MDedge Infectious Disease

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

A retrospective study that analyzed sex disparities in patients with COVID-19 and rheumatoid arthritis found that men had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19–related outcomes, compared with women.

“Differences in genetics between sex and sex steroid hormones may play a role in predisposition to COVID-19 infection as well as modulating the disease progression,” according to Xiaofeng Zhou, PhD, senior director at Pfizer, New York, and the study’s lead author.

Dr. Zhou presented her findings at The Lancet Summit on Sex and Gender in Rheumatology.

Patients with chronic rheumatic diseases treated with immunomodulatory therapies may be at higher risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization, complications, and death. Research on sex-based disparities in RA patients with COVID-19 in the United States is limited, said Dr. Zhou, who embarked on a retrospective cohort study to examine the demographic and clinical characteristics of RA patients with COVID-19 and estimate the risk of possible COVID-19 outcomes by sex.

Dr. Zhou and colleagues used U.S. COVID-19 data collected through electronic health records by Optum during 2020 to June 2021. The study included adult patients with RA and a COVID-19 diagnosis (≥ 1 diagnosis code or positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test) and greater than or equal to 183 days of database enrollment who received treatment with immunomodulatory therapies prior to the diagnosis date. They were stratified by sex.

Investigators used logistic regression to estimate the risk of 11 possible COVID-19–related outcomes within 30 days of the COVID-19 diagnosis (hospitalization, ICU admission, pneumonia, kidney failure, thrombotic event, heart failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS], sepsis/septic shock, mechanical ventilation/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO], in-hospital death, and all-cause mortality), adjusting for demographics and baseline clinical covariates.

A total of 4,476 COVID-19 patients with RA (78% female) took part in the study. Male patients trended older (64 vs. 60 years) and had lower African American representation and Medicaid enrollment than female patients, but they had more baseline comorbidities such as hypertension (55% vs. 45%), hyperlipidemia (45% vs. 33%), diabetes (25% vs. 20%), coronary artery disease (28% vs. 12%), and chronic kidney disease (20% vs. 15%).

Eight of the eleven COVID-19 outcomes were significantly more likely to occur in men than women (hospitalization: odds ratio, 1.32 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-1.56]; ICU admission: OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.36-2.40]; mechanical ventilation/ECMO: OR, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.04-2.11]; in-hospital death: OR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.13-2.07]; all-cause mortality: OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.09-1.86]; sepsis: OR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.20-2.02]; kidney failure: OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.15-1.85]; ARDS: OR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.15-1.69]).

Sex hormones factor into risk

The data illustrated that men with RA had more baseline comorbidities and increased risk of COVID-19 outcomes than women.

Sex hormones regulate virus entry into host cells, respiratory function, immune response, the cardiovascular system, and coagulation, explained Dr. Zhou.

Estrogen and progesterone in women could help develop stronger and efficient immune responses to viruses and reduce virus entry into the host cells. Also, “[the] larger number of copies of ACE2 genes in women, [which] is linked with protection in the lungs against edema, permeability, and pulmonary damage, could be associated with lower incidence of severe COVID-19 outcomes, such as respiratory-related mortality and mortality,” Dr. Zhou said.

By comparison, androgens in men may increase virus entry into the host cells and promote unfavorable immune response through the induction of cytokine production and reducing the antibody response to the virus. This could lead to severe infection, Dr. Zhou said.

Sex-based differences in steroid hormones may also explain the higher incidence of morbidity and fatality that’s been observed in other studies of male patients with other infectious diseases, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome.
 

Study bolsters evidence on sex disparities

The results add real-world evidence to the limited literature on sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes among patients with RA in the United States, Dr. Zhou said. “The differential role in sex steroid hormones among women and men may shed light on clinical management of COVID-19 patients and the need to consider sex-specific approaches in clinical trials in preventing and treating COVID-19 patients,” she said.

Considering that all patients are recommended to get COVID-19 vaccinations, “it is difficult to say how this impacts clinical practice,” said Janet Pope, MD, MPH, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Western Ontario, London, who was not involved with the study.

Sharing results with some patients may help to encourage vaccination, thus reducing risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, Dr. Pope said.

In future studies, Dr. Zhou suggests using multiple databases and considering other geographies beyond the United States to further understand the etiology of sexual dimorphism in COVID-19 and expand generalizability. “In addition, future research will seek to provide insights into health equity gaps in the management of COVID-19. This may inform development of precision medicines and vaccines, especially among patients on immunosuppressive treatments,” she said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. Dr. Zhou and other study authors are Pfizer employees and hold Pfizer stock.

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

Herpes to the rescue

Let’s face it: When people hear the word “herpes,” their first thoughts are not positive. But what if herpes could be a hero?

Scientists have found a way to make a strain of herpes that kills cancer because, hey, it’s 2022, and anything is possible. Trials have been going well and this seems like a safe and effective way to fight cancer.

Aunt_Spray/Thinkstock

Viruses may be one of our oldest enemies, but it’s also been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So why not make herpes the enemy of cancer, thereby turning it into our friend? The genetically modified herpes virus is injected directly into tumors, where it destroys cancer cells from within. But wait, there’s more! The patient’s immune system also senses the virus and springs into action against it and the cancer in which it is residing.

During the phase 1 trial, three of the nine patients saw tumor reduction and the therapy proved safe as well. Future trials will be able to more specifically target various cancer types and make the treatment better. For once, we are rooting for you, herpes.
 

A breath of not-so-fresh air

There’s nothing quite like that first real warm day of spring. You can finally open the windows and clear out the old stuffy air that’s been hanging around all winter long. It’s a ritual that’s now backed up with some science in the form of a new study. Turns out that there’s actually a fair amount of smog in the average home. That’s right, smog’s not just for the big city anymore.

PxHere

As part of the HOMEChem project, a whole host of scientists gathered together under one roof in a typical suburban house and immediately started doing chores. Cooking, cleaning, the works. No, it wasn’t because they had trashed the place the night before. They had set up instrumentation all around the house to measure the chemical makeup of the air inside. A scientist’s idea of a wild party.

The results are perhaps not all that surprising, but interesting nonetheless. Your homemade smog certainly won’t kill you, but there’s both an increased amount and higher concentration of airborne toxins in indoor air, compared with outdoors. Benzene and formaldehyde were common, as were acrolein (a pulmonary toxicant emitted by lumber and burning fats) and isocyanic acid (which can react with proteins in the human body). The researchers noted that most of these chemicals can be removed with proper ventilation.

Although cleaning is certainly responsible for a fair share of the chemicals, cooking generally produced more toxic compounds, similar to what’s found in wildfire smoke. One of the researchers said this makes sense, since a wildfire can be considered an “extreme form of cooking.” Scientists may not know how to party, but their idea of a barbecue sounds … interesting. We’re looking forward to an upcoming study out of California: Can a 1-million acre wildfire adequately cook a ribeye steak?
 

We’re dying to try composting ... with humans, that is

We here at LOTME are not really fans of politicians, except as objects of ridicule. That is kind of fun. Whether we’re watching Fox News, listening to NPR, or reading Vladimir Putin’s fashion blog, one thing remains clear: If you want actual information, don’t ask a politician.

Recompose

There are, of course, always exceptions, and we just found one: California state representative Cristina Garcia. Rep. Garcia sponsored a bill just signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that legalizes the practice of human composting, the reduction of remains by “placing bodies in individual vessels and fostering gentle transformation into a nutrient-dense soil.”

Since we’ve written about this sort of thing before – Washington was the first state to legalize the process back in 2019 – we’re more interested now in what Rep. Garcia told NBC News while describing her motivation: “I’ve always wanted to be a tree. The idea of having my family sitting under my shade one day – that brings a lot of joy.” How great is that? Tree-hugging is just not enough. Be the tree.

California is the fifth state to provide its residents with the human composting option, the other three being Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont. The process “typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days,” Smithsonian Magazine explained.

We just happen to have some good news for Rep. Garcia about that wanting-to-be-a-tree business. She’s already pretty close. For more on that, we go to our correspondent from beyond the grave, Carl Sagan, who shares a thought about trees. And no, we couldn’t just write out his quote here. You have to hear it in Dr. Sagan’s own voice.
 

That’ll be one pandemic with extra distress. Hold the goals

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit it put a lot of stuff on hold for everyone. Couldn’t eat inside at your favorite restaurant, attend that long-awaited concert, or travel out of the country. Those were all pretty bad, but it was the disruption of pursuing long-term goals that seemed to have the most effect on people’s mental health.

xijian/Getty Images

Investigators from the University of Waterloo (Ont.) looked at how putting such goals on hold affected people’s mental well-being. The study’s 226 participants were asked about their “COVID-frozen” goals and the degree to which they were able to actively pursue each goal and how committed they were to achieving it.

What they found was that the participants’ COVID-frozen goals were associated with feelings of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, and lowered life satisfaction. It was only when participants were able to disengage from goal rumination that well-being was impacted positively.

“Goal rumination is compulsive and can aggravate worries and frustrations while also taking away mental resources from other goals,” Candice Hubley, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychology, said in a written statement. So in short, you’re only stressing yourself out more about something that is far off in the distance when you could be focusing more on short-term, tangible goals instead.

Now, no one is saying to give up on your goals. Just take them one at a time. You’ll have better life satisfaction and your COVID-frozen goals will thaw out before you know it.

Herpes to the rescue

Let’s face it: When people hear the word “herpes,” their first thoughts are not positive. But what if herpes could be a hero?

