Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Regulators and the nation’s largest physician organization took separate steps in recent days to prepare for expected authorization of use of COVID-19 vaccines in children younger than age 6.

The Food and Drug Administration on May 23 announced its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will meet June 15 to discuss expanding the use of COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.

The panel will examine a request from Pfizer and its partner BioNTech for an emergency use authorization (EUA) of its vaccine to cover children ages 6 months through 4 years. The EUA expansion for the Moderna shot would cover children ages 6 months through 5 years, the FDA said.

Many parents and physicians have been urging regulators to clear COVID shots for young children, among whom rates of infection are high.

The American Medical Association in February announced an update of its Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) to prepare for an eventual FDA clearance of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot for children aged 6 months to younger than 5 years. On May 19, the association announced a new CPT update to prepare for FDA clearance for use of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children 6 months through 5 years.

“Extending COVID-19 vaccination protection to approximately 18 million young children will significantly reduce their risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death, and give their parents incredible peace of mind,” Gerald Harmon, MD, AMA’s president, said in a statement. “We strongly urge all parents to get their infants and toddlers vaccinated as soon as they are eligible for a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Both the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccines would be given to these young children in low doses.

On May 23, Pfizer announced results from a phase 2/3 trial evaluating a series of three shots of its vaccine in children ages 6 months to younger than 5 years.

Vaccine efficacy, which was a secondary endpoint in this study, was 80.3% in this age group, Pfizer said. The analysis was based on 10 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial’s protocol specifies a formal analysis will be performed when at least 21 cases have accrued from 7 days after the third dose. The company said it would share final data on the effectiveness of the vaccine once the results are available.

Moderna on April 28 issued a statement with details about testing of its vaccine in young children. Vaccine efficacy was estimated at about 51% for children aged 6 months to younger than 2 years and 37% for the children aged 2 years to younger than 6. Paul Burton, MD, Moderna’s chief medical officer, spoke about this rate during a May 1 appearance on CBS’ Face the Nation.

“What it means for parents, for caregivers, is that if they give the Moderna vaccine to these little kids, they would basically cut in half the risk of that child getting symptomatic COVID,” Dr. Burton said in the interview. “Now, the number, 50%, I know is often lower than we are used to seeing with our vaccine, but it’s because this study was conducted during a time of Omicron.”

The FDA’s vaccine advisory committee also will meet on June 14 discuss potential use under an EUA of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children and teenagers aged 6-17 years. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine already is authorized under an EUA for people aged 5 years and older.

The FDA has to date granted both conditional clearances, or EUAs, and regular approvals for COVID vaccines.

EUAs are meant to be temporary, allowing for rapid introduction of medicines in response to public health crises such as the pandemic. The FDA also uses EUAs to provide initial clearances of additional indications for products, as would be the case with the authorizations Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech are seeking for their COVID vaccines.

Companies that want to continue to sell EUA-cleared products or promote EUA-cleared indications beyond the time of the public health crisis must seek regular approvals.

The FDA cleared the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines under EUAs in December 2020. The agency then granted a regular approval for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for people ages 16 and older in August 2021 based on more robust data. Regular approval for the Moderna vaccine for people ages 18 and older followed in January 2022.
 

Varied reactions among parents

Attitudes in the United States about pediatric COVID vaccines are far from uniform.

The initial uptake has disappointed physicians and researchers, who have been urging wider use of the COVID vaccination among children and teens for whom the FDA already has granted a clearance. Many parents are hesitating to bring their children for the COVID vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Only 35.4% of children ages 5-11 had received at least one dose of a COVID vaccine, CDC staff said during a meeting.

Yet many other parents are demanding this medicine for their young children, urging the FDA to move quickly to clear COVID shots.

A private Facebook group called “Protect Their Future: A Call to Action for COVID Vaccines in Kids <5” boasts about 6,200 members. Many parents and physicians have used Twitter in recent months to press for a speedy review of COVID vaccines for the youngest children, often using the hashtag #immunizeunder5s. A group called Protect Their Future, which uses @ImmunizeUnder5s as its Twitter handle, had 5,288 followers as of the afternoon of May 23.

A special panel of the House of Representatives, the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, on May 23 joined those tweeting about the need to soon authorize COVID vaccines for very young children.

“Parents have been waiting many months for vaccines for their young children,” the subcommittee tweeted. “They deserve to hear from @US_FDA why this lengthy process has been in children’s best interests.”

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

Different psychiatric disorders often share the same genetic architecture, which may help explain why many individuals diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder will be diagnosed with another in their lifetime, new research suggests.

Investigators conducted a genetic analysis of 11 major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Our findings confirm that high comorbidity across some disorders in part reflects overlapping pathways of genetic risk,” lead author Andrew Grotzinger, PhD, department of psychology and neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a press release.

The results could lead to the development of treatments that address multiple psychiatric disorders at once and help reshape the way diagnoses are established, the researchers note.

The findings were published online in Nature Genetics.
 

Common genetic patterns

Using the massive UK Biobank and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, the researchers applied novel statistical genetic methods to identify common patterns across 11 major psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, problematic alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and autism. 

The average total sample size per disorder was 156,771 participants, with a range of 9,725 to 802,939 participants.

In all, the investigators identified 152 genetic variants shared across multiple disorders, including those already known to influence certain types of brain cells.

For example, they found that 70% of the genetic signal associated with schizophrenia was also associated with bipolar disorder. 

Results also showed that anorexia nervosa and OCD have a strong, shared genetic architecture and that individuals with a genetic predisposition to low body mass index also tend to have a genetic predisposition to these two disorders.

Not surprisingly, the researchers note, there was a large genetic overlap between anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

They also observed that psychiatric disorders that tend to cluster together also tend to share genes that influence how and when individuals are physically active during the day.

For example, patients with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression tend to have a genetic architecture associated with low movement throughout the day. On the other hand, those with OCD and anorexia tend to have genes associated with higher movement throughout the day. 

“When you think about it, it makes sense,” said Dr. Grotzinger. Depressed individuals often experience fatigue or low energy while those with compulsive disorders may have a tough time sitting still, he noted.
 

One treatment for multiple disorders?

“Collectively, these results offer key insights into the shared and disorder-specific mechanisms of genetic risk for psychiatric disease,” the investigators write.

Their research is also a first step toward developing therapies that can address multiple disorders with one treatment, they add.

“People are more likely today to be prescribed multiple medications intended to treat multiple diagnoses, and in some instances those medicines can have side effects,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

“By identifying what is shared across these issues, we can hopefully come up with ways to target them in a different way that doesn’t require four separate pills or four separate psychotherapy interventions,” he added.

Dr. Grotzinger noted that, for now, the knowledge that genetics are underlying their disorders may provide comfort to some patients.

“It’s important for people to know that they didn’t just get a terrible roll of the dice in life – that they are not facing multiple different issues but rather one set of risk factors bleeding into them all,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Grotzinger reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Different psychiatric disorders often share the same genetic architecture, which may help explain why many individuals diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder will be diagnosed with another in their lifetime, new research suggests.

Investigators conducted a genetic analysis of 11 major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Our findings confirm that high comorbidity across some disorders in part reflects overlapping pathways of genetic risk,” lead author Andrew Grotzinger, PhD, department of psychology and neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a press release.

The results could lead to the development of treatments that address multiple psychiatric disorders at once and help reshape the way diagnoses are established, the researchers note.

The findings were published online in Nature Genetics.
 

Common genetic patterns

Using the massive UK Biobank and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, the researchers applied novel statistical genetic methods to identify common patterns across 11 major psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, problematic alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and autism. 

The average total sample size per disorder was 156,771 participants, with a range of 9,725 to 802,939 participants.

In all, the investigators identified 152 genetic variants shared across multiple disorders, including those already known to influence certain types of brain cells.

For example, they found that 70% of the genetic signal associated with schizophrenia was also associated with bipolar disorder. 

Results also showed that anorexia nervosa and OCD have a strong, shared genetic architecture and that individuals with a genetic predisposition to low body mass index also tend to have a genetic predisposition to these two disorders.

Not surprisingly, the researchers note, there was a large genetic overlap between anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

They also observed that psychiatric disorders that tend to cluster together also tend to share genes that influence how and when individuals are physically active during the day.

For example, patients with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression tend to have a genetic architecture associated with low movement throughout the day. On the other hand, those with OCD and anorexia tend to have genes associated with higher movement throughout the day. 

“When you think about it, it makes sense,” said Dr. Grotzinger. Depressed individuals often experience fatigue or low energy while those with compulsive disorders may have a tough time sitting still, he noted.
 

One treatment for multiple disorders?

“Collectively, these results offer key insights into the shared and disorder-specific mechanisms of genetic risk for psychiatric disease,” the investigators write.

Their research is also a first step toward developing therapies that can address multiple disorders with one treatment, they add.

“People are more likely today to be prescribed multiple medications intended to treat multiple diagnoses, and in some instances those medicines can have side effects,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

“By identifying what is shared across these issues, we can hopefully come up with ways to target them in a different way that doesn’t require four separate pills or four separate psychotherapy interventions,” he added.

