annual Internal Medicine Meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“About 10% of adult visits and 20% of pediatric visits will result in an antibiotic prescription,” said Dr. Cutrell, noting that prescribing patterns vary widely across the country, with as much as a three-fold difference in some locations. But at least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are inappropriately ordered, he said.

“When we look at acute respiratory infections, upwards of 50% are not indicated at all,” he said. Imagine, he added, if the same error rate applied to other medical practices: “What if surgeons were only right 50% of the time, or if the oncologist was only giving the right treatment 50% of the time?”

The most recent Antibiotic Threats Report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and about 36,000 deaths annually in the United States alone.
 

How to be a better steward

The core elements for antimicrobial stewardship in the outpatient setting, according to Dr. Cutrell, include making a commitment to optimize prescribing, implementing at least one policy or practice to improve prescribing, monitoring prescribing practices and offering feedback to clinicians, and educating both patients and clinicians.

All that is similar to in-patient stewardship, he said, but outpatient clinicians face a few unique challenges. “Patients are lower acuity, and there is less diagnostic data, and program resources and time are more limited,” he said. Patient satisfaction is also a major driver, and it is also more difficult to measure and track ambulatory antibiotic use.

Interventions have been identified, however, that can help improve stewardship. One is auditing and feedback with peers. “Another [is] commitment posters, which can be placed around the clinic, and that helps set the culture,” he said. “Clinical education and practice guidelines are also important.”

Clinicians should also:

• Observe antibiotic best practices
• Optimize antibiotic selection and dosing
• Practice effective diagnostic stewardship
• Use the shortest duration of therapy necessary
• Avoid antibiotics for inappropriate indications
• Educate patients on when antibiotics are needed
• Follow and become good antibiotic stewardship mentors

“Multiple antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, particularly those focused on behavioral interventions,” Dr. Cutrell said. “Every provider should follow antibiotic ‘best practices’ and other simple steps to prescribe antibiotics more wisely and to improve patient care.”

Dr. Cutrell reported financial relationships with Gilead Sciences and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Symptom timelines surrounding COVID infection tend to center on either the immediate 5-day quarantine protocols for acute infection or the long-COVID symptoms that can last a month or potentially far longer.

But some patients report a “middle-range” COVID that will resolve before it becomes long COVID, yet still lasts longer than is typical for viral infections. People may return to work or daily routines, but something is off: What had been simple exercise regimens become onerous. Everyday tasks take more effort.

Does this ill-defined subset point to a “medium COVID?”

Farha Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, a physiatrist and rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota and M Health Fairview in Minneapolis, points out there is no definition or diagnostic code or shared official understanding of a middle category for COVID.

“But am I seeing that? Absolutely,” she said in an interview.

“I have seen patients who are younger, healthier, [and] with not so many comorbidities have either persistence of symptoms or reappearance after the initial infection is done,” she said.

Some patients report they had very low infection or were nonsymptomatic and returned to their normal health fairly quickly after infection. Then a week later they began experiencing fatigue, lost appetite, loss of smell, and feeling full after a few bites, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

Part of the trouble in categorizing the space between returning to normal after a week and having symptoms for months is that organizations can’t agree on a timeline for when symptoms warrant a “long-COVID” label.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines it as 4 or more weeks after infection. The World Health Organization defines it as starting 3 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

“I’m seeing ‘medium COVID’ – as one would call it – in younger and healthier patients. I’m also noticing that these symptoms are not severe enough to warrant stopping their job or changing their job schedules,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

They go back to work, she said, but start noticing something is off.

“I am seeing that.”

“I discharge at least two patients a week from my clinic because they have moved on and no longer have symptoms,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

In a story from Kaiser Health News published last month, WHYY health reporter Nina Feldman writes: “What I’ve come to think of as my ‘medium COVID’ affected my life. I couldn’t socialize much, drink, or stay up past 9:30 p.m. It took me 10 weeks to go for my first run – I’d been too afraid to try.”

She described a dinner with a friend after ending initial isolation protocols: “One glass of wine left me feeling like I’d had a whole bottle. I was bone-achingly exhausted but couldn’t sleep.”
 