Scientists have found a way to make a strain of herpes that kills cancer because, hey, it’s 2022, and anything is possible. Trials have been going well and this seems like a safe and effective way to fight cancer.

Aunt_Spray/Thinkstock

Viruses may be one of our oldest enemies, but it’s also been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So why not make herpes the enemy of cancer, thereby turning it into our friend? The genetically modified herpes virus is injected directly into tumors, where it destroys cancer cells from within. But wait, there’s more! The patient’s immune system also senses the virus and springs into action against it and the cancer in which it is residing.

During the phase 1 trial, three of the nine patients saw tumor reduction and the therapy proved safe as well. Future trials will be able to more specifically target various cancer types and make the treatment better. For once, we are rooting for you, herpes.
 

A breath of not-so-fresh air

There’s nothing quite like that first real warm day of spring. You can finally open the windows and clear out the old stuffy air that’s been hanging around all winter long. It’s a ritual that’s now backed up with some science in the form of a new study. Turns out that there’s actually a fair amount of smog in the average home. That’s right, smog’s not just for the big city anymore.

PxHere

As part of the HOMEChem project, a whole host of scientists gathered together under one roof in a typical suburban house and immediately started doing chores. Cooking, cleaning, the works. No, it wasn’t because they had trashed the place the night before. They had set up instrumentation all around the house to measure the chemical makeup of the air inside. A scientist’s idea of a wild party.

The results are perhaps not all that surprising, but interesting nonetheless. Your homemade smog certainly won’t kill you, but there’s both an increased amount and higher concentration of airborne toxins in indoor air, compared with outdoors. Benzene and formaldehyde were common, as were acrolein (a pulmonary toxicant emitted by lumber and burning fats) and isocyanic acid (which can react with proteins in the human body). The researchers noted that most of these chemicals can be removed with proper ventilation.

Although cleaning is certainly responsible for a fair share of the chemicals, cooking generally produced more toxic compounds, similar to what’s found in wildfire smoke. One of the researchers said this makes sense, since a wildfire can be considered an “extreme form of cooking.” Scientists may not know how to party, but their idea of a barbecue sounds … interesting. We’re looking forward to an upcoming study out of California: Can a 1-million acre wildfire adequately cook a ribeye steak?
 

We’re dying to try composting ... with humans, that is

We here at LOTME are not really fans of politicians, except as objects of ridicule. That is kind of fun. Whether we’re watching Fox News, listening to NPR, or reading Vladimir Putin’s fashion blog, one thing remains clear: If you want actual information, don’t ask a politician.

Recompose

There are, of course, always exceptions, and we just found one: California state representative Cristina Garcia. Rep. Garcia sponsored a bill just signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that legalizes the practice of human composting, the reduction of remains by “placing bodies in individual vessels and fostering gentle transformation into a nutrient-dense soil.”

Since we’ve written about this sort of thing before – Washington was the first state to legalize the process back in 2019 – we’re more interested now in what Rep. Garcia told NBC News while describing her motivation: “I’ve always wanted to be a tree. The idea of having my family sitting under my shade one day – that brings a lot of joy.” How great is that? Tree-hugging is just not enough. Be the tree.

California is the fifth state to provide its residents with the human composting option, the other three being Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont. The process “typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days,” Smithsonian Magazine explained.

We just happen to have some good news for Rep. Garcia about that wanting-to-be-a-tree business. She’s already pretty close. For more on that, we go to our correspondent from beyond the grave, Carl Sagan, who shares a thought about trees. And no, we couldn’t just write out his quote here. You have to hear it in Dr. Sagan’s own voice.
 

That’ll be one pandemic with extra distress. Hold the goals

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit it put a lot of stuff on hold for everyone. Couldn’t eat inside at your favorite restaurant, attend that long-awaited concert, or travel out of the country. Those were all pretty bad, but it was the disruption of pursuing long-term goals that seemed to have the most effect on people’s mental health.

xijian/Getty Images

Investigators from the University of Waterloo (Ont.) looked at how putting such goals on hold affected people’s mental well-being. The study’s 226 participants were asked about their “COVID-frozen” goals and the degree to which they were able to actively pursue each goal and how committed they were to achieving it.

What they found was that the participants’ COVID-frozen goals were associated with feelings of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, and lowered life satisfaction. It was only when participants were able to disengage from goal rumination that well-being was impacted positively.

“Goal rumination is compulsive and can aggravate worries and frustrations while also taking away mental resources from other goals,” Candice Hubley, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychology, said in a written statement. So in short, you’re only stressing yourself out more about something that is far off in the distance when you could be focusing more on short-term, tangible goals instead.

Now, no one is saying to give up on your goals. Just take them one at a time. You’ll have better life satisfaction and your COVID-frozen goals will thaw out before you know it.

Herpes to the rescue

Let’s face it: When people hear the word “herpes,” their first thoughts are not positive. But what if herpes could be a hero?

Scientists have found a way to make a strain of herpes that kills cancer because, hey, it’s 2022, and anything is possible. Trials have been going well and this seems like a safe and effective way to fight cancer.

Aunt_Spray/Thinkstock

Viruses may be one of our oldest enemies, but it’s also been said that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So why not make herpes the enemy of cancer, thereby turning it into our friend? The genetically modified herpes virus is injected directly into tumors, where it destroys cancer cells from within. But wait, there’s more! The patient’s immune system also senses the virus and springs into action against it and the cancer in which it is residing.

During the phase 1 trial, three of the nine patients saw tumor reduction and the therapy proved safe as well. Future trials will be able to more specifically target various cancer types and make the treatment better. For once, we are rooting for you, herpes.
 

A breath of not-so-fresh air

There’s nothing quite like that first real warm day of spring. You can finally open the windows and clear out the old stuffy air that’s been hanging around all winter long. It’s a ritual that’s now backed up with some science in the form of a new study. Turns out that there’s actually a fair amount of smog in the average home. That’s right, smog’s not just for the big city anymore.

PxHere

As part of the HOMEChem project, a whole host of scientists gathered together under one roof in a typical suburban house and immediately started doing chores. Cooking, cleaning, the works. No, it wasn’t because they had trashed the place the night before. They had set up instrumentation all around the house to measure the chemical makeup of the air inside. A scientist’s idea of a wild party.

The results are perhaps not all that surprising, but interesting nonetheless. Your homemade smog certainly won’t kill you, but there’s both an increased amount and higher concentration of airborne toxins in indoor air, compared with outdoors. Benzene and formaldehyde were common, as were acrolein (a pulmonary toxicant emitted by lumber and burning fats) and isocyanic acid (which can react with proteins in the human body). The researchers noted that most of these chemicals can be removed with proper ventilation.

Although cleaning is certainly responsible for a fair share of the chemicals, cooking generally produced more toxic compounds, similar to what’s found in wildfire smoke. One of the researchers said this makes sense, since a wildfire can be considered an “extreme form of cooking.” Scientists may not know how to party, but their idea of a barbecue sounds … interesting. We’re looking forward to an upcoming study out of California: Can a 1-million acre wildfire adequately cook a ribeye steak?
 

We’re dying to try composting ... with humans, that is

We here at LOTME are not really fans of politicians, except as objects of ridicule. That is kind of fun. Whether we’re watching Fox News, listening to NPR, or reading Vladimir Putin’s fashion blog, one thing remains clear: If you want actual information, don’t ask a politician.

Recompose

There are, of course, always exceptions, and we just found one: California state representative Cristina Garcia. Rep. Garcia sponsored a bill just signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom that legalizes the practice of human composting, the reduction of remains by “placing bodies in individual vessels and fostering gentle transformation into a nutrient-dense soil.”

Since we’ve written about this sort of thing before – Washington was the first state to legalize the process back in 2019 – we’re more interested now in what Rep. Garcia told NBC News while describing her motivation: “I’ve always wanted to be a tree. The idea of having my family sitting under my shade one day – that brings a lot of joy.” How great is that? Tree-hugging is just not enough. Be the tree.

California is the fifth state to provide its residents with the human composting option, the other three being Colorado, Oregon, and Vermont. The process “typically involves putting a body into a steel vessel, then covering it with organic materials like straw, wood chips and alfalfa. Microbes break down the corpse and the plant matter, transforming the various components into nutrient-rich soil in roughly 30 days,” Smithsonian Magazine explained.

We just happen to have some good news for Rep. Garcia about that wanting-to-be-a-tree business. She’s already pretty close. For more on that, we go to our correspondent from beyond the grave, Carl Sagan, who shares a thought about trees. And no, we couldn’t just write out his quote here. You have to hear it in Dr. Sagan’s own voice.
 

That’ll be one pandemic with extra distress. Hold the goals

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit it put a lot of stuff on hold for everyone. Couldn’t eat inside at your favorite restaurant, attend that long-awaited concert, or travel out of the country. Those were all pretty bad, but it was the disruption of pursuing long-term goals that seemed to have the most effect on people’s mental health.

xijian/Getty Images

Investigators from the University of Waterloo (Ont.) looked at how putting such goals on hold affected people’s mental well-being. The study’s 226 participants were asked about their “COVID-frozen” goals and the degree to which they were able to actively pursue each goal and how committed they were to achieving it.

What they found was that the participants’ COVID-frozen goals were associated with feelings of psychological distress, such as anxiety, depressive symptoms, stress, and lowered life satisfaction. It was only when participants were able to disengage from goal rumination that well-being was impacted positively.