Dr. Grotzinger noted that, for now, the knowledge that genetics are underlying their disorders may provide comfort to some patients.

“It’s important for people to know that they didn’t just get a terrible roll of the dice in life – that they are not facing multiple different issues but rather one set of risk factors bleeding into them all,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Grotzinger reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Different psychiatric disorders often share the same genetic architecture, which may help explain why many individuals diagnosed with one psychiatric disorder will be diagnosed with another in their lifetime, new research suggests.

Investigators conducted a genetic analysis of 11 major psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

“Our findings confirm that high comorbidity across some disorders in part reflects overlapping pathways of genetic risk,” lead author Andrew Grotzinger, PhD, department of psychology and neuroscience, University of Colorado at Boulder, said in a press release.

The results could lead to the development of treatments that address multiple psychiatric disorders at once and help reshape the way diagnoses are established, the researchers note.

The findings were published online in Nature Genetics.
 

Common genetic patterns

Using the massive UK Biobank and the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, the researchers applied novel statistical genetic methods to identify common patterns across 11 major psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, anorexia nervosa, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), Tourette syndrome, post traumatic stress disorder, problematic alcohol use, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and autism. 

The average total sample size per disorder was 156,771 participants, with a range of 9,725 to 802,939 participants.

In all, the investigators identified 152 genetic variants shared across multiple disorders, including those already known to influence certain types of brain cells.

For example, they found that 70% of the genetic signal associated with schizophrenia was also associated with bipolar disorder. 

Results also showed that anorexia nervosa and OCD have a strong, shared genetic architecture and that individuals with a genetic predisposition to low body mass index also tend to have a genetic predisposition to these two disorders.

Not surprisingly, the researchers note, there was a large genetic overlap between anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

They also observed that psychiatric disorders that tend to cluster together also tend to share genes that influence how and when individuals are physically active during the day.

For example, patients with internalizing disorders such as anxiety and depression tend to have a genetic architecture associated with low movement throughout the day. On the other hand, those with OCD and anorexia tend to have genes associated with higher movement throughout the day. 

“When you think about it, it makes sense,” said Dr. Grotzinger. Depressed individuals often experience fatigue or low energy while those with compulsive disorders may have a tough time sitting still, he noted.
 

One treatment for multiple disorders?

“Collectively, these results offer key insights into the shared and disorder-specific mechanisms of genetic risk for psychiatric disease,” the investigators write.

Their research is also a first step toward developing therapies that can address multiple disorders with one treatment, they add.

“People are more likely today to be prescribed multiple medications intended to treat multiple diagnoses, and in some instances those medicines can have side effects,” Dr. Grotzinger said.

“By identifying what is shared across these issues, we can hopefully come up with ways to target them in a different way that doesn’t require four separate pills or four separate psychotherapy interventions,” he added.

Dr. Grotzinger noted that, for now, the knowledge that genetics are underlying their disorders may provide comfort to some patients.

“It’s important for people to know that they didn’t just get a terrible roll of the dice in life – that they are not facing multiple different issues but rather one set of risk factors bleeding into them all,” he said.

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Grotzinger reported no relevant disclosures.

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

President Joe Biden said Monday that he didn’t believe quarantines to prevent the spread of monkeypox in the United States would be necessary.

He said the United States has enough vaccine doses available to stop any serious outbreaks and to “deal with the likelihood of the problem,” according to The Washington Post .

“I just don’t think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that existed with COVID-19, and the smallpox vaccine works for it,” Biden said during a news conference in Japan.

The World Health Organization has identified monkeypox cases in at least a dozen countries where the disease isn’t typically considered endemic. Generally found in Central and West Africa, the illness has been reported in several European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters that monkeypox is a “concern in that if it were to spread, it would be consequential.” Administration officials have said the president has been briefed on the disease, the newspaper reported.

Monkeypox spreads through droplets and bodily fluids but doesn’t pass easily between humans and is less contagious than the coronavirus, the Post reported. The CDC has reported that the smallpox vaccine is 85% effective against monkeypox, and the U.S. has licensed two smallpox vaccines that could help in potential outbreaks, including one that specifically targets monkeypox.

Mandatory monkeypox quarantine in Belgium

Belgium is the first country to put a mandatory 21-day quarantine in place for monkeypox patients as cases spread globally, according to CNBC. Health authorities announced the quarantine on Friday after the country recorded its third case.

The quarantine only applies to patients with a confirmed infection. Close contacts aren’t required to self-isolate but are encouraged to be careful and watch for symptoms, especially if they spend time with vulnerable people who could contract a serious illness, CNBC reported.

The United Kingdom has published guidelines to assess risks of monkeypox infection and provide guidance on self-isolation and monitoring. Health officials have said that those who have high exposure risks should self-isolate for 21 days, which includes household contacts or medical professionals who have worked with infected patients.

As of Saturday, the WHO has received reports of 92 confirmed monkeypox cases and 28 suspected cases across 12 countries where the virus isn’t typically found. No deaths linked to the cases have been reported so far.

The outbreaks have caused concern among health officials because most cases don’t have travel links to endemic countries. So far, many cases have spread between men who have sex with men, and the cases have been identified as patients seek care in primary care and sexual health clinics, the WHO reported.

“The identification of confirmed and suspected cases of monkeypox with no direct travel links to an endemic area represents a highly unusual event,” the WHO said. “Available information suggests that human-to-human transmission is occurring among people in close physical contact with cases who are symptomatic.”

White House health official doesn’t foresee major outbreak

Ashish Jha, MD, a top Biden administration health official who serves as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said Sunday that he doesn’t expect monkeypox to have widespread effects in the U.S.

“I feel like this is a virus we understand,” he said on ABC News’s This Week.

The virus has been monitored for decades, and there are treatments for it, Dr. Jha said.

“We have vaccines against it. We have treatments against it,” he said. “It’s not as contagious as COVID. So, I am confident we’re going to be able to keep our arms around it.”

At the same time, Dr. Jha agreed that health officials should keep an eye on the situation. Cases have been confirmed in recent days in several countries, as well as the United States.

“I would not be surprised if we see a few more cases in the upcoming days,” he said. “Any time we have an infectious outbreak like this, we should all be paying attention.”

Dr. Jha also stressed ongoing caution amid the COVID-19 pandemic as cases once again surpass 100,000 daily infections. Variants will continue to evolve, he said, and ongoing outbreaks will reinfect people who have been vaccinated or had a previous infection.

“What we know is that this virus is evolving very quickly, and every iteration of it has more and more immune escape,” he said. “That makes it harder for this virus to be contained unless we continue vaccinating people and keeping people up to date.”

Third possible U.S. monkeypox case found in Florida

The CDC said Sunday that it may have found a third monkeypox case in the United States and is running tests on a patient in South Florida, according to Reuters.

The person is in Broward County and remains isolated. The case appears to be related to international travel, the CDC told Reuters.

Health officials are doing tests to confirm if the patient has the disease, with results expected “soon.” No other cases have been identified in Florida so far.

The first monkeypox case in the United States was reported in Massachusetts last week. The patient had recently traveled to Canada.

The second U.S. case was reported in a New York City resident who tested positive on Friday.

The disease, which is like human smallpox but milder, is a viral infection that was first found in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1970s. Symptoms include fever, headaches, and a skin rash across the body.


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

President Joe Biden said Monday that he didn’t believe quarantines to prevent the spread of monkeypox in the United States would be necessary.

He said the United States has enough vaccine doses available to stop any serious outbreaks and to “deal with the likelihood of the problem,” according to The Washington Post .

“I just don’t think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that existed with COVID-19, and the smallpox vaccine works for it,” Biden said during a news conference in Japan.

The World Health Organization has identified monkeypox cases in at least a dozen countries where the disease isn’t typically considered endemic. Generally found in Central and West Africa, the illness has been reported in several European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters that monkeypox is a “concern in that if it were to spread, it would be consequential.” Administration officials have said the president has been briefed on the disease, the newspaper reported.

Monkeypox spreads through droplets and bodily fluids but doesn’t pass easily between humans and is less contagious than the coronavirus, the Post reported. The CDC has reported that the smallpox vaccine is 85% effective against monkeypox, and the U.S. has licensed two smallpox vaccines that could help in potential outbreaks, including one that specifically targets monkeypox.

Mandatory monkeypox quarantine in Belgium

Belgium is the first country to put a mandatory 21-day quarantine in place for monkeypox patients as cases spread globally, according to CNBC. Health authorities announced the quarantine on Friday after the country recorded its third case.

The quarantine only applies to patients with a confirmed infection. Close contacts aren’t required to self-isolate but are encouraged to be careful and watch for symptoms, especially if they spend time with vulnerable people who could contract a serious illness, CNBC reported.

The United Kingdom has published guidelines to assess risks of monkeypox infection and provide guidance on self-isolation and monitoring. Health officials have said that those who have high exposure risks should self-isolate for 21 days, which includes household contacts or medical professionals who have worked with infected patients.

As of Saturday, the WHO has received reports of 92 confirmed monkeypox cases and 28 suspected cases across 12 countries where the virus isn’t typically found. No deaths linked to the cases have been reported so far.