Medical mystery

Dr. Ikramuddin notes the mechanism behind prolonged COVID-19 symptoms is still a medical mystery.

“In one scenario,” she said, “the question is being asked about whether the virus is staying dormant, similar to herpes zoster or HIV.”

“Right now, instead of getting more answers, we’re getting more questions,” Dr. Ikramuddin  said.

Mouhib Naddour, MD, a pulmonary specialist with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, said he’s seeing that it’s taking some patients who have had COVID longer to recover than it would for other viral infections.

Some patients fall between those recovering within 2-3 weeks and patients having long COVID. Those patients in the gap could be lumped into a middle-range COVID, he told this news organization.

“We try to put things into tables and boxes but it is hard with this disease,” Dr. Naddour said.

He agrees there’s no medical definition for “medium” COVID, but he said the idea should bring hope for patients to know that, if their symptoms are persisting they don’t necessarily have long COVID – and their symptoms may still disappear.

“This is an illness that may take longer to completely recover from,” he said. “The majority of patients we’re seeing in this group could be healthy young patients who get COVID, then 2-3 weeks after they test negative, still have lingering symptoms.”
 

Common symptoms

Some commonly reported symptoms of those with enduring illness, which often overlap with other stages of COVID, are difficulty breathing, chest tightness, dry cough, chest pain, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and mood swings, Dr. Naddour said. 

“We need to do an extensive assessment to make sure there’s no other problem causing these symptoms,” he said.

Still, there is no set timeline for the medium-COVID range, he noted, so checking in with a primary care physician is important for people experiencing symptoms.
 

It’s a continuum, not a category

Fernando Carnavali, MD, coordinator for Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York, said he is not ready to recognize a separate category for a “medium” COVID.

He noted that science can’t even agree on a name for lasting post-COVID symptoms, whether it’s “long COVID” or “long-haul COVID,” “post-COVID syndrome” or “post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC ).” There’s no agreed-upon pathophysiology or biomarker.

“That creates these gaps of understanding on where we are,” Dr. Carnavali said in an interview.

He said he understands people’s need to categorize symptoms, but rather than a middle ground he sees a continuum.

It doesn’t mean what others may call COVID’s middle ground doesn’t exist, Dr. Carnavali said: “We are in the infancy of defining this. Trying to classify them may create more anxiety.”

The clinicians interviewed for this story report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptom timelines surrounding COVID infection tend to center on either the immediate 5-day quarantine protocols for acute infection or the long-COVID symptoms that can last a month or potentially far longer.

But some patients report a “middle-range” COVID that will resolve before it becomes long COVID, yet still lasts longer than is typical for viral infections. People may return to work or daily routines, but something is off: What had been simple exercise regimens become onerous. Everyday tasks take more effort.

Does this ill-defined subset point to a “medium COVID?”

Farha Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, a physiatrist and rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota and M Health Fairview in Minneapolis, points out there is no definition or diagnostic code or shared official understanding of a middle category for COVID.

“But am I seeing that? Absolutely,” she said in an interview.

“I have seen patients who are younger, healthier, [and] with not so many comorbidities have either persistence of symptoms or reappearance after the initial infection is done,” she said.

Some patients report they had very low infection or were nonsymptomatic and returned to their normal health fairly quickly after infection. Then a week later they began experiencing fatigue, lost appetite, loss of smell, and feeling full after a few bites, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

Part of the trouble in categorizing the space between returning to normal after a week and having symptoms for months is that organizations can’t agree on a timeline for when symptoms warrant a “long-COVID” label.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines it as 4 or more weeks after infection. The World Health Organization defines it as starting 3 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

“I’m seeing ‘medium COVID’ – as one would call it – in younger and healthier patients. I’m also noticing that these symptoms are not severe enough to warrant stopping their job or changing their job schedules,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

They go back to work, she said, but start noticing something is off.

“I am seeing that.”

“I discharge at least two patients a week from my clinic because they have moved on and no longer have symptoms,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

In a story from Kaiser Health News published last month, WHYY health reporter Nina Feldman writes: “What I’ve come to think of as my ‘medium COVID’ affected my life. I couldn’t socialize much, drink, or stay up past 9:30 p.m. It took me 10 weeks to go for my first run – I’d been too afraid to try.”