“Goal rumination is compulsive and can aggravate worries and frustrations while also taking away mental resources from other goals,” Candice Hubley, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychology, said in a written statement. So in short, you’re only stressing yourself out more about something that is far off in the distance when you could be focusing more on short-term, tangible goals instead.

Now, no one is saying to give up on your goals. Just take them one at a time. You’ll have better life satisfaction and your COVID-frozen goals will thaw out before you know it.

Patients with gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease (GERD) have more than three times the risk of developing nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD), compared with those without GERD, according to a population-based retrospective cohort study.

“GERD is a common comorbidity of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease [but] whether GERD is associated with an increased risk of developing NTM-PD is unknown,” Hayoung Choi, MD, PhD, Hallym University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues reported.

“Our study showed the relation between GERD and NTM infections, but preventing NTM is not simple,” Dr. Choi added in an email. “What needs to be understood is that GERD increases health care utilization in patients with NTM pulmonary disease; hence, clinicians who treat patients with NTM pulmonary disease need to be aware of the burden of GERD and treat the gastrointestinal illness simultaneously,” he added.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST.
 

Sample cohort

Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort between 2002 and 2015 were used to assess the impact of GERD on NTM-PD. The incidence and risk of NTM-PD were compared between 17,424 patients with GERD and 69,000 patients without GERD in a matched cohort. GERD was defined as patients having received more than 3 months of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, the age- and sex-adjusted incidence of NTM-PD was significantly higher in the GERD cohort, at a rate of 34.8/100,000 person-years, than in the matched cohort, at a rate of only 10.5/100,000 person-years (P < .001), the authors reported.

As for risk factors for NTM-PD, being 60 years of age and older was associated with a 3.5-times higher risk of NTM-PD at an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.57 (95% confidence interval, 1.58-8.07), while bronchiectasis was associated with over an 18-times higher risk of NTM-PD in the GERD cohort at an adjusted HR of 18.69 (95% CI, 6.68-552.28). Those with GERD who developed NTM-PD had higher all-cause and respiratory disease–related emergency department visits or hospitalizations compared with patients with GERD who did not develop NTM-PD (P = .011), the investigators noted.

As the authors pointed out, the incidence of NTM-PD in the Korean population ranged from 6 to 19 cases/100,000 between 2008 and 2016; thus, the burden of incident NTM-PD associated with GERD appears to be considerable. As Dr. Choi explained, a combination of three factors influenced the development of NTM infections. The first is environmental, from water source, climate, or region; the second is patient influences, including such factors as immunodeficiency and comorbidities (including bronchiectasis); and the third is microbiological factors, including various NTM species.

Bile aspirating into the lung during GERD may be another possible pathway, as the authors suggested. Even if acid secretion is suppressed by PPI treatment in patients with GERD, NTM-PD may be induced or aggravated through mechanisms such as bile reflux. The fact that patients over the age of 60 were more prone to develop NTM-PD suggests that a decrease in gastric emptying and increased micro-aspiration or reflux associated with impaired swallowing (which are more common in elderly patients) may also be at play.

“Bronchiectasis is also a very well known risk factor for NTM pulmonary disease,” Dr. Choi emphasized. Thus, he recommends clinicians carefully observe clinical, radiological, and microbiological changes to detect NTM pulmonary disease when managing patients with bronchiectasis.

“The results of the present study have several potential clinical implications,” Dr. Choi and colleagues observed. First, NTM-PD should be suspected when new-onset worsening of respiratory symptoms develops during regular follow-up in patients with GERD. Second, because results indicate that older age and bronchiectasis significantly increase the risk of NTM-PD, “more active strategies (e.g., screening of symptoms and regular chest x-rays)” might be helpful in patients with GERD and these risk factors, the authors suggested. Because patients with GERD who developed NTM-PD had more respiratory disease–related ED visits and hospitalizations than those who did not develop NTM-PD, when GERD and NTM-PD are combined, clinicians should focus on the variations of respiratory symptoms, they suggested.

The authors cautioned, however, that because the study was one in a Korean population, studies in other countries and different ethnicities are needed before findings can be generalized.

More common than TB

Asked to comment on the findings, NTM-PD expert Theodore Marras, MD, clinician investigator, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, noted that non-TB M-PD is about 10 times more common than TB and that could be an underestimate as there have been very large increases in the incidence of NTM-PD in recent years. “It’s an environmental germ – it’s in our water – and certain people are particularly susceptible to it, typically older age women who have underlying bronchiectasis,” Dr. Marras told this news organization. “And while there are ethnic differences in incidence rates between East Asian people and Black African people, immigration is not the main driver for the increase as far as we can tell,” he said.

He personally treats a lot of NTM-PD and he also believes that GERD is an important risk factor for all types of lung infections including NTM lung disease. “So without a doubt, I believe that GERD should be treated in patients with NTM-PD,” Dr. Marras emphasized. The big question is how to treat GERD, as there may be concerns with acid-suppressive agents such as proton pump inhibitors that “the reflux that comes back up may harbor more germs in it and if that reflux comes up high enough, we are at risk of aspirating some of that fluid into our lungs, especially when we’re asleep,” he said.

Some experts therefore argue in favor of using motility agents instead of PPIs. However, if Dr. Marras has a patient with heartburn, “you have to treat it,” he stressed. Similarly, if a patient has evidence of esophageal erosions, physicians need to treat those as well. However, if neither feature is present, “I tend to like the motility agents preferentially or use them in combination with a PPI,” Dr. Marras said.

Dr. Marras also thinks the study is encouraging physicians involved in treating these patients to think about controlling GERD both when they are treating patients and after they are treated to try to reduce recurrence.

The authors had no financial disclosures to make. Dr. Marras has given several talks on NTM lung disease, one sponsored by AstraZeneca and the other by Novartis.

Patients with gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease (GERD) have more than three times the risk of developing nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD), compared with those without GERD, according to a population-based retrospective cohort study.

“GERD is a common comorbidity of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease [but] whether GERD is associated with an increased risk of developing NTM-PD is unknown,” Hayoung Choi, MD, PhD, Hallym University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues reported.

“Our study showed the relation between GERD and NTM infections, but preventing NTM is not simple,” Dr. Choi added in an email. “What needs to be understood is that GERD increases health care utilization in patients with NTM pulmonary disease; hence, clinicians who treat patients with NTM pulmonary disease need to be aware of the burden of GERD and treat the gastrointestinal illness simultaneously,” he added.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST.
 

Sample cohort

Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort between 2002 and 2015 were used to assess the impact of GERD on NTM-PD. The incidence and risk of NTM-PD were compared between 17,424 patients with GERD and 69,000 patients without GERD in a matched cohort. GERD was defined as patients having received more than 3 months of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, the age- and sex-adjusted incidence of NTM-PD was significantly higher in the GERD cohort, at a rate of 34.8/100,000 person-years, than in the matched cohort, at a rate of only 10.5/100,000 person-years (P < .001), the authors reported.

As for risk factors for NTM-PD, being 60 years of age and older was associated with a 3.5-times higher risk of NTM-PD at an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.57 (95% confidence interval, 1.58-8.07), while bronchiectasis was associated with over an 18-times higher risk of NTM-PD in the GERD cohort at an adjusted HR of 18.69 (95% CI, 6.68-552.28). Those with GERD who developed NTM-PD had higher all-cause and respiratory disease–related emergency department visits or hospitalizations compared with patients with GERD who did not develop NTM-PD (P = .011), the investigators noted.

As the authors pointed out, the incidence of NTM-PD in the Korean population ranged from 6 to 19 cases/100,000 between 2008 and 2016; thus, the burden of incident NTM-PD associated with GERD appears to be considerable. As Dr. Choi explained, a combination of three factors influenced the development of NTM infections. The first is environmental, from water source, climate, or region; the second is patient influences, including such factors as immunodeficiency and comorbidities (including bronchiectasis); and the third is microbiological factors, including various NTM species.

Bile aspirating into the lung during GERD may be another possible pathway, as the authors suggested. Even if acid secretion is suppressed by PPI treatment in patients with GERD, NTM-PD may be induced or aggravated through mechanisms such as bile reflux. The fact that patients over the age of 60 were more prone to develop NTM-PD suggests that a decrease in gastric emptying and increased micro-aspiration or reflux associated with impaired swallowing (which are more common in elderly patients) may also be at play.

“Bronchiectasis is also a very well known risk factor for NTM pulmonary disease,” Dr. Choi emphasized. Thus, he recommends clinicians carefully observe clinical, radiological, and microbiological changes to detect NTM pulmonary disease when managing patients with bronchiectasis.

“The results of the present study have several potential clinical implications,” Dr. Choi and colleagues observed. First, NTM-PD should be suspected when new-onset worsening of respiratory symptoms develops during regular follow-up in patients with GERD. Second, because results indicate that older age and bronchiectasis significantly increase the risk of NTM-PD, “more active strategies (e.g., screening of symptoms and regular chest x-rays)” might be helpful in patients with GERD and these risk factors, the authors suggested. Because patients with GERD who developed NTM-PD had more respiratory disease–related ED visits and hospitalizations than those who did not develop NTM-PD, when GERD and NTM-PD are combined, clinicians should focus on the variations of respiratory symptoms, they suggested.

The authors cautioned, however, that because the study was one in a Korean population, studies in other countries and different ethnicities are needed before findings can be generalized.