The outbreaks have caused concern among health officials because most cases don’t have travel links to endemic countries. So far, many cases have spread between men who have sex with men, and the cases have been identified as patients seek care in primary care and sexual health clinics, the WHO reported.

“The identification of confirmed and suspected cases of monkeypox with no direct travel links to an endemic area represents a highly unusual event,” the WHO said. “Available information suggests that human-to-human transmission is occurring among people in close physical contact with cases who are symptomatic.”

White House health official doesn’t foresee major outbreak

Ashish Jha, MD, a top Biden administration health official who serves as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said Sunday that he doesn’t expect monkeypox to have widespread effects in the U.S.

“I feel like this is a virus we understand,” he said on ABC News’s This Week.

The virus has been monitored for decades, and there are treatments for it, Dr. Jha said.

“We have vaccines against it. We have treatments against it,” he said. “It’s not as contagious as COVID. So, I am confident we’re going to be able to keep our arms around it.”

At the same time, Dr. Jha agreed that health officials should keep an eye on the situation. Cases have been confirmed in recent days in several countries, as well as the United States.

“I would not be surprised if we see a few more cases in the upcoming days,” he said. “Any time we have an infectious outbreak like this, we should all be paying attention.”

Dr. Jha also stressed ongoing caution amid the COVID-19 pandemic as cases once again surpass 100,000 daily infections. Variants will continue to evolve, he said, and ongoing outbreaks will reinfect people who have been vaccinated or had a previous infection.

“What we know is that this virus is evolving very quickly, and every iteration of it has more and more immune escape,” he said. “That makes it harder for this virus to be contained unless we continue vaccinating people and keeping people up to date.”

Third possible U.S. monkeypox case found in Florida

The CDC said Sunday that it may have found a third monkeypox case in the United States and is running tests on a patient in South Florida, according to Reuters.

The person is in Broward County and remains isolated. The case appears to be related to international travel, the CDC told Reuters.

Health officials are doing tests to confirm if the patient has the disease, with results expected “soon.” No other cases have been identified in Florida so far.

The first monkeypox case in the United States was reported in Massachusetts last week. The patient had recently traveled to Canada.

The second U.S. case was reported in a New York City resident who tested positive on Friday.

The disease, which is like human smallpox but milder, is a viral infection that was first found in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1970s. Symptoms include fever, headaches, and a skin rash across the body.


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

President Joe Biden said Monday that he didn’t believe quarantines to prevent the spread of monkeypox in the United States would be necessary.

He said the United States has enough vaccine doses available to stop any serious outbreaks and to “deal with the likelihood of the problem,” according to The Washington Post .

“I just don’t think it rises to the level of the kind of concern that existed with COVID-19, and the smallpox vaccine works for it,” Biden said during a news conference in Japan.

The World Health Organization has identified monkeypox cases in at least a dozen countries where the disease isn’t typically considered endemic. Generally found in Central and West Africa, the illness has been reported in several European countries, as well as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

On Sunday, Biden told reporters that monkeypox is a “concern in that if it were to spread, it would be consequential.” Administration officials have said the president has been briefed on the disease, the newspaper reported.

Monkeypox spreads through droplets and bodily fluids but doesn’t pass easily between humans and is less contagious than the coronavirus, the Post reported. The CDC has reported that the smallpox vaccine is 85% effective against monkeypox, and the U.S. has licensed two smallpox vaccines that could help in potential outbreaks, including one that specifically targets monkeypox.

Mandatory monkeypox quarantine in Belgium

Belgium is the first country to put a mandatory 21-day quarantine in place for monkeypox patients as cases spread globally, according to CNBC. Health authorities announced the quarantine on Friday after the country recorded its third case.

The quarantine only applies to patients with a confirmed infection. Close contacts aren’t required to self-isolate but are encouraged to be careful and watch for symptoms, especially if they spend time with vulnerable people who could contract a serious illness, CNBC reported.

The United Kingdom has published guidelines to assess risks of monkeypox infection and provide guidance on self-isolation and monitoring. Health officials have said that those who have high exposure risks should self-isolate for 21 days, which includes household contacts or medical professionals who have worked with infected patients.

As of Saturday, the WHO has received reports of 92 confirmed monkeypox cases and 28 suspected cases across 12 countries where the virus isn’t typically found. No deaths linked to the cases have been reported so far.

The outbreaks have caused concern among health officials because most cases don’t have travel links to endemic countries. So far, many cases have spread between men who have sex with men, and the cases have been identified as patients seek care in primary care and sexual health clinics, the WHO reported.

“The identification of confirmed and suspected cases of monkeypox with no direct travel links to an endemic area represents a highly unusual event,” the WHO said. “Available information suggests that human-to-human transmission is occurring among people in close physical contact with cases who are symptomatic.”

White House health official doesn’t foresee major outbreak

Ashish Jha, MD, a top Biden administration health official who serves as the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said Sunday that he doesn’t expect monkeypox to have widespread effects in the U.S.

“I feel like this is a virus we understand,” he said on ABC News’s This Week.

The virus has been monitored for decades, and there are treatments for it, Dr. Jha said.

“We have vaccines against it. We have treatments against it,” he said. “It’s not as contagious as COVID. So, I am confident we’re going to be able to keep our arms around it.”

At the same time, Dr. Jha agreed that health officials should keep an eye on the situation. Cases have been confirmed in recent days in several countries, as well as the United States.

“I would not be surprised if we see a few more cases in the upcoming days,” he said. “Any time we have an infectious outbreak like this, we should all be paying attention.”

Dr. Jha also stressed ongoing caution amid the COVID-19 pandemic as cases once again surpass 100,000 daily infections. Variants will continue to evolve, he said, and ongoing outbreaks will reinfect people who have been vaccinated or had a previous infection.

“What we know is that this virus is evolving very quickly, and every iteration of it has more and more immune escape,” he said. “That makes it harder for this virus to be contained unless we continue vaccinating people and keeping people up to date.”

Third possible U.S. monkeypox case found in Florida

The CDC said Sunday that it may have found a third monkeypox case in the United States and is running tests on a patient in South Florida, according to Reuters.

The person is in Broward County and remains isolated. The case appears to be related to international travel, the CDC told Reuters.

Health officials are doing tests to confirm if the patient has the disease, with results expected “soon.” No other cases have been identified in Florida so far.

The first monkeypox case in the United States was reported in Massachusetts last week. The patient had recently traveled to Canada.

The second U.S. case was reported in a New York City resident who tested positive on Friday.

The disease, which is like human smallpox but milder, is a viral infection that was first found in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1970s. Symptoms include fever, headaches, and a skin rash across the body.


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

An alarming increase in both esophageal cancer (EC) and the primary precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma known as Barrett’s esophagus (BE) has been observed among middle-aged adults over the past 5 years, and it’s not because of better or more frequent screening, warn the authors of a new study from Florida.

“We found that the [prevalence of] esophageal cancer and Barrett’s esophagus may have in fact plateaued in the elderly, but there is a concerning increase in their prevalence in middle-aged adults despite the fact that there has been no increase in the use of endoscopy in this population,” Bashar Qumseya, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of endoscopy, University of Florida, Gainesville, told a press briefing.

“This should be of great concern to physicians and to patients, and it is our suggestion that maybe we should consider screening middle-aged patients or even those at younger ages for both conditions,” he added.

The study was highlighted during a press briefing in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
 

Research network

The analysis was carried out using electronic health records from the OneFlorida Clinical Data Research Network, a database that covers over 40% of residents living in Florida. The researchers identified patients who had been diagnosed with EC or BE between 2012 and 2019. “The primary outcome of interest was the adjusted prevalence of EC and BE in the population,” they stated.

The cohort was categorized by age: those aged 18-44 years (young); those aged 45-64 years (middle-aged), and those older than 65 (elderly). The number of patients included in the database varied by year and ranged from 4,238,884 to 5,411,838 patients per year, the investigators noted. Interestingly, in the most recent year, 2019, more women, at over 57%, were diagnosed with EC than were men.

Over the study interval, the prevalence of EC remained stable among the elderly but nearly doubled among middle-aged patients, from a rate of 49 per 100,000 in 2012 to a rate of 94 per 100,000 in 2019.

Similarly, there was a 50% increase in BE over the same study interval, from 304 per 100,000 in 2012 to 466 per 100,000 in 2019, again in the middle-aged group. The increase in the prevalence of BE was highest in those aged 51-60 years, followed by those aged 61-70 years and then by those aged 41-50.

Data from the same cohort also indicated that the great majority of patients with multiple risk factors for EC or BE – obesity, diet, and gastroesophageal reflux disease – had never undergone endoscopy, “so we can definitely do better,” Dr. Qumseya said. One simple way to “do better” is to offer patients an endoscopy when they undergo their first colonoscopy at the recommended age of 45 years.

“I am not in a position to make the guidelines,”Dr. Qumseya commented. “But we do [already] have guidelines that suggest that patients with multiple risk factors [for EC and BE] be screened, and since we know from our data that this is not happening, I believe that if a patient has multiple risk factors, they should have at least one screening endoscopy at the time of colonoscopy. Otherwise, we are missing a good opportunity to do so, and personally, I think this is something that we should be considering.”