She described a dinner with a friend after ending initial isolation protocols: “One glass of wine left me feeling like I’d had a whole bottle. I was bone-achingly exhausted but couldn’t sleep.”
 

Medical mystery

Dr. Ikramuddin notes the mechanism behind prolonged COVID-19 symptoms is still a medical mystery.

“In one scenario,” she said, “the question is being asked about whether the virus is staying dormant, similar to herpes zoster or HIV.”

“Right now, instead of getting more answers, we’re getting more questions,” Dr. Ikramuddin  said.

Mouhib Naddour, MD, a pulmonary specialist with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, said he’s seeing that it’s taking some patients who have had COVID longer to recover than it would for other viral infections.

Some patients fall between those recovering within 2-3 weeks and patients having long COVID. Those patients in the gap could be lumped into a middle-range COVID, he told this news organization.

“We try to put things into tables and boxes but it is hard with this disease,” Dr. Naddour said.

He agrees there’s no medical definition for “medium” COVID, but he said the idea should bring hope for patients to know that, if their symptoms are persisting they don’t necessarily have long COVID – and their symptoms may still disappear.

“This is an illness that may take longer to completely recover from,” he said. “The majority of patients we’re seeing in this group could be healthy young patients who get COVID, then 2-3 weeks after they test negative, still have lingering symptoms.”
 

Common symptoms

Some commonly reported symptoms of those with enduring illness, which often overlap with other stages of COVID, are difficulty breathing, chest tightness, dry cough, chest pain, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and mood swings, Dr. Naddour said. 

“We need to do an extensive assessment to make sure there’s no other problem causing these symptoms,” he said.

Still, there is no set timeline for the medium-COVID range, he noted, so checking in with a primary care physician is important for people experiencing symptoms.
 

It’s a continuum, not a category

Fernando Carnavali, MD, coordinator for Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York, said he is not ready to recognize a separate category for a “medium” COVID.

He noted that science can’t even agree on a name for lasting post-COVID symptoms, whether it’s “long COVID” or “long-haul COVID,” “post-COVID syndrome” or “post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC ).” There’s no agreed-upon pathophysiology or biomarker.

“That creates these gaps of understanding on where we are,” Dr. Carnavali said in an interview.

He said he understands people’s need to categorize symptoms, but rather than a middle ground he sees a continuum.

It doesn’t mean what others may call COVID’s middle ground doesn’t exist, Dr. Carnavali said: “We are in the infancy of defining this. Trying to classify them may create more anxiety.”

The clinicians interviewed for this story report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Symptom timelines surrounding COVID infection tend to center on either the immediate 5-day quarantine protocols for acute infection or the long-COVID symptoms that can last a month or potentially far longer.

But some patients report a “middle-range” COVID that will resolve before it becomes long COVID, yet still lasts longer than is typical for viral infections. People may return to work or daily routines, but something is off: What had been simple exercise regimens become onerous. Everyday tasks take more effort.

Does this ill-defined subset point to a “medium COVID?”

Farha Ikramuddin, MD, MHA, a physiatrist and rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota and M Health Fairview in Minneapolis, points out there is no definition or diagnostic code or shared official understanding of a middle category for COVID.

“But am I seeing that? Absolutely,” she said in an interview.

“I have seen patients who are younger, healthier, [and] with not so many comorbidities have either persistence of symptoms or reappearance after the initial infection is done,” she said.

Some patients report they had very low infection or were nonsymptomatic and returned to their normal health fairly quickly after infection. Then a week later they began experiencing fatigue, lost appetite, loss of smell, and feeling full after a few bites, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

Part of the trouble in categorizing the space between returning to normal after a week and having symptoms for months is that organizations can’t agree on a timeline for when symptoms warrant a “long-COVID” label.

For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines it as 4 or more weeks after infection. The World Health Organization defines it as starting 3 months after COVID-19 symptom onset.

“I’m seeing ‘medium COVID’ – as one would call it – in younger and healthier patients. I’m also noticing that these symptoms are not severe enough to warrant stopping their job or changing their job schedules,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

They go back to work, she said, but start noticing something is off.

“I am seeing that.”