More common than TB

Asked to comment on the findings, NTM-PD expert Theodore Marras, MD, clinician investigator, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, noted that non-TB M-PD is about 10 times more common than TB and that could be an underestimate as there have been very large increases in the incidence of NTM-PD in recent years. “It’s an environmental germ – it’s in our water – and certain people are particularly susceptible to it, typically older age women who have underlying bronchiectasis,” Dr. Marras told this news organization. “And while there are ethnic differences in incidence rates between East Asian people and Black African people, immigration is not the main driver for the increase as far as we can tell,” he said.

He personally treats a lot of NTM-PD and he also believes that GERD is an important risk factor for all types of lung infections including NTM lung disease. “So without a doubt, I believe that GERD should be treated in patients with NTM-PD,” Dr. Marras emphasized. The big question is how to treat GERD, as there may be concerns with acid-suppressive agents such as proton pump inhibitors that “the reflux that comes back up may harbor more germs in it and if that reflux comes up high enough, we are at risk of aspirating some of that fluid into our lungs, especially when we’re asleep,” he said.

Some experts therefore argue in favor of using motility agents instead of PPIs. However, if Dr. Marras has a patient with heartburn, “you have to treat it,” he stressed. Similarly, if a patient has evidence of esophageal erosions, physicians need to treat those as well. However, if neither feature is present, “I tend to like the motility agents preferentially or use them in combination with a PPI,” Dr. Marras said.

Dr. Marras also thinks the study is encouraging physicians involved in treating these patients to think about controlling GERD both when they are treating patients and after they are treated to try to reduce recurrence.

The authors had no financial disclosures to make. Dr. Marras has given several talks on NTM lung disease, one sponsored by AstraZeneca and the other by Novartis.

Patients with gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease (GERD) have more than three times the risk of developing nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD), compared with those without GERD, according to a population-based retrospective cohort study.

“GERD is a common comorbidity of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease [but] whether GERD is associated with an increased risk of developing NTM-PD is unknown,” Hayoung Choi, MD, PhD, Hallym University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, and colleagues reported.

“Our study showed the relation between GERD and NTM infections, but preventing NTM is not simple,” Dr. Choi added in an email. “What needs to be understood is that GERD increases health care utilization in patients with NTM pulmonary disease; hence, clinicians who treat patients with NTM pulmonary disease need to be aware of the burden of GERD and treat the gastrointestinal illness simultaneously,” he added.

The study was published online in the journal CHEST.
 

Sample cohort

Data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort between 2002 and 2015 were used to assess the impact of GERD on NTM-PD. The incidence and risk of NTM-PD were compared between 17,424 patients with GERD and 69,000 patients without GERD in a matched cohort. GERD was defined as patients having received more than 3 months of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs).

During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, the age- and sex-adjusted incidence of NTM-PD was significantly higher in the GERD cohort, at a rate of 34.8/100,000 person-years, than in the matched cohort, at a rate of only 10.5/100,000 person-years (P < .001), the authors reported.

As for risk factors for NTM-PD, being 60 years of age and older was associated with a 3.5-times higher risk of NTM-PD at an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.57 (95% confidence interval, 1.58-8.07), while bronchiectasis was associated with over an 18-times higher risk of NTM-PD in the GERD cohort at an adjusted HR of 18.69 (95% CI, 6.68-552.28). Those with GERD who developed NTM-PD had higher all-cause and respiratory disease–related emergency department visits or hospitalizations compared with patients with GERD who did not develop NTM-PD (P = .011), the investigators noted.

As the authors pointed out, the incidence of NTM-PD in the Korean population ranged from 6 to 19 cases/100,000 between 2008 and 2016; thus, the burden of incident NTM-PD associated with GERD appears to be considerable. As Dr. Choi explained, a combination of three factors influenced the development of NTM infections. The first is environmental, from water source, climate, or region; the second is patient influences, including such factors as immunodeficiency and comorbidities (including bronchiectasis); and the third is microbiological factors, including various NTM species.

Bile aspirating into the lung during GERD may be another possible pathway, as the authors suggested. Even if acid secretion is suppressed by PPI treatment in patients with GERD, NTM-PD may be induced or aggravated through mechanisms such as bile reflux. The fact that patients over the age of 60 were more prone to develop NTM-PD suggests that a decrease in gastric emptying and increased micro-aspiration or reflux associated with impaired swallowing (which are more common in elderly patients) may also be at play.

“Bronchiectasis is also a very well known risk factor for NTM pulmonary disease,” Dr. Choi emphasized. Thus, he recommends clinicians carefully observe clinical, radiological, and microbiological changes to detect NTM pulmonary disease when managing patients with bronchiectasis.

“The results of the present study have several potential clinical implications,” Dr. Choi and colleagues observed. First, NTM-PD should be suspected when new-onset worsening of respiratory symptoms develops during regular follow-up in patients with GERD. Second, because results indicate that older age and bronchiectasis significantly increase the risk of NTM-PD, “more active strategies (e.g., screening of symptoms and regular chest x-rays)” might be helpful in patients with GERD and these risk factors, the authors suggested. Because patients with GERD who developed NTM-PD had more respiratory disease–related ED visits and hospitalizations than those who did not develop NTM-PD, when GERD and NTM-PD are combined, clinicians should focus on the variations of respiratory symptoms, they suggested.

The authors cautioned, however, that because the study was one in a Korean population, studies in other countries and different ethnicities are needed before findings can be generalized.

More common than TB

Asked to comment on the findings, NTM-PD expert Theodore Marras, MD, clinician investigator, Krembil Research Institute, Toronto, noted that non-TB M-PD is about 10 times more common than TB and that could be an underestimate as there have been very large increases in the incidence of NTM-PD in recent years. “It’s an environmental germ – it’s in our water – and certain people are particularly susceptible to it, typically older age women who have underlying bronchiectasis,” Dr. Marras told this news organization. “And while there are ethnic differences in incidence rates between East Asian people and Black African people, immigration is not the main driver for the increase as far as we can tell,” he said.

He personally treats a lot of NTM-PD and he also believes that GERD is an important risk factor for all types of lung infections including NTM lung disease. “So without a doubt, I believe that GERD should be treated in patients with NTM-PD,” Dr. Marras emphasized. The big question is how to treat GERD, as there may be concerns with acid-suppressive agents such as proton pump inhibitors that “the reflux that comes back up may harbor more germs in it and if that reflux comes up high enough, we are at risk of aspirating some of that fluid into our lungs, especially when we’re asleep,” he said.

Some experts therefore argue in favor of using motility agents instead of PPIs. However, if Dr. Marras has a patient with heartburn, “you have to treat it,” he stressed. Similarly, if a patient has evidence of esophageal erosions, physicians need to treat those as well. However, if neither feature is present, “I tend to like the motility agents preferentially or use them in combination with a PPI,” Dr. Marras said.

Dr. Marras also thinks the study is encouraging physicians involved in treating these patients to think about controlling GERD both when they are treating patients and after they are treated to try to reduce recurrence.

The authors had no financial disclosures to make. Dr. Marras has given several talks on NTM lung disease, one sponsored by AstraZeneca and the other by Novartis.

About 5% of traditional Medicare patients who had telehealth visits were seen virtually by out-of-state clinicians in the first half of 2021, according to a new study in JAMA Health Forum.

Since then, however, many states have restored restrictions that prevent physicians who are licensed in one state from having telehealth visits with patients unless they’re licensed in the state where the patients live.

RichLegg/Getty Images

This is not fair to many people who live in areas near state borders, the authors argued. For those patients, it is much more convenient to see their primary care physician in a virtual visit from home than to travel to the doctor’s office in another state. This convenience is enjoyed by most patients who reside elsewhere in their state because they’re seeing physicians who are licensed there.

Moreover, the paper said, patients who live in rural areas and in counties with relatively few physicians per capita would also benefit from relaxed telemedicine restrictions.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers examined the characteristics of out-of-state (OOS) telemedicine visits for the 6 months from January to June 2021. They chose that period for two reasons: by then, health care had stabilized after the chaotic early phase of the pandemic, and in most states, the relaxation of licensing rules for OOS telehealth had not yet lapsed. Earlier periods of time were also used for certain types of comparisons.

Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the number of OOS telemedicine visits peaked at 451,086 in April 2020 and slowly fell to 175,545 in June 2021, according to the study. The fraction of OOS telehealth visits among all virtual visits was 4.5% in April 2020 and increased to 5.6% by June 2021.
 

Staying close to home

Of all beneficiaries with a telemedicine visit in the study period, 33% lived within 15 miles of a state border. That cohort accounted for 57.2% of all OOS telemedicine visits.

The highest rates of OOS telehealth visits were seen in the District of Columbia (38.5%), Wyoming (25.6%), and North Dakota (21.1%). California (1%), Texas (2%), and Massachusetts (2.1%) had the lowest rates.

Though intuitive in retrospect, the correlation of OOS telemedicine use with proximity to state borders was one of the study’s most important findings, lead author Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It makes sense,” he said. “If you’re in D.C. and you need a cardiologist, you don’t think: ‘I’ll stay in D.C.’ No, Maryland is right there, so you might use a Maryland cardiologist. Now you’re out of state, even though that office might be only half a mile away from you.”

Similar dynamics, he noted, are seen in many metropolitan areas that border on other states, such as Cincinnati; Philadelphia; and Portland, Ore.

This finding lines up with another result of the study: The majority of patients who had OOS telemedicine visits had previously seen in person the doctor who conducted the virtual visit.