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

An alarming increase in both esophageal cancer (EC) and the primary precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma known as Barrett’s esophagus (BE) has been observed among middle-aged adults over the past 5 years, and it’s not because of better or more frequent screening, warn the authors of a new study from Florida.

“We found that the [prevalence of] esophageal cancer and Barrett’s esophagus may have in fact plateaued in the elderly, but there is a concerning increase in their prevalence in middle-aged adults despite the fact that there has been no increase in the use of endoscopy in this population,” Bashar Qumseya, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of endoscopy, University of Florida, Gainesville, told a press briefing.

“This should be of great concern to physicians and to patients, and it is our suggestion that maybe we should consider screening middle-aged patients or even those at younger ages for both conditions,” he added.

The study was highlighted during a press briefing in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
 

Research network

The analysis was carried out using electronic health records from the OneFlorida Clinical Data Research Network, a database that covers over 40% of residents living in Florida. The researchers identified patients who had been diagnosed with EC or BE between 2012 and 2019. “The primary outcome of interest was the adjusted prevalence of EC and BE in the population,” they stated.

The cohort was categorized by age: those aged 18-44 years (young); those aged 45-64 years (middle-aged), and those older than 65 (elderly). The number of patients included in the database varied by year and ranged from 4,238,884 to 5,411,838 patients per year, the investigators noted. Interestingly, in the most recent year, 2019, more women, at over 57%, were diagnosed with EC than were men.

Over the study interval, the prevalence of EC remained stable among the elderly but nearly doubled among middle-aged patients, from a rate of 49 per 100,000 in 2012 to a rate of 94 per 100,000 in 2019.

Similarly, there was a 50% increase in BE over the same study interval, from 304 per 100,000 in 2012 to 466 per 100,000 in 2019, again in the middle-aged group. The increase in the prevalence of BE was highest in those aged 51-60 years, followed by those aged 61-70 years and then by those aged 41-50.

Data from the same cohort also indicated that the great majority of patients with multiple risk factors for EC or BE – obesity, diet, and gastroesophageal reflux disease – had never undergone endoscopy, “so we can definitely do better,” Dr. Qumseya said. One simple way to “do better” is to offer patients an endoscopy when they undergo their first colonoscopy at the recommended age of 45 years.

“I am not in a position to make the guidelines,”Dr. Qumseya commented. “But we do [already] have guidelines that suggest that patients with multiple risk factors [for EC and BE] be screened, and since we know from our data that this is not happening, I believe that if a patient has multiple risk factors, they should have at least one screening endoscopy at the time of colonoscopy. Otherwise, we are missing a good opportunity to do so, and personally, I think this is something that we should be considering.”

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

An alarming increase in both esophageal cancer (EC) and the primary precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma known as Barrett’s esophagus (BE) has been observed among middle-aged adults over the past 5 years, and it’s not because of better or more frequent screening, warn the authors of a new study from Florida.

“We found that the [prevalence of] esophageal cancer and Barrett’s esophagus may have in fact plateaued in the elderly, but there is a concerning increase in their prevalence in middle-aged adults despite the fact that there has been no increase in the use of endoscopy in this population,” Bashar Qumseya, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and chief of endoscopy, University of Florida, Gainesville, told a press briefing.

“This should be of great concern to physicians and to patients, and it is our suggestion that maybe we should consider screening middle-aged patients or even those at younger ages for both conditions,” he added.

The study was highlighted during a press briefing in advance of the annual Digestive Disease Week® (DDW).
 

Research network

The analysis was carried out using electronic health records from the OneFlorida Clinical Data Research Network, a database that covers over 40% of residents living in Florida. The researchers identified patients who had been diagnosed with EC or BE between 2012 and 2019. “The primary outcome of interest was the adjusted prevalence of EC and BE in the population,” they stated.

The cohort was categorized by age: those aged 18-44 years (young); those aged 45-64 years (middle-aged), and those older than 65 (elderly). The number of patients included in the database varied by year and ranged from 4,238,884 to 5,411,838 patients per year, the investigators noted. Interestingly, in the most recent year, 2019, more women, at over 57%, were diagnosed with EC than were men.

Over the study interval, the prevalence of EC remained stable among the elderly but nearly doubled among middle-aged patients, from a rate of 49 per 100,000 in 2012 to a rate of 94 per 100,000 in 2019.

Similarly, there was a 50% increase in BE over the same study interval, from 304 per 100,000 in 2012 to 466 per 100,000 in 2019, again in the middle-aged group. The increase in the prevalence of BE was highest in those aged 51-60 years, followed by those aged 61-70 years and then by those aged 41-50.

Data from the same cohort also indicated that the great majority of patients with multiple risk factors for EC or BE – obesity, diet, and gastroesophageal reflux disease – had never undergone endoscopy, “so we can definitely do better,” Dr. Qumseya said. One simple way to “do better” is to offer patients an endoscopy when they undergo their first colonoscopy at the recommended age of 45 years.

“I am not in a position to make the guidelines,”Dr. Qumseya commented. “But we do [already] have guidelines that suggest that patients with multiple risk factors [for EC and BE] be screened, and since we know from our data that this is not happening, I believe that if a patient has multiple risk factors, they should have at least one screening endoscopy at the time of colonoscopy. Otherwise, we are missing a good opportunity to do so, and personally, I think this is something that we should be considering.”

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

The first prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of a blood test for people being screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) revealed a high sensitivity and specificity.

At 90% specificity, the blood assay (Guardant Health) was 100% sensitive for detecting CRC. At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 88%.

The blood assay detects circulating tumor DNA from cancer in the bloodstream, which is then analyzed for multiple factors, including cancer genetics and methylation.

Lead author Paloma Peinado, MD, a medical oncologist at HM Hospitales, Madrid, and colleagues, called the results similar to those seen with noninvasive, stool-based testing, noting that the “sensitivity and specificity of the blood-based test reached clinically significant thresholds.”

“The reported performance, combined with a more acceptable mode of testing, suggests that this blood-based test may be a viable CRC screening option,” they added.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022, held virtually and in San Diego.

Dr. Peinado and colleagues studied 557 people who agreed to have blood drawn at the time of their colonoscopy. They enrolled participants at four hospitals in Spain.

One-third of participants (33%) who sought CRC screening were at average risk. Of the remainder, 49% were symptomatic, 11% had a positive family history of CRC, 6% had a positive stool-based test result, and 1% presented for colonoscopy for other reasons.

The prospective observational study included people age 45-84 years. The median age of participants was 55 years, and just over half (52%) were women.

The prevalence rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma was 2.6%. Eight patients had stage I cancer, three had stage II cancer, two had stage III cancer, and two had stage IV cancer.

The study was designed to follow patients for 1 year after screening. To date, 14% of participants have reached this point.

Not a general population screening study

“We definitely we need more studies like this,” said Barbara H. Jung, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, when asked to comment on the study.

“We need to find other ways to detect colorectal cancer early, to enhance the screening, and to broaden it to a larger population who may not be amenable to the other techniques.”

Dr. Jung added a caveat that the study population included people at a higher risk for CRC. Therefore, she said, it was a screening study but not a general population, average-risk screening study.

However, she said, “that does not mean that this could not be optimized in the future.”  

Ideally, we need tests for every application, including people who are asymptomatic, Dr. Jung said.

Dr. Peinado reports no relevant financial relationships. Some of the study authors are employees of Guardant Health. Dr. Jung reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of a blood test for people being screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) revealed a high sensitivity and specificity.

At 90% specificity, the blood assay (Guardant Health) was 100% sensitive for detecting CRC. At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 88%.

The blood assay detects circulating tumor DNA from cancer in the bloodstream, which is then analyzed for multiple factors, including cancer genetics and methylation.

Lead author Paloma Peinado, MD, a medical oncologist at HM Hospitales, Madrid, and colleagues, called the results similar to those seen with noninvasive, stool-based testing, noting that the “sensitivity and specificity of the blood-based test reached clinically significant thresholds.”

“The reported performance, combined with a more acceptable mode of testing, suggests that this blood-based test may be a viable CRC screening option,” they added.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022, held virtually and in San Diego.

Dr. Peinado and colleagues studied 557 people who agreed to have blood drawn at the time of their colonoscopy. They enrolled participants at four hospitals in Spain.

One-third of participants (33%) who sought CRC screening were at average risk. Of the remainder, 49% were symptomatic, 11% had a positive family history of CRC, 6% had a positive stool-based test result, and 1% presented for colonoscopy for other reasons.

The prospective observational study included people age 45-84 years. The median age of participants was 55 years, and just over half (52%) were women.

The prevalence rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma was 2.6%. Eight patients had stage I cancer, three had stage II cancer, two had stage III cancer, and two had stage IV cancer.

The study was designed to follow patients for 1 year after screening. To date, 14% of participants have reached this point.

Not a general population screening study

“We definitely we need more studies like this,” said Barbara H. Jung, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, when asked to comment on the study.

“We need to find other ways to detect colorectal cancer early, to enhance the screening, and to broaden it to a larger population who may not be amenable to the other techniques.”