“I discharge at least two patients a week from my clinic because they have moved on and no longer have symptoms,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

In a story from Kaiser Health News published last month, WHYY health reporter Nina Feldman writes: “What I’ve come to think of as my ‘medium COVID’ affected my life. I couldn’t socialize much, drink, or stay up past 9:30 p.m. It took me 10 weeks to go for my first run – I’d been too afraid to try.”

She described a dinner with a friend after ending initial isolation protocols: “One glass of wine left me feeling like I’d had a whole bottle. I was bone-achingly exhausted but couldn’t sleep.”
 

Medical mystery

Dr. Ikramuddin notes the mechanism behind prolonged COVID-19 symptoms is still a medical mystery.

“In one scenario,” she said, “the question is being asked about whether the virus is staying dormant, similar to herpes zoster or HIV.”

“Right now, instead of getting more answers, we’re getting more questions,” Dr. Ikramuddin  said.

Mouhib Naddour, MD, a pulmonary specialist with Sharp HealthCare in San Diego, said he’s seeing that it’s taking some patients who have had COVID longer to recover than it would for other viral infections.

Some patients fall between those recovering within 2-3 weeks and patients having long COVID. Those patients in the gap could be lumped into a middle-range COVID, he told this news organization.

“We try to put things into tables and boxes but it is hard with this disease,” Dr. Naddour said.

He agrees there’s no medical definition for “medium” COVID, but he said the idea should bring hope for patients to know that, if their symptoms are persisting they don’t necessarily have long COVID – and their symptoms may still disappear.

“This is an illness that may take longer to completely recover from,” he said. “The majority of patients we’re seeing in this group could be healthy young patients who get COVID, then 2-3 weeks after they test negative, still have lingering symptoms.”
 

Common symptoms

Some commonly reported symptoms of those with enduring illness, which often overlap with other stages of COVID, are difficulty breathing, chest tightness, dry cough, chest pain, muscle and joint pain, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, and mood swings, Dr. Naddour said. 

“We need to do an extensive assessment to make sure there’s no other problem causing these symptoms,” he said.

Still, there is no set timeline for the medium-COVID range, he noted, so checking in with a primary care physician is important for people experiencing symptoms.
 

It’s a continuum, not a category

Fernando Carnavali, MD, coordinator for Mount Sinai’s Center for Post-COVID Care in New York, said he is not ready to recognize a separate category for a “medium” COVID.

He noted that science can’t even agree on a name for lasting post-COVID symptoms, whether it’s “long COVID” or “long-haul COVID,” “post-COVID syndrome” or “post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC ).” There’s no agreed-upon pathophysiology or biomarker.

“That creates these gaps of understanding on where we are,” Dr. Carnavali said in an interview.

He said he understands people’s need to categorize symptoms, but rather than a middle ground he sees a continuum.

It doesn’t mean what others may call COVID’s middle ground doesn’t exist, Dr. Carnavali said: “We are in the infancy of defining this. Trying to classify them may create more anxiety.”

The clinicians interviewed for this story report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

LISBON – A shift toward broader-spectrum antibiotics and increasing antibiotic resistance has led to high levels of mortality and neurodevelopmental impacts in surviving babies, according to a large international study conducted on four continents.

Results of the 3-year study were presented at this week’s European Congress of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases (ECCMID).

The observational study, NeoOBS, conducted by the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership (GARDP) and key partners from 2018 to 2020, explored the outcomes of more than 3,200 newborns, finding an overall mortality of 11% in those with suspected neonatal sepsis. The mortality rate increased to 18% in newborns in whom a pathogen was detected in blood culture.

More than half of infection-related deaths (59%) were due to hospital-acquired infections. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common pathogen isolated and is usually associated with hospital-acquired infections, which are increasingly resistant to existing antibiotic treatments, said a report produced by GARDP to accompany the results.

The study also identified a worrying trend: Hospitals are frequently using last-line agents such as carbapenems because of the high degree of antibiotic resistance in their facilities. Of note, 15% of babies with neonatal sepsis were given last-line antibiotics.

Pediatrician Julia Bielicki, MD, PhD, senior lecturer, Paediatric Infectious Diseases Research Group, St. George’s University of London, and clinician at the University of Basel Children’s Hospital, Switzerland, was a coinvestigator on the NeoOBS study.