Across all OOS telemedicine visits in the first half of 2021, the researchers observed a prior in-person visit between March 2019 and the date of the virtual visit with the same patient and the same clinician in 62.8% of those visits. Across all in-state telehealth visits, 75.8% of them were made by patients who had seen the same clinician in person since March 2019. This preponderance of virtual visits to clinicians whom the patients had already seen in person reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, most physicians began conducting telehealth visits with their own patients, Dr. Mehrotra said.

It also lays to rest the concern that some states have had about allowing OOS telemedicine visits to physicians not licensed in those states, he added. “They think that all these docs from far away are going to start taking care of patients they don’t even know. But our study shows that isn’t the case. Most of the time, doctors are seeing a patient who’s switching over from in-person visits to out-of-state telemedicine.”
 

More specialty care sought

The dominant conditions that patients presented with were the same in OOS telemedicine and within-state virtual visits. However, the use of OOS telemedicine was higher for some types of specialized care.

For example, the rate of OOS telemedicine use, compared with all telemedicine use, was highest for cancer care (9.8%). Drilling down to more specific conditions, the top three in OOS telemedicine visits were assessment of organ transplant (13%); male reproductive cancers, such as prostate cancer (11.3%); and graft-related issues (10.2%).

The specialty trend was also evident in the types of OOS clinicians from whom Medicare patients sought virtual care. The rates of OOS telemedicine use as a percentage of all telemedicine use in particular specialties were highest for uncommon specialties, such as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, urology, medical oncology, and orthopedic surgery (8.5%). There was less use of OOS telemedicine as a percentage of all telemedicine among more common medical specialties (6.4%), mental health specialties (4.4%), and primary care (4.4%).

Despite its relatively low showing in this category, however, behavioral health was the leading condition treated in both within-state and OOS telemedicine visits, accounting for 30.7% and 25.8%, respectively, of those encounters.

States backslide on OOS telehealth

Since the end of the study period, over half of the states have restored some or all of the restrictions on OOS telemedicine that they had lifted during the pandemic.

According to Dr. Mehrotra, 22 states have some kind of regulation in place to allow an OOS clinician to conduct telehealth visits without being licensed in the state. This varies all the way from complete reciprocity with other states’ licenses to “emergency” telemedicine licenses. The other 28 states and Washington, D.C., require an OOS telemedicine practitioner to get a state license.

Various proposals have been floated to ameliorate this situation, the JAMA paper noted. These proposals include an expansion of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that the Federation of State Medical Boards organized in 2014. Since the pact became effective in 2014, at least 35 states and the District of Columbia have joined it. Those states have made it simpler for physicians to gain licensure in states other than their original state of licensure. However, Mehrotra said, it’s still not easy, and not many physicians have taken advantage of it.

One new wrinkle has emerged in this policy debate as a result of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he noted. Because people are using OOS telemedicine visits to get prescriptions to abort their fetuses, “that has changed the enthusiasm level for it among many states,” he said.

Dr. Mehrotra reported personal fees from the Pew Charitable Trust, Sanofi Pasteur, and Black Opal Ventures outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, National Institute on Aging, Roundtrip, Independence Blue Cross; personal fees or salary from RAND Corporation from Verily Life Sciences; and that the American Telemedicine Association covered a conference fee. No other disclosures were reported.

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

About 5% of traditional Medicare patients who had telehealth visits were seen virtually by out-of-state clinicians in the first half of 2021, according to a new study in JAMA Health Forum.

Since then, however, many states have restored restrictions that prevent physicians who are licensed in one state from having telehealth visits with patients unless they’re licensed in the state where the patients live.

RichLegg/Getty Images

This is not fair to many people who live in areas near state borders, the authors argued. For those patients, it is much more convenient to see their primary care physician in a virtual visit from home than to travel to the doctor’s office in another state. This convenience is enjoyed by most patients who reside elsewhere in their state because they’re seeing physicians who are licensed there.

Moreover, the paper said, patients who live in rural areas and in counties with relatively few physicians per capita would also benefit from relaxed telemedicine restrictions.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers examined the characteristics of out-of-state (OOS) telemedicine visits for the 6 months from January to June 2021. They chose that period for two reasons: by then, health care had stabilized after the chaotic early phase of the pandemic, and in most states, the relaxation of licensing rules for OOS telehealth had not yet lapsed. Earlier periods of time were also used for certain types of comparisons.

Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the number of OOS telemedicine visits peaked at 451,086 in April 2020 and slowly fell to 175,545 in June 2021, according to the study. The fraction of OOS telehealth visits among all virtual visits was 4.5% in April 2020 and increased to 5.6% by June 2021.
 

Staying close to home

Of all beneficiaries with a telemedicine visit in the study period, 33% lived within 15 miles of a state border. That cohort accounted for 57.2% of all OOS telemedicine visits.

The highest rates of OOS telehealth visits were seen in the District of Columbia (38.5%), Wyoming (25.6%), and North Dakota (21.1%). California (1%), Texas (2%), and Massachusetts (2.1%) had the lowest rates.

Though intuitive in retrospect, the correlation of OOS telemedicine use with proximity to state borders was one of the study’s most important findings, lead author Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It makes sense,” he said. “If you’re in D.C. and you need a cardiologist, you don’t think: ‘I’ll stay in D.C.’ No, Maryland is right there, so you might use a Maryland cardiologist. Now you’re out of state, even though that office might be only half a mile away from you.”

Similar dynamics, he noted, are seen in many metropolitan areas that border on other states, such as Cincinnati; Philadelphia; and Portland, Ore.

This finding lines up with another result of the study: The majority of patients who had OOS telemedicine visits had previously seen in person the doctor who conducted the virtual visit.

Across all OOS telemedicine visits in the first half of 2021, the researchers observed a prior in-person visit between March 2019 and the date of the virtual visit with the same patient and the same clinician in 62.8% of those visits. Across all in-state telehealth visits, 75.8% of them were made by patients who had seen the same clinician in person since March 2019. This preponderance of virtual visits to clinicians whom the patients had already seen in person reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, most physicians began conducting telehealth visits with their own patients, Dr. Mehrotra said.

It also lays to rest the concern that some states have had about allowing OOS telemedicine visits to physicians not licensed in those states, he added. “They think that all these docs from far away are going to start taking care of patients they don’t even know. But our study shows that isn’t the case. Most of the time, doctors are seeing a patient who’s switching over from in-person visits to out-of-state telemedicine.”
 

More specialty care sought

The dominant conditions that patients presented with were the same in OOS telemedicine and within-state virtual visits. However, the use of OOS telemedicine was higher for some types of specialized care.

For example, the rate of OOS telemedicine use, compared with all telemedicine use, was highest for cancer care (9.8%). Drilling down to more specific conditions, the top three in OOS telemedicine visits were assessment of organ transplant (13%); male reproductive cancers, such as prostate cancer (11.3%); and graft-related issues (10.2%).

The specialty trend was also evident in the types of OOS clinicians from whom Medicare patients sought virtual care. The rates of OOS telemedicine use as a percentage of all telemedicine use in particular specialties were highest for uncommon specialties, such as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, urology, medical oncology, and orthopedic surgery (8.5%). There was less use of OOS telemedicine as a percentage of all telemedicine among more common medical specialties (6.4%), mental health specialties (4.4%), and primary care (4.4%).

Despite its relatively low showing in this category, however, behavioral health was the leading condition treated in both within-state and OOS telemedicine visits, accounting for 30.7% and 25.8%, respectively, of those encounters.

States backslide on OOS telehealth

Since the end of the study period, over half of the states have restored some or all of the restrictions on OOS telemedicine that they had lifted during the pandemic.

According to Dr. Mehrotra, 22 states have some kind of regulation in place to allow an OOS clinician to conduct telehealth visits without being licensed in the state. This varies all the way from complete reciprocity with other states’ licenses to “emergency” telemedicine licenses. The other 28 states and Washington, D.C., require an OOS telemedicine practitioner to get a state license.

Various proposals have been floated to ameliorate this situation, the JAMA paper noted. These proposals include an expansion of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that the Federation of State Medical Boards organized in 2014. Since the pact became effective in 2014, at least 35 states and the District of Columbia have joined it. Those states have made it simpler for physicians to gain licensure in states other than their original state of licensure. However, Mehrotra said, it’s still not easy, and not many physicians have taken advantage of it.

One new wrinkle has emerged in this policy debate as a result of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he noted. Because people are using OOS telemedicine visits to get prescriptions to abort their fetuses, “that has changed the enthusiasm level for it among many states,” he said.

Dr. Mehrotra reported personal fees from the Pew Charitable Trust, Sanofi Pasteur, and Black Opal Ventures outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, National Institute on Aging, Roundtrip, Independence Blue Cross; personal fees or salary from RAND Corporation from Verily Life Sciences; and that the American Telemedicine Association covered a conference fee. No other disclosures were reported.

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

About 5% of traditional Medicare patients who had telehealth visits were seen virtually by out-of-state clinicians in the first half of 2021, according to a new study in JAMA Health Forum.

Since then, however, many states have restored restrictions that prevent physicians who are licensed in one state from having telehealth visits with patients unless they’re licensed in the state where the patients live.

RichLegg/Getty Images

This is not fair to many people who live in areas near state borders, the authors argued. For those patients, it is much more convenient to see their primary care physician in a virtual visit from home than to travel to the doctor’s office in another state. This convenience is enjoyed by most patients who reside elsewhere in their state because they’re seeing physicians who are licensed there.