Dr. Jung added a caveat that the study population included people at a higher risk for CRC. Therefore, she said, it was a screening study but not a general population, average-risk screening study.

However, she said, “that does not mean that this could not be optimized in the future.”  

Ideally, we need tests for every application, including people who are asymptomatic, Dr. Jung said.

Dr. Peinado reports no relevant financial relationships. Some of the study authors are employees of Guardant Health. Dr. Jung reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The first prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of a blood test for people being screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) revealed a high sensitivity and specificity.

At 90% specificity, the blood assay (Guardant Health) was 100% sensitive for detecting CRC. At 95% specificity, sensitivity was 88%.

The blood assay detects circulating tumor DNA from cancer in the bloodstream, which is then analyzed for multiple factors, including cancer genetics and methylation.

Lead author Paloma Peinado, MD, a medical oncologist at HM Hospitales, Madrid, and colleagues, called the results similar to those seen with noninvasive, stool-based testing, noting that the “sensitivity and specificity of the blood-based test reached clinically significant thresholds.”

“The reported performance, combined with a more acceptable mode of testing, suggests that this blood-based test may be a viable CRC screening option,” they added.

The study was presented at Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW) 2022, held virtually and in San Diego.

Dr. Peinado and colleagues studied 557 people who agreed to have blood drawn at the time of their colonoscopy. They enrolled participants at four hospitals in Spain.

One-third of participants (33%) who sought CRC screening were at average risk. Of the remainder, 49% were symptomatic, 11% had a positive family history of CRC, 6% had a positive stool-based test result, and 1% presented for colonoscopy for other reasons.

The prospective observational study included people age 45-84 years. The median age of participants was 55 years, and just over half (52%) were women.

The prevalence rate of colorectal adenocarcinoma was 2.6%. Eight patients had stage I cancer, three had stage II cancer, two had stage III cancer, and two had stage IV cancer.

The study was designed to follow patients for 1 year after screening. To date, 14% of participants have reached this point.

Not a general population screening study

“We definitely we need more studies like this,” said Barbara H. Jung, MD, chair of the department of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, when asked to comment on the study.

“We need to find other ways to detect colorectal cancer early, to enhance the screening, and to broaden it to a larger population who may not be amenable to the other techniques.”

Dr. Jung added a caveat that the study population included people at a higher risk for CRC. Therefore, she said, it was a screening study but not a general population, average-risk screening study.

However, she said, “that does not mean that this could not be optimized in the future.”  

Ideally, we need tests for every application, including people who are asymptomatic, Dr. Jung said.

Dr. Peinado reports no relevant financial relationships. Some of the study authors are employees of Guardant Health. Dr. Jung reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misinformation about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is feeding misunderstanding among prescribers and patients, two experts from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have said.

They briefed reporters on potential drug interactions and uncommon cases of a “rebound” effect with the drug, which was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration last December for patients at least 12 years old.

The drug combination works “like a pair of scissors chopping up proteins that are made as the virus replicates inside of cells. Inhibiting that enzyme leads to the cessation of replication,” said Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia.

That’s important because other treatments that target the spike protein, such as monoclonal antibodies, can lose their efficacy as the virus changes. He said that while that’s not impossible for Paxlovid, “we have not seen variants emerging that are resistant to it.”
 

Potential drug interactions

IDSA recently published updated guidance on potential interactions between Paxlovid and the top 100 drugs, and important considerations for prescribing.

“There is a concern that people have not been prescribing it because of fear of these interactions,” Dr. Gallagher said, explaining that, while in some cases those fears may be valid, in many instances the interaction is manageable.

One example is in two popular statins for heart disease, lovastatin and simvastatin.

“That’s an interaction that can be managed by holding [those drugs] for the 5 days that someone receives Paxlovid,” he said.

Misinformation also is circulating about distribution status of Paxlovid, Dr. Gallagher said.

“We’re in a very different state from that standpoint than we were a month or 2 months ago,” he said, adding that it is widely available in not all but a large number of pharmacies throughout the United States.

He emphasized the importance of drug reconciliation, as many patients will go to a different pharmacy for Paxlovid than they might for their usual prescriptions, so without a full accounting of prescriptions and supplements potential interactions may be missed.
 

Important interactions to watch

Melanie Thompson, MD, cochair of the HIVMA/IDSA HIV Primary Care Guidance Panel, highlighted some classes of drugs to watch, among them the antiarrhythmics, most of which are contraindicated with Paxlovid.

There are also important interactions with a number of cancer drugs, and consults with oncologists will be critical, she said.

“Likewise, people who have had transplants are likely to be on drugs that have significant ritonavir interactions,” Dr. Thompson said.

People on ergot drugs for migraine cannot take Paxlovid, she said, and “people who take colchicine for gout have to be very careful.”

She said it’s better not to use colchicine while taking Paxlovid, as it is contraindicated, “but it can be managed in certain circumstances with substantial dose reduction.”

A number of mental health drugs can be managed with Paxlovid, Dr. Thompson said. For the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, (Seroquel), a “substantial decrease in dose is required.”
 

Viagra for ED can be managed

Use of Viagra depends on why it’s being used, Dr. Thompson said. If it’s used for pulmonary hypertension, it is used at a very high dose and that is contraindicated. But if used for erectile dysfunction, the dose needs to be managed when people are on Paxlovid.

She said prescribers must know the kidney function of patients.

“There is a dose reduction that is required if people have impaired kidney function but below a certain level of function, which is 30 mL/min, it’s not recommended to give Paxlovid.”

Dr. Thompson highlighted two other websites for thorough, printable information on drug-drug interactions with Paxlovid: the University of Liverpool’s drug interaction checker and a printable handout from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“We need a 24/7 clinician hotline for Paxlovid to really make it accessible,” she said.
 

No data yet on ‘rebound’ effect

As to a few recent reports of a “rebound” effect, of people developing COVID-19 symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid, there are not enough data yet to determine a clear pattern or cause.

“All we have are anecdotal data,” Dr. Thompson said. Current questions for study include whether the 5-day course is not long enough, she said, and whether people more at risk should be given a second course of Paxlovid if they do rebound.

Dr. Gallagher said it’s important to remember that the therapy goal of the drug is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and while any rebound is problematic, “it’s possible the use of the medication has already saved a life.”

Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Thompson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misinformation about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is feeding misunderstanding among prescribers and patients, two experts from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have said.

They briefed reporters on potential drug interactions and uncommon cases of a “rebound” effect with the drug, which was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration last December for patients at least 12 years old.

The drug combination works “like a pair of scissors chopping up proteins that are made as the virus replicates inside of cells. Inhibiting that enzyme leads to the cessation of replication,” said Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia.

That’s important because other treatments that target the spike protein, such as monoclonal antibodies, can lose their efficacy as the virus changes. He said that while that’s not impossible for Paxlovid, “we have not seen variants emerging that are resistant to it.”
 

Potential drug interactions

IDSA recently published updated guidance on potential interactions between Paxlovid and the top 100 drugs, and important considerations for prescribing.

“There is a concern that people have not been prescribing it because of fear of these interactions,” Dr. Gallagher said, explaining that, while in some cases those fears may be valid, in many instances the interaction is manageable.

One example is in two popular statins for heart disease, lovastatin and simvastatin.

“That’s an interaction that can be managed by holding [those drugs] for the 5 days that someone receives Paxlovid,” he said.

Misinformation also is circulating about distribution status of Paxlovid, Dr. Gallagher said.

“We’re in a very different state from that standpoint than we were a month or 2 months ago,” he said, adding that it is widely available in not all but a large number of pharmacies throughout the United States.

He emphasized the importance of drug reconciliation, as many patients will go to a different pharmacy for Paxlovid than they might for their usual prescriptions, so without a full accounting of prescriptions and supplements potential interactions may be missed.
 

Important interactions to watch

Melanie Thompson, MD, cochair of the HIVMA/IDSA HIV Primary Care Guidance Panel, highlighted some classes of drugs to watch, among them the antiarrhythmics, most of which are contraindicated with Paxlovid.

There are also important interactions with a number of cancer drugs, and consults with oncologists will be critical, she said.

“Likewise, people who have had transplants are likely to be on drugs that have significant ritonavir interactions,” Dr. Thompson said.

People on ergot drugs for migraine cannot take Paxlovid, she said, and “people who take colchicine for gout have to be very careful.”

She said it’s better not to use colchicine while taking Paxlovid, as it is contraindicated, “but it can be managed in certain circumstances with substantial dose reduction.”

A number of mental health drugs can be managed with Paxlovid, Dr. Thompson said. For the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, (Seroquel), a “substantial decrease in dose is required.”
 

Viagra for ED can be managed

Use of Viagra depends on why it’s being used, Dr. Thompson said. If it’s used for pulmonary hypertension, it is used at a very high dose and that is contraindicated. But if used for erectile dysfunction, the dose needs to be managed when people are on Paxlovid.

She said prescribers must know the kidney function of patients.

“There is a dose reduction that is required if people have impaired kidney function but below a certain level of function, which is 30 mL/min, it’s not recommended to give Paxlovid.”