In an interview, she explained that, as well as reducing mortality, the research is about managing infections better to prevent long-term events and improve the quality of life for survivors of neonatal sepsis. “It can have life-changing impacts for so many babies,” Dr. Bielicki said. “Improving care is much more than just making sure the baby survives the episode of sepsis – it’s about ensuring these babies can become children and adults and go on to lead productive lives.”

Also, only a minority of patients (13%) received the World Health Organization guidelines for standard of care use of ampicillin and gentamicin, and there was increasing use of last-line agents such as carbapenems and even polymyxins in some settings in low- and middle-income countries. “This is alarming and foretells the impending crisis of a lack of antibiotics to treat sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant organisms,” according to the GARDP report.

There was wide variability in antibiotic combinations used across sites in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Greece, India, Italy, Kenya, South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and Vietnam, and often such use was not supported by underlying data.

Dr. Bielicki remarked that there was a shift toward broad-spectrum antibiotic use. “In a high-income country, you have more restrictive patterns of antibiotic use, but it isn’t necessarily less antibiotic exposure of neonates to antibiotics, but on the whole, usually narrow-spectrum agents are used.”

In Africa and Asia, on the other hand, clinicians often have to use a broader-spectrum antibiotic empirically and may need to switch to another antibiotic very quickly. “Sometimes alternatives are not available,” she pointed out.

“Local physicians are very perceptive of this problem of antibiotic resistance in their daily practice, especially in centers with high mortality,” said Dr. Bielicki, emphasizing that it is not their fault, but is “due to the limitations in terms of the weapons available to treat these babies, which strongly demonstrates the growing problem of antimicrobial resistance affecting these babies on a global scale.”

Tim Jinks, PhD, Head of Drug Resistant Infections Priority Program at Wellcome Trust, commented on the study in a series of text messages to this news organization. “This research provides further demonstration of the urgent need for improved treatment of newborns suffering with sepsis and particularly the requirement for new antibiotics that overcome the burden of drug-resistant infections caused by [antimicrobial resistance].”

“The study is a hugely important contribution to our understanding of the burden of neonatal sepsis in low- and middle- income countries,” he added, “and points toward ways that patient treatment can be improved to save more lives.”
 

High-, middle-, and low-income countries

The NeoOBS study gathered data from 19 hospitals in 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries and assessed which antibiotics are currently being used to treat neonatal sepsis, as well as the degree of drug resistance associated with them. Sites included some in Italy and Greece, where most of the neonatal sepsis data currently originate, and this helped to anchor the data, Dr. Bielicki said.

The study identified babies with clinical sepsis over a 4-week period and observed how these patients were managed, particularly with respect to antibiotics, as well as outcomes including whether they recovered, remained in hospital, or died. Investigators obtained bacterial cultures from the patients and grew them to identify which organisms were causing the sepsis.

Of note, mortality varied widely between hospitals, ranging from 1% to 27%. Dr. Bielicki explained that the investigators were currently exploring the reasons behind this wide range of mortality. “There are lots of possible reasons for this, including structural factors such as how care is delivered, which is complex to measure,” she said. “It isn’t trivial to measure why, in a certain setting, mortality is low and why in another setting of comparable income range, mortality is much higher.”

Aside from the mortality results, Dr. Bielicki also emphasized that the survivors of neonatal sepsis frequently experience neurodevelopmental impacts. “A hospital may have low mortality, but many of these babies may have neurodevelopment problems, and this has a long-term impact.”

“Even though mortality might be low in a certain hospital, it might not be low in terms of morbidity,” she added.

The researchers also collected isolates from the cohort of neonates to determine which antibiotic combinations work against the pathogens. “This will help us define what sort of antibiotic regimen warrants further investigation,” Dr. Bielicki said.

Principal Investigator, Mike Sharland, MD, also from St. George’s, University of London, who is also the Antimicrobial Resistance Program Lead at Penta Child Health Research, said, in a press release, that the study had shown that antibiotic resistance is now one of the major threats to neonatal health globally. “There are virtually no studies underway on developing novel antibiotic treatments for babies with sepsis caused by multidrug-resistant infections.”