Moreover, the paper said, patients who live in rural areas and in counties with relatively few physicians per capita would also benefit from relaxed telemedicine restrictions.

Using Medicare claims data, the researchers examined the characteristics of out-of-state (OOS) telemedicine visits for the 6 months from January to June 2021. They chose that period for two reasons: by then, health care had stabilized after the chaotic early phase of the pandemic, and in most states, the relaxation of licensing rules for OOS telehealth had not yet lapsed. Earlier periods of time were also used for certain types of comparisons.

Among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the number of OOS telemedicine visits peaked at 451,086 in April 2020 and slowly fell to 175,545 in June 2021, according to the study. The fraction of OOS telehealth visits among all virtual visits was 4.5% in April 2020 and increased to 5.6% by June 2021.
 

Staying close to home

Of all beneficiaries with a telemedicine visit in the study period, 33% lived within 15 miles of a state border. That cohort accounted for 57.2% of all OOS telemedicine visits.

The highest rates of OOS telehealth visits were seen in the District of Columbia (38.5%), Wyoming (25.6%), and North Dakota (21.1%). California (1%), Texas (2%), and Massachusetts (2.1%) had the lowest rates.

Though intuitive in retrospect, the correlation of OOS telemedicine use with proximity to state borders was one of the study’s most important findings, lead author Ateev Mehrotra, MD, a professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “It makes sense,” he said. “If you’re in D.C. and you need a cardiologist, you don’t think: ‘I’ll stay in D.C.’ No, Maryland is right there, so you might use a Maryland cardiologist. Now you’re out of state, even though that office might be only half a mile away from you.”

Similar dynamics, he noted, are seen in many metropolitan areas that border on other states, such as Cincinnati; Philadelphia; and Portland, Ore.

This finding lines up with another result of the study: The majority of patients who had OOS telemedicine visits had previously seen in person the doctor who conducted the virtual visit.

Across all OOS telemedicine visits in the first half of 2021, the researchers observed a prior in-person visit between March 2019 and the date of the virtual visit with the same patient and the same clinician in 62.8% of those visits. Across all in-state telehealth visits, 75.8% of them were made by patients who had seen the same clinician in person since March 2019. This preponderance of virtual visits to clinicians whom the patients had already seen in person reflects the fact that, during the pandemic, most physicians began conducting telehealth visits with their own patients, Dr. Mehrotra said.

It also lays to rest the concern that some states have had about allowing OOS telemedicine visits to physicians not licensed in those states, he added. “They think that all these docs from far away are going to start taking care of patients they don’t even know. But our study shows that isn’t the case. Most of the time, doctors are seeing a patient who’s switching over from in-person visits to out-of-state telemedicine.”
 

More specialty care sought

The dominant conditions that patients presented with were the same in OOS telemedicine and within-state virtual visits. However, the use of OOS telemedicine was higher for some types of specialized care.

For example, the rate of OOS telemedicine use, compared with all telemedicine use, was highest for cancer care (9.8%). Drilling down to more specific conditions, the top three in OOS telemedicine visits were assessment of organ transplant (13%); male reproductive cancers, such as prostate cancer (11.3%); and graft-related issues (10.2%).

The specialty trend was also evident in the types of OOS clinicians from whom Medicare patients sought virtual care. The rates of OOS telemedicine use as a percentage of all telemedicine use in particular specialties were highest for uncommon specialties, such as hematology/oncology, rheumatology, urology, medical oncology, and orthopedic surgery (8.5%). There was less use of OOS telemedicine as a percentage of all telemedicine among more common medical specialties (6.4%), mental health specialties (4.4%), and primary care (4.4%).

Despite its relatively low showing in this category, however, behavioral health was the leading condition treated in both within-state and OOS telemedicine visits, accounting for 30.7% and 25.8%, respectively, of those encounters.

States backslide on OOS telehealth

Since the end of the study period, over half of the states have restored some or all of the restrictions on OOS telemedicine that they had lifted during the pandemic.

According to Dr. Mehrotra, 22 states have some kind of regulation in place to allow an OOS clinician to conduct telehealth visits without being licensed in the state. This varies all the way from complete reciprocity with other states’ licenses to “emergency” telemedicine licenses. The other 28 states and Washington, D.C., require an OOS telemedicine practitioner to get a state license.

Various proposals have been floated to ameliorate this situation, the JAMA paper noted. These proposals include an expansion of the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact that the Federation of State Medical Boards organized in 2014. Since the pact became effective in 2014, at least 35 states and the District of Columbia have joined it. Those states have made it simpler for physicians to gain licensure in states other than their original state of licensure. However, Mehrotra said, it’s still not easy, and not many physicians have taken advantage of it.

One new wrinkle has emerged in this policy debate as a result of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he noted. Because people are using OOS telemedicine visits to get prescriptions to abort their fetuses, “that has changed the enthusiasm level for it among many states,” he said.

Dr. Mehrotra reported personal fees from the Pew Charitable Trust, Sanofi Pasteur, and Black Opal Ventures outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, National Institute on Aging, Roundtrip, Independence Blue Cross; personal fees or salary from RAND Corporation from Verily Life Sciences; and that the American Telemedicine Association covered a conference fee. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

Long COVID: The name says it all. It’s an illness that, for many people, has not yet stopped.

Eric Roach became ill with COVID-19 in November 2020, and he’s still sick. “I have brain fog, memory loss,” says the 67-year-old Navy veteran from Spearfish, S.D. “The fatigue has just been insane.” 

Long COVID, more formally known as post-acute sequelae of COVID (PASC), is the lay term to describe when people start to recover, or seem to recover, from a bout of COVID-19 but then continue to suffer from symptoms. For some, it’s gone on for 2 years or longer. While the governments of the United Statesand several other countries formally recognize the existence of long COVID, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has yet to formally define it. There’s no approved treatment, and the causes are not understood.

Here’s what is known: Long COVID is a postviral condition affecting a large percentage of people who become infected with the coronavirus. It can be utterly debilitating or mildly annoying, and it is affecting enough people to cause concern for employers, health insurers, and governments.
 

First, the many symptoms

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prvention, long COVID symptoms may include:

• Tiredness or fatigue that interferes with daily life.
• Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental effort.
• Fever.
• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath.
• Cough.
• Chest pain.
• Heart palpitations.
• Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”).
• Headache.
• Sleep problems.
• Dizziness when standing.
• Pins-and-needles feelings.
• Change in smell or taste.
• Depression or anxiety.
• Diarrhea.
• Stomach pain.
• Joint or muscle pain.
• Rash.
• Changes in menstrual cycles.

“People with post-COVID conditions may develop or continue to have symptoms that are hard to explain and manage,” the CDC says on its website. “Clinical evaluations and results of routine blood tests, chest x-rays, and electrocardiograms may be normal. The symptoms are similar to those reported by people with ME/CFS (myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and other poorly understood chronic illnesses that may occur after other infections.” 

Doctors may not fully appreciate the subtle nature of some of the symptoms. 

“People with these unexplained symptoms may be misunderstood by their health care providers, which can result in a long time for them to get a diagnosis and receive appropriate care or treatment,” the CDC says.

Health professionals should recognize that long COVID can be disabling, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says. “Long COVID can substantially limit a major life activity,” HHS says in civil rights guidance. One possible example: “A person with long COVID who has lung damage that causes shortness of breath, fatigue, and related effects is substantially limited in respiratory function, among other major life activities,” the HHS notes.
 

How many people are affected?

This has been difficult to judge because not everyone who has had COVID-19 gets tested for it and there are no formal diagnostic criteria yet for long COVID. The CDC estimates that 19% of patients in the United States who have ever had COVID-19 have long COVID symptoms. 

Some estimates go higher. A University of Oxford study in September 2021 found more than a third of patients had symptoms of long COVID between 3 months and 6 months after a COVID-19 diagnosis. As many as 55% of COVID-19 patients in one Chinese study had one or more lingering symptoms 2 years later, Lixue Huang, MD, of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital in Beijing, and colleagues reported in the journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine in May.

According to the CDC, age is a factor. “Older adults are less likely to have long COVID than younger adults. Nearly three times as many adults ages 50-59 currently have long COVID than those age 80 and older,” the CDC says. Women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to be affected.

Many people are experiencing neurological effects, such as the so-called brain fog, according to Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, of Washington University and the VA St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues, whose report was published in Nature Medicine in September. They estimated that 6.6 million Americans have brain impairments associated with COVID infection.

“Some of the neurologic disorders reported here are serious chronic conditions that will impact some people for a lifetime,” they wrote. “Given the colossal scale of the pandemic, and even though the absolute numbers reported in this work are small, these may translate into a large number of affected individuals around the world – and this will likely contribute to a rise in the burden of neurologic diseases.”
 

Causes

It’s not clear what the underlying causes are, but most research points to a combination of factors. Suspects include ongoing inflammation, tiny blood clots, and reactivation of latent viruses. In May, Brent Palmer, PhD, of the University of Colorado, Denver, and colleagues found people with long COVID had persistent activation of T-cells that were specific for SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 itself can damage organs, and long COVID might be caused by ongoing damage. In August, Alexandros Rovas, MD, of University Hospital Munster in Germany, and colleagues found patients with long COVID had evidence of damage to their capillaries. “Whether, to what extent, and when the observed damage might be reversible remains unclear,” they wrote in the journal Angiogenesis.