Dr. Thompson highlighted two other websites for thorough, printable information on drug-drug interactions with Paxlovid: the University of Liverpool’s drug interaction checker and a printable handout from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“We need a 24/7 clinician hotline for Paxlovid to really make it accessible,” she said.
 

No data yet on ‘rebound’ effect

As to a few recent reports of a “rebound” effect, of people developing COVID-19 symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid, there are not enough data yet to determine a clear pattern or cause.

“All we have are anecdotal data,” Dr. Thompson said. Current questions for study include whether the 5-day course is not long enough, she said, and whether people more at risk should be given a second course of Paxlovid if they do rebound.

Dr. Gallagher said it’s important to remember that the therapy goal of the drug is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and while any rebound is problematic, “it’s possible the use of the medication has already saved a life.”

Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Thompson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Misinformation about nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid, Pfizer) for treating mild to moderate COVID-19 in patients at high risk for severe disease is feeding misunderstanding among prescribers and patients, two experts from the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) have said.

They briefed reporters on potential drug interactions and uncommon cases of a “rebound” effect with the drug, which was granted emergency use authorization by the Food and Drug Administration last December for patients at least 12 years old.

The drug combination works “like a pair of scissors chopping up proteins that are made as the virus replicates inside of cells. Inhibiting that enzyme leads to the cessation of replication,” said Jason C. Gallagher, PharmD, of Temple University School of Pharmacy, Philadelphia.

That’s important because other treatments that target the spike protein, such as monoclonal antibodies, can lose their efficacy as the virus changes. He said that while that’s not impossible for Paxlovid, “we have not seen variants emerging that are resistant to it.”
 

Potential drug interactions

IDSA recently published updated guidance on potential interactions between Paxlovid and the top 100 drugs, and important considerations for prescribing.

“There is a concern that people have not been prescribing it because of fear of these interactions,” Dr. Gallagher said, explaining that, while in some cases those fears may be valid, in many instances the interaction is manageable.

One example is in two popular statins for heart disease, lovastatin and simvastatin.

“That’s an interaction that can be managed by holding [those drugs] for the 5 days that someone receives Paxlovid,” he said.

Misinformation also is circulating about distribution status of Paxlovid, Dr. Gallagher said.

“We’re in a very different state from that standpoint than we were a month or 2 months ago,” he said, adding that it is widely available in not all but a large number of pharmacies throughout the United States.

He emphasized the importance of drug reconciliation, as many patients will go to a different pharmacy for Paxlovid than they might for their usual prescriptions, so without a full accounting of prescriptions and supplements potential interactions may be missed.
 

Important interactions to watch

Melanie Thompson, MD, cochair of the HIVMA/IDSA HIV Primary Care Guidance Panel, highlighted some classes of drugs to watch, among them the antiarrhythmics, most of which are contraindicated with Paxlovid.

There are also important interactions with a number of cancer drugs, and consults with oncologists will be critical, she said.

“Likewise, people who have had transplants are likely to be on drugs that have significant ritonavir interactions,” Dr. Thompson said.

People on ergot drugs for migraine cannot take Paxlovid, she said, and “people who take colchicine for gout have to be very careful.”

She said it’s better not to use colchicine while taking Paxlovid, as it is contraindicated, “but it can be managed in certain circumstances with substantial dose reduction.”

A number of mental health drugs can be managed with Paxlovid, Dr. Thompson said. For the antipsychotic drug quetiapine, (Seroquel), a “substantial decrease in dose is required.”
 

Viagra for ED can be managed

Use of Viagra depends on why it’s being used, Dr. Thompson said. If it’s used for pulmonary hypertension, it is used at a very high dose and that is contraindicated. But if used for erectile dysfunction, the dose needs to be managed when people are on Paxlovid.

She said prescribers must know the kidney function of patients.

“There is a dose reduction that is required if people have impaired kidney function but below a certain level of function, which is 30 mL/min, it’s not recommended to give Paxlovid.”

Dr. Thompson highlighted two other websites for thorough, printable information on drug-drug interactions with Paxlovid: the University of Liverpool’s drug interaction checker and a printable handout from the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada.

“We need a 24/7 clinician hotline for Paxlovid to really make it accessible,” she said.
 

No data yet on ‘rebound’ effect

As to a few recent reports of a “rebound” effect, of people developing COVID-19 symptoms after completing a course of Paxlovid, there are not enough data yet to determine a clear pattern or cause.

“All we have are anecdotal data,” Dr. Thompson said. Current questions for study include whether the 5-day course is not long enough, she said, and whether people more at risk should be given a second course of Paxlovid if they do rebound.

Dr. Gallagher said it’s important to remember that the therapy goal of the drug is to prevent hospitalizations and deaths, and while any rebound is problematic, “it’s possible the use of the medication has already saved a life.”

Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Thompson report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Does having had a COVID-19 infection increase your risk for the development of diabetes subsequently? Some data say yes and other data say no. No matter what, it’s obviously important to screen people for diabetes routinely, pandemic or not. Remember, screening should start at age 35.

For over a decade, we have known that SARS-type viruses bind to beta cells. This could cause either direct damage to the beta cell or in some way trigger beta cell autoimmunity. We also know that COVID-19 infection increases the levels of inflammatory mediators, which could cause damage to beta cells and potentially to insulin receptors. There is a potential that having had a COVID-19 infection could increase rates of developing type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes.

However, there are other possible causes for people to develop diabetes after having a COVID-19 infection. A COVID-19 infection could cause one to seek medical care, unmasking latent type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes by causing infection-related insulin resistance and worsening preexisting mild hypoglycemia. In addition, people could have sought more medical care in the years since the pandemic has been ebbing, which may make it look like cases have increased.

For example, during the worst of the pandemic, I had multiple referrals for “COVID-19–caused new-onset diabetes” only to find that the patient had an A1c level above 10% and a history of mildly elevated blood glucose levels. This suggests to me that COVID-19 did not cause the diabetes per se but rather worsened an underlying glucose abnormality.

Since the pandemic has improved, I have also seen people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes that I think is associated with pandemic-related weight gain and inactivity.

The bigger issue is what is happening to people after COVID-19 infection who lack risk factors. What about those who we didn’t think were at high risk to get diabetes to begin with and didn’t have prediabetes?

An article by Xie and Al-Aly in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology showed an increase in rates of diabetes in a large VA cohort among those who had a COVID-19 infection compared with both a contemporaneous control who did not have COVID-19 and a historical control. The researchers looked at the patient data 1 year after they’d had COVID-19, so it wasn’t the immediate post–COVID-19 phase but several months later.

They found that the risk for incident type 2 diabetes development was increased by 40% after adjusting for many risk factors. This included individuals who didn’t have traditional risk factors before they developed type 2 diabetes.

What does this mean clinically? First, pandemic or not, people need screening for diabetes and encouragement to have a healthy lifestyle. There may be an increased risk for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes after COVID-19 infection due to a variety of different mechanisms.

As for people with type 1 diabetes, we also don’t know if having a COVID-19 infection increases their risk. We do know that there was an increase in the severity of diabetic ketoacidosis presentation during the pandemic, so we need to be sure that we reinforce sick-day rules with our patients with type 1 diabetes and that all individuals with type 1 diabetes have the ability to test their ketone levels at home.

In people with new-onset diabetes, whether type 1 or type 2, caused by COVID-19 or not, we need to treat appropriately based on their clinical situation.

Data from registries started during the pandemic will provide more definitive answers and help us find out if there is a relationship between having had COVID-19 infection and developing diabetes.

Perhaps that can help us better understand the mechanisms behind the development of diabetes overall.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Does having had a COVID-19 infection increase your risk for the development of diabetes subsequently? Some data say yes and other data say no. No matter what, it’s obviously important to screen people for diabetes routinely, pandemic or not. Remember, screening should start at age 35.

For over a decade, we have known that SARS-type viruses bind to beta cells. This could cause either direct damage to the beta cell or in some way trigger beta cell autoimmunity. We also know that COVID-19 infection increases the levels of inflammatory mediators, which could cause damage to beta cells and potentially to insulin receptors. There is a potential that having had a COVID-19 infection could increase rates of developing type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes.

However, there are other possible causes for people to develop diabetes after having a COVID-19 infection. A COVID-19 infection could cause one to seek medical care, unmasking latent type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes by causing infection-related insulin resistance and worsening preexisting mild hypoglycemia. In addition, people could have sought more medical care in the years since the pandemic has been ebbing, which may make it look like cases have increased.

For example, during the worst of the pandemic, I had multiple referrals for “COVID-19–caused new-onset diabetes” only to find that the patient had an A1c level above 10% and a history of mildly elevated blood glucose levels. This suggests to me that COVID-19 did not cause the diabetes per se but rather worsened an underlying glucose abnormality.

Since the pandemic has improved, I have also seen people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes that I think is associated with pandemic-related weight gain and inactivity.

The bigger issue is what is happening to people after COVID-19 infection who lack risk factors. What about those who we didn’t think were at high risk to get diabetes to begin with and didn’t have prediabetes?

An article by Xie and Al-Aly in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology showed an increase in rates of diabetes in a large VA cohort among those who had a COVID-19 infection compared with both a contemporaneous control who did not have COVID-19 and a historical control. The researchers looked at the patient data 1 year after they’d had COVID-19, so it wasn’t the immediate post–COVID-19 phase but several months later.