“This is a major problem for babies in all countries, both rich and poor,” he stressed.
 

NeoSep-1 trial to compare multiple different treatments

The results have paved the way for a major new global trial of multiple established and new antibiotics with the goal of reducing mortality from neonatal sepsis – the NeoSep1 trial.

“This is a randomized trial with a specific design that allows us to rank different treatments against each other in terms of effectiveness, safety, and costs,” Dr. Bielicki explained.

Among the antibiotics in the study are amikacin, flomoxef and amikacin, or fosfomycin and flomoxef in babies with sepsis 28 days old or younger. Similar to the NeoOBS study, patients will be recruited from all over the world, and in particular from low- and middle-income countries such as Kenya, South Africa, and other countries in Africa and Southeast Asia.

Ultimately, the researchers want to identify modifiable risk factors and enact change in practice. But Dr. Bielicki was quick to point out that it was difficult to disentangle those factors that can easily be changed. “Some can be changed in theory, but in practice it is actually difficult to change them. One modifiable risk factor that can be changed is probably infection control, so when resistant bacteria appear in a unit, we need to ensure that there is no or minimal transmission between babies.”

Luregn Schlapbach, MD, PhD, Head, department of intensive care and neonatology, University Children’s Hospital Zurich, Switzerland, welcomed the study, saying recent recognition of pediatric and neonatal sepsis was an urgent problem worldwide.

She referred to the 2017 WHO resolution recognizing that sepsis represents a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide, affecting patients of all ages, across all continents and health care systems but that many were pediatric. “At that time, our understanding of the true burden of sepsis was limited, as was our knowledge of current epidemiology,” she said in an email interview. “The Global Burden of Disease study in 2020 revealed that about half of the approximatively 50 million global sepsis cases affect pediatric age groups, many of those during neonatal age.”

The formal acknowledgment of this extensive need emphasizes the “urgency to design preventive and therapeutic interventions to reduce this devastating burden,” Dr. Schlapbach said. “In this context, the work led by GARDP is of great importance – it is designed to improve our understanding of current practice, risk factors, and burden of neonatal sepsis across low- to middle-income settings and is essential to design adequately powered trials testing interventions such as antimicrobials to improve patient outcomes and reduce the further emergence of antimicrobial resistance.”

Dr. Bielicki and Dr. Schlapbach have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The latest upward trend in new COVID-19 cases among children picked up steam, but there was also some movement in the vaccination effort in the past week.

Moderna submitted a request to the Food and Drug administration for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children under the age of 6 years, according to this news organization, and Pfizer/BioNTech officially applied for authorization of a booster dose in children aged 5-11, the companies announced.

The FDA has tentatively scheduled meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in June to consider the applications, saying that it “understands the urgency to authorize a vaccine for age groups who are not currently eligible for vaccination and will work diligently to complete our evaluation of the data. Should any of the submissions be completed in a timely manner and the data support a clear path forward following our evaluation, the FDA will act quickly” to convene the necessary meetings.

The need for greater access to vaccines seems to be increasing, as new pediatric COVID cases rose for the third consecutive week. April 22-28 saw over 53,000 new cases reported in children, up 43.5% from the previous week and up 105% since cases started rising again after dipping under 26,000 during the week of April 1-7, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospital admissions involving diagnosed COVID also ticked up over the latter half of April, although the most recent 7-day average (April 24-30) of 112 per day was lower than the 117 reported for the previous week (April 17-23), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, also noting that figures for the latest week “should be interpreted with caution.”

Vaccinations also were up slightly in children aged 5-11 years, with 52,000 receiving their first dose during the week of April 21-27, compared with 48,000 the week before. There was a slight dip, however, among 12- to 17-year-olds, who received 34,000 first doses during April 21-27, versus 35,000 the previous week, the AAP said in a separate report.

Cumulatively, almost 69% of all children aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated. Those aged 5-11 are well short of those figures, with just over 35% having received at least one dose and 28.5% fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

A look at recent activity shows that children are not gaining on adults, who are much more likely to be vaccinated – full vaccination in those aged 50-64, for example, is 80%. During the 2 weeks from April 17-30, the 5- to 11-year-olds represented 10.5% of those who had initiated a first dose and 12.4% of those who gained full-vaccination status, both of which were well below the oldest age groups, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The latest upward trend in new COVID-19 cases among children picked up steam, but there was also some movement in the vaccination effort in the past week.