People with long COVID have immune responses to other viruses, such as Epstein-Barr – evidence that COVID-19 might reactivate latent viruses. “Our data suggest the involvement of persistent antigen, reactivation of latent herpesviruses, and chronic inflammation,” immunobiologist Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a study posted in August that had not yet been peer-reviewed for publication.

This might be causing an autoimmune response. “The infection may cause the immune system to start making autoantibodies that attack a person’s own organs and tissues,” the NIH says.

There could be other factors. A study by Harvard researchers found that people who felt stressed, depressed, or lonely before catching COVID-19 were more likely to develop long COVID afterward. “Distress was more strongly associated with developing long COVID than physical health risk factors such as obesity, asthma, and hypertension,” Siwen Wang, MD, a research fellow with Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said in a statement.  Plus, nearly 44% of those in the study developed COVID-19 infections after having been assessed for stress, Dr. Wang and colleagues reported in the journal JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Vaccine protection 

There’s evidence that vaccination protects against long COVID, both by preventing infection in the first place, but also even for people who have breakthrough infections.

A meta-analysis covering studies involving 17 million people found evidence vaccination might reduce the severity of COVID-19 or might help the body clear any lingering virus after an infection.

“Overall, vaccination was associated with reduced risks or odds of long COVID, with preliminary evidence suggesting that two doses are more effective than one dose,” wrote Cesar Fernandez de las Penas, PhD, of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet’s eClinicalMedicine.

A team in Milan found that unvaccinated people in their study were nearly three times as likely to have serious symptoms for longer than 4 weeks compared to vaccinated volunteers. According to their report in JAMA, Elena Azzolini, MD, PhD, assistant professor at Humanitas Research Hospital, and colleagues found two or three doses of vaccine reduced the risk of hospitalization from COVID to 16% or 17% compared to 42% for the unvaccinated.
 

Treatments

With no diagnostic criteria and no understanding of the causes, it’s hard for doctors to determine treatments.

Most experts dealing with long COVID, even those at the specialty centers that have been set up at hospitals and health systems in the United States, recommend that patients start with their primary care doctors before moving on to specialists.

“The mainstay of management is supportive, holistic care, symptom control, and detection of treatable complications,” Trish Greenhalgh, MD, professor of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, England, and colleagues wrote in the journal The BMJ in September. “Patients with long COVID greatly value input from their primary care clinician. Generalist clinicians can help patients considerably by hearing the patient’s story and validating their experience … (and) making the diagnosis of long COVID (which does not have to be by exclusion) and excluding alternative diagnoses.”

Evidence is building that long COVID closely resembles other postviral conditions – something that can provide clues for treatment. For example, several studies indicate that exercise doesn’t help most patients.

But there are approaches that can work. Treatments may include pulmonary rehabilitation; autonomic conditioning therapy, which includes breathing therapy; and cognitive rehabilitation to relieve brain fog. Doctors are also trying the antidepressant amitriptyline to help with sleep disturbances and headaches; the antiseizure medication gabapentin to help with pain, numbness, and other neurological symptoms; and drugs to relieve low blood pressure in patients experiencing postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

The NIH is sponsoring studies that have recruited just over 8,200 adults. And more than two dozen researchers from Harvard; Stanford; the University of California, San Francisco; the J. Craig Venter Institute; Johns Hopkins University; the University of Pennsylvania; Mount Sinai Hospitals; Cardiff University; and Yale announced in September they were forming the Long COVID Research Initiative to speed up studies.

The group, with funding from private enterprise, plans to conduct tissue biopsy, imaging studies, and autopsies and will search for potential biomarkers in the blood of patients.

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

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

New COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions in children continue to decline, while the slow pace of vaccinations has not deterred manufacturers from seeking new emergency authorizations.

There were just over 55,000 new cases reported during the week of Sept. 16-22, marking three consecutive weeks of declines through the end of summer. Since reaching a post-Omicron peak of 112,000 in late May, the number of weekly cases has fluctuated, with no stretch of increases or decreases lasting more than 4 weeks or the weekly count rising above 97,000 or falling lower than the current 55,000, according to state-level data collected by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New admissions with confirmed COVID for children aged 0-17 years, which did not follow that pattern and instead continued to rise through the spring and early summer, have been largely decreasing in recent weeks and had fallen to 0.27 per 100,000 population as of Sept. 21 after peaking at 0.46 per 100,000 in late July, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported. A similar decline has been seen for emergency department visits since late August.

The biggest vaccination news of the week came from Moderna and Pfizer and BioNTech, which are each seeking emergency authorization from the Food and Drug Administration for bivalent vaccine boosters that target both the original COVID strain and the BA.4 and BA.5 strains of Omicron.

“Pfizer’s booster would be for children 5 to 11 who have completed a primary vaccination series [and] Moderna’s updated boosters would be for children ages 6 to 17 who have completed a primary vaccination series,” WebMD said.

Although almost 61% of children aged 12-17 years are already fully vaccinated, that is not the case among those aged 5-11, of whom only 31.4% have completed the initial vaccine regimen. Since becoming eligible in June, just 1.9% of children under 5 years of age have been fully vaccinated and 6.3% have received at least one dose, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker. The latest data put the already boosted child populations at 28.8% for 12- to 17-year-olds and 14.8% in those aged 5-11.

About 51,000 children under age 5 years received their initial COVID vaccination during the week of Sept. 15-21, and the trend for that measure is one of gradual decline since July. Among the older children that same week, there were 28,000 initial vaccinations in the 5- to 11-year-olds and 18,000 for those aged 12-17, and activity in both age groups has largely stagnated since the spring, according to a separate AAP report based on CDC data.

Americans are not rushing to receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The newest booster became available to the public around Labor Day weekend, and about 4.4 million people have gotten it as of Sept. 21, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That figure represents about 1.5% of the people eligible to receive the booster, NBC News reported.

The White House has said the total is probably closer to 5 million people. The CDC totals don’t yet include Texas and Idaho, which use an aggregate vaccination record reporting method for the Pfizer vaccine.

Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious disease specialist in New Haven, Conn., told NBC News the low numbers are “demoralizing.”

“I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point,” he said. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message. Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, says he thinks demand will pick up in the coming weeks.

“We’ve been thinking and talking about this as an annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Flu vaccine season picks up in late September and early October. We’re just getting our education campaign going. So we expect to see, despite the fact that this was a strong start, we actually expect this to ramp up stronger,” Dr. Jha said.

The new booster is the third one authorized by the federal government and was redesigned to protect against the currently circulating subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 of the Omicron strain. People who have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before can receive it.

The new Pfizer booster is available for people 12 and up and the Moderna version for people 18 and up. The vaccines can be mixed and matched.

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

Americans are not rushing to receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The newest booster became available to the public around Labor Day weekend, and about 4.4 million people have gotten it as of Sept. 21, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That figure represents about 1.5% of the people eligible to receive the booster, NBC News reported.

The White House has said the total is probably closer to 5 million people. The CDC totals don’t yet include Texas and Idaho, which use an aggregate vaccination record reporting method for the Pfizer vaccine.

Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious disease specialist in New Haven, Conn., told NBC News the low numbers are “demoralizing.”

“I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point,” he said. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message. Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, says he thinks demand will pick up in the coming weeks.

“We’ve been thinking and talking about this as an annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Flu vaccine season picks up in late September and early October. We’re just getting our education campaign going. So we expect to see, despite the fact that this was a strong start, we actually expect this to ramp up stronger,” Dr. Jha said.

The new booster is the third one authorized by the federal government and was redesigned to protect against the currently circulating subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 of the Omicron strain. People who have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before can receive it.

The new Pfizer booster is available for people 12 and up and the Moderna version for people 18 and up. The vaccines can be mixed and matched.

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

Americans are not rushing to receive the updated COVID-19 booster vaccine.

The newest booster became available to the public around Labor Day weekend, and about 4.4 million people have gotten it as of Sept. 21, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. That figure represents about 1.5% of the people eligible to receive the booster, NBC News reported.

The White House has said the total is probably closer to 5 million people. The CDC totals don’t yet include Texas and Idaho, which use an aggregate vaccination record reporting method for the Pfizer vaccine.

Scott Roberts, MD, a Yale Medicine infectious disease specialist in New Haven, Conn., told NBC News the low numbers are “demoralizing.”

“I would expect a much higher proportion of Americans to have gotten the booster by this point,” he said. “The fact that this booster came out days before Biden said the pandemic is over is a huge mixed message. Now it’s going to be that much harder to convince those at risk who are on the fence to get a booster.”

White House COVID-19 coordinator Ashish Jha, MD, says he thinks demand will pick up in the coming weeks.

“We’ve been thinking and talking about this as an annual vaccine like the flu vaccine. Flu vaccine season picks up in late September and early October. We’re just getting our education campaign going. So we expect to see, despite the fact that this was a strong start, we actually expect this to ramp up stronger,” Dr. Jha said.

The new booster is the third one authorized by the federal government and was redesigned to protect against the currently circulating subvariants BA.4 and BA.5 of the Omicron strain. People who have received a primary vaccine series or a booster at least 2 months before can receive it.

The new Pfizer booster is available for people 12 and up and the Moderna version for people 18 and up. The vaccines can be mixed and matched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People with suppressed HIV and the M184V/I viral mutation who switch medications to combined bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) appear to maintain viral suppression, reports an industry-sponsored analysis.

“M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I,” write senior study author Kirsten L. White, PhD, of Gilead Sciences, in Foster City, Calif., and colleagues in AIDS .