They found that the risk for incident type 2 diabetes development was increased by 40% after adjusting for many risk factors. This included individuals who didn’t have traditional risk factors before they developed type 2 diabetes.

What does this mean clinically? First, pandemic or not, people need screening for diabetes and encouragement to have a healthy lifestyle. There may be an increased risk for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes after COVID-19 infection due to a variety of different mechanisms.

As for people with type 1 diabetes, we also don’t know if having a COVID-19 infection increases their risk. We do know that there was an increase in the severity of diabetic ketoacidosis presentation during the pandemic, so we need to be sure that we reinforce sick-day rules with our patients with type 1 diabetes and that all individuals with type 1 diabetes have the ability to test their ketone levels at home.

In people with new-onset diabetes, whether type 1 or type 2, caused by COVID-19 or not, we need to treat appropriately based on their clinical situation.

Data from registries started during the pandemic will provide more definitive answers and help us find out if there is a relationship between having had COVID-19 infection and developing diabetes.

Perhaps that can help us better understand the mechanisms behind the development of diabetes overall.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Does having had a COVID-19 infection increase your risk for the development of diabetes subsequently? Some data say yes and other data say no. No matter what, it’s obviously important to screen people for diabetes routinely, pandemic or not. Remember, screening should start at age 35.

For over a decade, we have known that SARS-type viruses bind to beta cells. This could cause either direct damage to the beta cell or in some way trigger beta cell autoimmunity. We also know that COVID-19 infection increases the levels of inflammatory mediators, which could cause damage to beta cells and potentially to insulin receptors. There is a potential that having had a COVID-19 infection could increase rates of developing type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes.

However, there are other possible causes for people to develop diabetes after having a COVID-19 infection. A COVID-19 infection could cause one to seek medical care, unmasking latent type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes by causing infection-related insulin resistance and worsening preexisting mild hypoglycemia. In addition, people could have sought more medical care in the years since the pandemic has been ebbing, which may make it look like cases have increased.

For example, during the worst of the pandemic, I had multiple referrals for “COVID-19–caused new-onset diabetes” only to find that the patient had an A1c level above 10% and a history of mildly elevated blood glucose levels. This suggests to me that COVID-19 did not cause the diabetes per se but rather worsened an underlying glucose abnormality.

Since the pandemic has improved, I have also seen people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes that I think is associated with pandemic-related weight gain and inactivity.

The bigger issue is what is happening to people after COVID-19 infection who lack risk factors. What about those who we didn’t think were at high risk to get diabetes to begin with and didn’t have prediabetes?

An article by Xie and Al-Aly in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology showed an increase in rates of diabetes in a large VA cohort among those who had a COVID-19 infection compared with both a contemporaneous control who did not have COVID-19 and a historical control. The researchers looked at the patient data 1 year after they’d had COVID-19, so it wasn’t the immediate post–COVID-19 phase but several months later.

They found that the risk for incident type 2 diabetes development was increased by 40% after adjusting for many risk factors. This included individuals who didn’t have traditional risk factors before they developed type 2 diabetes.

What does this mean clinically? First, pandemic or not, people need screening for diabetes and encouragement to have a healthy lifestyle. There may be an increased risk for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes after COVID-19 infection due to a variety of different mechanisms.

As for people with type 1 diabetes, we also don’t know if having a COVID-19 infection increases their risk. We do know that there was an increase in the severity of diabetic ketoacidosis presentation during the pandemic, so we need to be sure that we reinforce sick-day rules with our patients with type 1 diabetes and that all individuals with type 1 diabetes have the ability to test their ketone levels at home.

In people with new-onset diabetes, whether type 1 or type 2, caused by COVID-19 or not, we need to treat appropriately based on their clinical situation.

Data from registries started during the pandemic will provide more definitive answers and help us find out if there is a relationship between having had COVID-19 infection and developing diabetes.

Perhaps that can help us better understand the mechanisms behind the development of diabetes overall.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She disclosed ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – A novel combination of eight human commensal bacteria has shown efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in high-risk populations. The cocktail of bacterial strains (VE303), produced under tightly-controlled conditions, is delivered in powdered form over a period of 14 days.

The approach, sponsored by Vedanta Biosciences, is one of several efforts to use carefully defined microbial populations instead of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat or prevent C. diff infections.

The key issue is that not all of the bacteria found in FMTs are needed to provide a therapeutic effect, according to Thomas Louie, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “You don’t need all the bugs. You don’t need raw [stool]. You can take only the good parts,” said Dr. Louie, who presented the results of the phase 2 study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). In fact, FMT carries the risk of infection of pathogenic bacteria.

The strains found in VE303 were consistently identified in patients’ microbiota following successful FMTs, though they were absent before the transplant. Animal and human studies then showed that the microbes could repopulate microbiota.

Among 78 patients included in the efficacy analysis of the study, after 8 weeks, 13.8% of the VE303 group experienced a recurrent C. diff infection, versus 45.5% of the placebo group, amounting to more than an 80% reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.192; P = .0077). Adverse events were mild and similar across both groups, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported.

The same session included a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study sponsored by Seres Therapeutics, which showed that the company’s oral product SER-109, composed of purified Firmicutes spores, reduced the risk of recurrent C. diff infection after 8 weeks compared to placebo (12.4% versus 39.8%; P < .001).

The new analysis examined short-, medium-, and branch-chained fatty acids in patient stools. After just 1 week of treatment, there was an increase in the short-chain fatty acid butyrate and medium-chain fatty acids valerate and hexanoate. They continued to be higher in weeks 2 and 8 in the treatment arm. The results suggest that increased fatty acid production might boost clinical outcomes, according to Kevin Litcofsky of Seres, who presented the results.

Both approaches have potential, according to Melinda Engevik, PhD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think that they’re both interesting ideas. The spores [from Seres], I think, are going to be better at passing through the stomach and a little bit more resistant, but then they have to germinate and engraft, whereas if you give the lyophilized bacteria [from Vedanta], you might lose some more, but they’re already primed and ready to go. So I think they’re both very different approaches, but the data from both seem to support that they worked and probably in different ways,” said Dr. Engevik, assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Patients that have recurrent [C. diff], they are desperate to be able to break the cycle of recurrence. I think that they’ve shown a lot of safety with this, which is an issue for FMT. Both of the talks seemed like there is a path moving forward to help those patients. I was encouraged,” said Dr. Engevik.

Comoderator Anoop Kumar, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Illinois, Chicago, agreed and noted the advantage of such treatments over FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted FMT delivery.

Previous studies have looked at probiotics, but results so far have been mixed, said Dr. Engevik. She suspects these two approaches, containing more bacterial strains, are likely to have better success. “I think you really have to have a complex gut microbiota community, at least minimally complex, to be able to get the effects. I think it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Dr. Engevik also suggested that the benefits might not stop at C. diff. She highlighted research in other gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and even efforts underway to enhance responses to checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. “Gut microbes are master regulators, so they have these wide-reaching effects. I think that a lot of human health will be started to be targeted by looking at the gut microbiota,” she said.

Dr. Louie also highlighted the potential for more applications. “C. diff is low-hanging fruit. I think these bugs will have some usefulness for [irritable bowel syndrome]. I’ve transplanted some patients with IBS and it seemed to work. I haven’t had time to design and do an IBS trial, but the future is these bugs.”

Dr. Louie also participated in the Seres study. He has been on the advisory board for Vedanta, Seres, Finch Therapeutics, and Artugen Therapeutics. Dr. Engevik and Dr. Kumar have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A novel combination of eight human commensal bacteria has shown efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in high-risk populations. The cocktail of bacterial strains (VE303), produced under tightly-controlled conditions, is delivered in powdered form over a period of 14 days.

The approach, sponsored by Vedanta Biosciences, is one of several efforts to use carefully defined microbial populations instead of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat or prevent C. diff infections.

The key issue is that not all of the bacteria found in FMTs are needed to provide a therapeutic effect, according to Thomas Louie, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “You don’t need all the bugs. You don’t need raw [stool]. You can take only the good parts,” said Dr. Louie, who presented the results of the phase 2 study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). In fact, FMT carries the risk of infection of pathogenic bacteria.

The strains found in VE303 were consistently identified in patients’ microbiota following successful FMTs, though they were absent before the transplant. Animal and human studies then showed that the microbes could repopulate microbiota.

Among 78 patients included in the efficacy analysis of the study, after 8 weeks, 13.8% of the VE303 group experienced a recurrent C. diff infection, versus 45.5% of the placebo group, amounting to more than an 80% reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.192; P = .0077). Adverse events were mild and similar across both groups, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported.

The same session included a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study sponsored by Seres Therapeutics, which showed that the company’s oral product SER-109, composed of purified Firmicutes spores, reduced the risk of recurrent C. diff infection after 8 weeks compared to placebo (12.4% versus 39.8%; P < .001).

The new analysis examined short-, medium-, and branch-chained fatty acids in patient stools. After just 1 week of treatment, there was an increase in the short-chain fatty acid butyrate and medium-chain fatty acids valerate and hexanoate. They continued to be higher in weeks 2 and 8 in the treatment arm. The results suggest that increased fatty acid production might boost clinical outcomes, according to Kevin Litcofsky of Seres, who presented the results.