Moderna submitted a request to the Food and Drug administration for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children under the age of 6 years, according to this news organization, and Pfizer/BioNTech officially applied for authorization of a booster dose in children aged 5-11, the companies announced.

The FDA has tentatively scheduled meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in June to consider the applications, saying that it “understands the urgency to authorize a vaccine for age groups who are not currently eligible for vaccination and will work diligently to complete our evaluation of the data. Should any of the submissions be completed in a timely manner and the data support a clear path forward following our evaluation, the FDA will act quickly” to convene the necessary meetings.

The need for greater access to vaccines seems to be increasing, as new pediatric COVID cases rose for the third consecutive week. April 22-28 saw over 53,000 new cases reported in children, up 43.5% from the previous week and up 105% since cases started rising again after dipping under 26,000 during the week of April 1-7, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospital admissions involving diagnosed COVID also ticked up over the latter half of April, although the most recent 7-day average (April 24-30) of 112 per day was lower than the 117 reported for the previous week (April 17-23), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, also noting that figures for the latest week “should be interpreted with caution.”

Vaccinations also were up slightly in children aged 5-11 years, with 52,000 receiving their first dose during the week of April 21-27, compared with 48,000 the week before. There was a slight dip, however, among 12- to 17-year-olds, who received 34,000 first doses during April 21-27, versus 35,000 the previous week, the AAP said in a separate report.

Cumulatively, almost 69% of all children aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated. Those aged 5-11 are well short of those figures, with just over 35% having received at least one dose and 28.5% fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

A look at recent activity shows that children are not gaining on adults, who are much more likely to be vaccinated – full vaccination in those aged 50-64, for example, is 80%. During the 2 weeks from April 17-30, the 5- to 11-year-olds represented 10.5% of those who had initiated a first dose and 12.4% of those who gained full-vaccination status, both of which were well below the oldest age groups, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The latest upward trend in new COVID-19 cases among children picked up steam, but there was also some movement in the vaccination effort in the past week.

Moderna submitted a request to the Food and Drug administration for emergency use authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine in children under the age of 6 years, according to this news organization, and Pfizer/BioNTech officially applied for authorization of a booster dose in children aged 5-11, the companies announced.

The FDA has tentatively scheduled meetings of its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee in June to consider the applications, saying that it “understands the urgency to authorize a vaccine for age groups who are not currently eligible for vaccination and will work diligently to complete our evaluation of the data. Should any of the submissions be completed in a timely manner and the data support a clear path forward following our evaluation, the FDA will act quickly” to convene the necessary meetings.

The need for greater access to vaccines seems to be increasing, as new pediatric COVID cases rose for the third consecutive week. April 22-28 saw over 53,000 new cases reported in children, up 43.5% from the previous week and up 105% since cases started rising again after dipping under 26,000 during the week of April 1-7, based on data from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Hospital admissions involving diagnosed COVID also ticked up over the latter half of April, although the most recent 7-day average (April 24-30) of 112 per day was lower than the 117 reported for the previous week (April 17-23), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said, also noting that figures for the latest week “should be interpreted with caution.”

Vaccinations also were up slightly in children aged 5-11 years, with 52,000 receiving their first dose during the week of April 21-27, compared with 48,000 the week before. There was a slight dip, however, among 12- to 17-year-olds, who received 34,000 first doses during April 21-27, versus 35,000 the previous week, the AAP said in a separate report.

Cumulatively, almost 69% of all children aged 12-17 years have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 59% are fully vaccinated. Those aged 5-11 are well short of those figures, with just over 35% having received at least one dose and 28.5% fully vaccinated, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

A look at recent activity shows that children are not gaining on adults, who are much more likely to be vaccinated – full vaccination in those aged 50-64, for example, is 80%. During the 2 weeks from April 17-30, the 5- to 11-year-olds represented 10.5% of those who had initiated a first dose and 12.4% of those who gained full-vaccination status, both of which were well below the oldest age groups, the CDC reported.

[email protected]