“Similarly high rates of virologic suppression were maintained in B/F/TAF-treated participants with or without preexisting M184V/I for at least 1 year with no emergent resistance,” they write.

Clinicians use the single-tablet B/F/TAF combination as an initial HIV therapy and as an approved replacement regimen when switching therapies in certain virologically suppressed people with HIV, the authors write.

Dr. White and her colleagues analyzed pooled data from 2,286 adult and 100 child participants in six randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL for 3 or 6 months) people with HIV. At screening, participants were on three-drug antiretroviral regimens.

Overall, 2,034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data. Of these, 1,825 had baseline genotypic data, and preexisting M184V/I was detected in 182 (10%) of them.

All studies had postbaseline visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter, with B/F/TAF treatment lasting a median of 72 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were measured, and efficacy was assessed for all patients who switched to B/F/TAF.

The researchers assessed preexisting drug resistance by historical genotypes, baseline proviral DNA genotyping, or both, and they determined virologic outcomes by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. They used stepwise selection in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for M184V/I.
 

Virologic suppression well maintained

At the final on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) of participants with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF.

Factors linked with preexisting M184V/I in adults included being Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having baseline CD4+ cell count less than 500 cells/mL, advanced HIV disease, longer antiretroviral therapy, more prior third agents, and other resistance.

These results are important, Jana K. Dickter, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., told this news organization in an email.

“This study supports the use of B/F/TAF as a first-line agent for people living with HIV who carry the M184V/I resistance mutation,” added Dr. Dickter, who was not involved in the study. “This combination is recommended as an initial regimen by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.”
 

Easy to administer, well tolerated, and potent

Barbara Gripshover, MD, professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director of the special immunology unit of the Cleveland Medical Center, explained that “M184V/I is a common resistance mutation in patients who’ve had prior virologic failure on a lamivudine- or emtricitabine-containing regimen.”

“This study shows that, even in the presence of the M184V/I, switching virally suppressed persons to B/F/TAF provides continued durable virologic suppression,” Dr. Gripshover, who also was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Clinicians may comfortably switch patients to this regimen without fear of virologic failure, she added.

“Fixed-dose B/F/TAF, a potent, well-tolerated, single-tablet regimen, is a good switch option for persons on older regimens that contain either more pills, less tolerable agents, or ‘boosting’ agents that block cytochrome 3A4,” she noted. “Having a potent backbone agent is key.

“This is a good regimen due to its simplicity, tolerability, and potency,” Dr. Gripshover said, “and many patients exposed to older regimens may harbor archived M184V/I.

“The large number of subjects who had prior M184V/I and remained suppressed is convincing to me that B/F/TAF is durably effective in the presence of FTC resistance,” she concluded.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. White and 11 coauthors are employees and stock shareholders of Gilead, and three other coauthors report relevant financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies. One coauthor as well as Dr. Dickter and Dr. Gripshover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with suppressed HIV and the M184V/I viral mutation who switch medications to combined bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) appear to maintain viral suppression, reports an industry-sponsored analysis.

“M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I,” write senior study author Kirsten L. White, PhD, of Gilead Sciences, in Foster City, Calif., and colleagues in AIDS .

“Similarly high rates of virologic suppression were maintained in B/F/TAF-treated participants with or without preexisting M184V/I for at least 1 year with no emergent resistance,” they write.

Clinicians use the single-tablet B/F/TAF combination as an initial HIV therapy and as an approved replacement regimen when switching therapies in certain virologically suppressed people with HIV, the authors write.

Dr. White and her colleagues analyzed pooled data from 2,286 adult and 100 child participants in six randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL for 3 or 6 months) people with HIV. At screening, participants were on three-drug antiretroviral regimens.

Overall, 2,034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data. Of these, 1,825 had baseline genotypic data, and preexisting M184V/I was detected in 182 (10%) of them.

All studies had postbaseline visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter, with B/F/TAF treatment lasting a median of 72 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were measured, and efficacy was assessed for all patients who switched to B/F/TAF.

The researchers assessed preexisting drug resistance by historical genotypes, baseline proviral DNA genotyping, or both, and they determined virologic outcomes by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. They used stepwise selection in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for M184V/I.
 

Virologic suppression well maintained

At the final on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) of participants with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF.

Factors linked with preexisting M184V/I in adults included being Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having baseline CD4+ cell count less than 500 cells/mL, advanced HIV disease, longer antiretroviral therapy, more prior third agents, and other resistance.

These results are important, Jana K. Dickter, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., told this news organization in an email.

“This study supports the use of B/F/TAF as a first-line agent for people living with HIV who carry the M184V/I resistance mutation,” added Dr. Dickter, who was not involved in the study. “This combination is recommended as an initial regimen by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.”
 

Easy to administer, well tolerated, and potent

Barbara Gripshover, MD, professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director of the special immunology unit of the Cleveland Medical Center, explained that “M184V/I is a common resistance mutation in patients who’ve had prior virologic failure on a lamivudine- or emtricitabine-containing regimen.”

“This study shows that, even in the presence of the M184V/I, switching virally suppressed persons to B/F/TAF provides continued durable virologic suppression,” Dr. Gripshover, who also was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Clinicians may comfortably switch patients to this regimen without fear of virologic failure, she added.

“Fixed-dose B/F/TAF, a potent, well-tolerated, single-tablet regimen, is a good switch option for persons on older regimens that contain either more pills, less tolerable agents, or ‘boosting’ agents that block cytochrome 3A4,” she noted. “Having a potent backbone agent is key.

“This is a good regimen due to its simplicity, tolerability, and potency,” Dr. Gripshover said, “and many patients exposed to older regimens may harbor archived M184V/I.

“The large number of subjects who had prior M184V/I and remained suppressed is convincing to me that B/F/TAF is durably effective in the presence of FTC resistance,” she concluded.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. White and 11 coauthors are employees and stock shareholders of Gilead, and three other coauthors report relevant financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies. One coauthor as well as Dr. Dickter and Dr. Gripshover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with suppressed HIV and the M184V/I viral mutation who switch medications to combined bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) appear to maintain viral suppression, reports an industry-sponsored analysis.

“M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I,” write senior study author Kirsten L. White, PhD, of Gilead Sciences, in Foster City, Calif., and colleagues in AIDS .

“Similarly high rates of virologic suppression were maintained in B/F/TAF-treated participants with or without preexisting M184V/I for at least 1 year with no emergent resistance,” they write.

Clinicians use the single-tablet B/F/TAF combination as an initial HIV therapy and as an approved replacement regimen when switching therapies in certain virologically suppressed people with HIV, the authors write.

Dr. White and her colleagues analyzed pooled data from 2,286 adult and 100 child participants in six randomized clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL for 3 or 6 months) people with HIV. At screening, participants were on three-drug antiretroviral regimens.

Overall, 2,034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data. Of these, 1,825 had baseline genotypic data, and preexisting M184V/I was detected in 182 (10%) of them.

All studies had postbaseline visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter, with B/F/TAF treatment lasting a median of 72 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were measured, and efficacy was assessed for all patients who switched to B/F/TAF.

The researchers assessed preexisting drug resistance by historical genotypes, baseline proviral DNA genotyping, or both, and they determined virologic outcomes by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. They used stepwise selection in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify potential risk factors for M184V/I.
 

Virologic suppression well maintained

At the final on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) of participants with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/mL, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF.

Factors linked with preexisting M184V/I in adults included being Black or Hispanic/Latinx, having baseline CD4+ cell count less than 500 cells/mL, advanced HIV disease, longer antiretroviral therapy, more prior third agents, and other resistance.

These results are important, Jana K. Dickter, MD, associate clinical professor in the division of infectious diseases at City of Hope in Duarte, Calif., told this news organization in an email.

“This study supports the use of B/F/TAF as a first-line agent for people living with HIV who carry the M184V/I resistance mutation,” added Dr. Dickter, who was not involved in the study. “This combination is recommended as an initial regimen by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.”
 

Easy to administer, well tolerated, and potent

Barbara Gripshover, MD, professor at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and medical director of the special immunology unit of the Cleveland Medical Center, explained that “M184V/I is a common resistance mutation in patients who’ve had prior virologic failure on a lamivudine- or emtricitabine-containing regimen.”

“This study shows that, even in the presence of the M184V/I, switching virally suppressed persons to B/F/TAF provides continued durable virologic suppression,” Dr. Gripshover, who also was not involved in the study, said in an email.

Clinicians may comfortably switch patients to this regimen without fear of virologic failure, she added.

“Fixed-dose B/F/TAF, a potent, well-tolerated, single-tablet regimen, is a good switch option for persons on older regimens that contain either more pills, less tolerable agents, or ‘boosting’ agents that block cytochrome 3A4,” she noted. “Having a potent backbone agent is key.

“This is a good regimen due to its simplicity, tolerability, and potency,” Dr. Gripshover said, “and many patients exposed to older regimens may harbor archived M184V/I.

“The large number of subjects who had prior M184V/I and remained suppressed is convincing to me that B/F/TAF is durably effective in the presence of FTC resistance,” she concluded.

The study was supported by Gilead Sciences. Dr. White and 11 coauthors are employees and stock shareholders of Gilead, and three other coauthors report relevant financial relationships with Gilead and other pharmaceutical companies. One coauthor as well as Dr. Dickter and Dr. Gripshover report no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pandemic interruptions, future strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the interim, rubella elimination looks promising.

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

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

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