Both approaches have potential, according to Melinda Engevik, PhD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think that they’re both interesting ideas. The spores [from Seres], I think, are going to be better at passing through the stomach and a little bit more resistant, but then they have to germinate and engraft, whereas if you give the lyophilized bacteria [from Vedanta], you might lose some more, but they’re already primed and ready to go. So I think they’re both very different approaches, but the data from both seem to support that they worked and probably in different ways,” said Dr. Engevik, assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Patients that have recurrent [C. diff], they are desperate to be able to break the cycle of recurrence. I think that they’ve shown a lot of safety with this, which is an issue for FMT. Both of the talks seemed like there is a path moving forward to help those patients. I was encouraged,” said Dr. Engevik.

Comoderator Anoop Kumar, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Illinois, Chicago, agreed and noted the advantage of such treatments over FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted FMT delivery.

Previous studies have looked at probiotics, but results so far have been mixed, said Dr. Engevik. She suspects these two approaches, containing more bacterial strains, are likely to have better success. “I think you really have to have a complex gut microbiota community, at least minimally complex, to be able to get the effects. I think it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Dr. Engevik also suggested that the benefits might not stop at C. diff. She highlighted research in other gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and even efforts underway to enhance responses to checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. “Gut microbes are master regulators, so they have these wide-reaching effects. I think that a lot of human health will be started to be targeted by looking at the gut microbiota,” she said.

Dr. Louie also highlighted the potential for more applications. “C. diff is low-hanging fruit. I think these bugs will have some usefulness for [irritable bowel syndrome]. I’ve transplanted some patients with IBS and it seemed to work. I haven’t had time to design and do an IBS trial, but the future is these bugs.”

Dr. Louie also participated in the Seres study. He has been on the advisory board for Vedanta, Seres, Finch Therapeutics, and Artugen Therapeutics. Dr. Engevik and Dr. Kumar have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – A novel combination of eight human commensal bacteria has shown efficacy in preventing recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections in high-risk populations. The cocktail of bacterial strains (VE303), produced under tightly-controlled conditions, is delivered in powdered form over a period of 14 days.

The approach, sponsored by Vedanta Biosciences, is one of several efforts to use carefully defined microbial populations instead of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat or prevent C. diff infections.

The key issue is that not all of the bacteria found in FMTs are needed to provide a therapeutic effect, according to Thomas Louie, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.). “You don’t need all the bugs. You don’t need raw [stool]. You can take only the good parts,” said Dr. Louie, who presented the results of the phase 2 study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). In fact, FMT carries the risk of infection of pathogenic bacteria.

The strains found in VE303 were consistently identified in patients’ microbiota following successful FMTs, though they were absent before the transplant. Animal and human studies then showed that the microbes could repopulate microbiota.

Among 78 patients included in the efficacy analysis of the study, after 8 weeks, 13.8% of the VE303 group experienced a recurrent C. diff infection, versus 45.5% of the placebo group, amounting to more than an 80% reduction in risk (odds ratio, 0.192; P = .0077). Adverse events were mild and similar across both groups, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported.

The same session included a post hoc analysis of a phase 3 study sponsored by Seres Therapeutics, which showed that the company’s oral product SER-109, composed of purified Firmicutes spores, reduced the risk of recurrent C. diff infection after 8 weeks compared to placebo (12.4% versus 39.8%; P < .001).

The new analysis examined short-, medium-, and branch-chained fatty acids in patient stools. After just 1 week of treatment, there was an increase in the short-chain fatty acid butyrate and medium-chain fatty acids valerate and hexanoate. They continued to be higher in weeks 2 and 8 in the treatment arm. The results suggest that increased fatty acid production might boost clinical outcomes, according to Kevin Litcofsky of Seres, who presented the results.

Both approaches have potential, according to Melinda Engevik, PhD, who comoderated the session where the study was presented. “I think that they’re both interesting ideas. The spores [from Seres], I think, are going to be better at passing through the stomach and a little bit more resistant, but then they have to germinate and engraft, whereas if you give the lyophilized bacteria [from Vedanta], you might lose some more, but they’re already primed and ready to go. So I think they’re both very different approaches, but the data from both seem to support that they worked and probably in different ways,” said Dr. Engevik, assistant professor at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“Patients that have recurrent [C. diff], they are desperate to be able to break the cycle of recurrence. I think that they’ve shown a lot of safety with this, which is an issue for FMT. Both of the talks seemed like there is a path moving forward to help those patients. I was encouraged,” said Dr. Engevik.

Comoderator Anoop Kumar, PhD, assistant professor of gastroenterology and hepatology at University of Illinois, Chicago, agreed and noted the advantage of such treatments over FMT during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has disrupted FMT delivery.

Previous studies have looked at probiotics, but results so far have been mixed, said Dr. Engevik. She suspects these two approaches, containing more bacterial strains, are likely to have better success. “I think you really have to have a complex gut microbiota community, at least minimally complex, to be able to get the effects. I think it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Dr. Engevik also suggested that the benefits might not stop at C. diff. She highlighted research in other gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, and even efforts underway to enhance responses to checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. “Gut microbes are master regulators, so they have these wide-reaching effects. I think that a lot of human health will be started to be targeted by looking at the gut microbiota,” she said.

Dr. Louie also highlighted the potential for more applications. “C. diff is low-hanging fruit. I think these bugs will have some usefulness for [irritable bowel syndrome]. I’ve transplanted some patients with IBS and it seemed to work. I haven’t had time to design and do an IBS trial, but the future is these bugs.”

Dr. Louie also participated in the Seres study. He has been on the advisory board for Vedanta, Seres, Finch Therapeutics, and Artugen Therapeutics. Dr. Engevik and Dr. Kumar have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN DIEGO – Treating people with alcoholic hepatitis for alcohol abuse may reduce their risk of hospital readmission, researchers reported.

In a retrospective analysis of nationwide data, 7.83% of those patients who received psychotherapy, counseling, or drug treatment for alcohol abuse were readmitted within 30 days, versus 11.67% of those who did not receive these kinds of treatment.

The finding lends support to the argument that hospitals should invest more in the treatments, despite the complexities involved.

“It takes a multidisciplinary approach, starting from the physician or the health care provider along with the pharmacists, the behavioral health specialists, or a psychiatrist or psychologist, along with case management as well,” said Harleen Chela, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Missouri in Columbia. She presented the findings at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW).

The researchers started with the premise that patients with alcoholic hepatitis can prevent the condition from worsening by abstaining from alcohol. To see whether interventions aimed at encouraging that abstention could prevent readmissions, Dr. Chela and colleagues analyzed data on readmissions for the first 11 months of the year 2018.

They included patients who were at least 18 years of age and who had a nonelective admission with a principal diagnosis of alcohol abuse.

Using procedure codes, they compared those patients given psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioral therapy), formal inpatient counseling, and drug treatment for alcohol abuse to those who didn’t. Then they counted how many patients were readmitted within 30 days.

They found records of 45,617 patients admitted for alcoholic hepatitis of whom 1,552 received treatment for alcohol abuse and 44,065 did not.

They did not find any significant difference between the two groups in demographics, income, or insurance status.

Adjusting for such factors, the researchers found that people who received alcohol abuse treatment were 64% as likely to be readmitted as were those who did not (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91; P = 0.01).

If alcohol abuse treatment is so effective, why isn’t it routine? “It’s not always feasible to implement this, on the inpatient side, because it takes more than a day or two just to get some of these things put in place,” Dr. Chela told this news organization.

They did find that people were more likely to get treatment for alcohol abuse if they were admitted to a hospital in a big city rather than a small town and if their hospital was owned by private investors rather than by a not-for-profit organization or the government.

“Larger hospitals and private sector institutions have more access to resources and money to have those kinds of systems in place for the patients,” said Dr. Chela.

She became interested in the issue at her hospital when she noticed that patients with alcoholic hepatitis were not getting behavioral counseling. “The inpatient load in the behavioral health side is so much that they don’t have time for these kinds of consults,” she said. “That’s one of the challenges: A shortage of behavioral specialists like psychiatrists.”

And hospitals tend to focus on treating conditions that threaten their patients’ lives in the short term. “Someone who has a heart attack or a gastrointestinal bleed – there’s more focus on resources for those kinds of patients,” she said.

Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond provides alcohol abuse treatment to patients with alcoholic hepatitis partly using telehealth, said Richard Sterling, MD, MSc, chief of hepatology, who was not involved in the study. “For people who live too far away, don’t have transportation, or have other health disparities, we now have technology and mechanisms to keep them engaged in care,” he told this news organization. “We’re doing a lot of Zoom visits.”

Dr. Chela and colleagues also found that those who got alcohol abuse treatment were less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility or to home health. The data couldn’t give the researchers a definitive reason for this, but Dr. Chela speculated that the patients who received treatment for alcohol abuse stayed longer in the hospital and may have been in better shape when they were discharged.

The U.S. health care system doesn’t necessarily provide incentives to keep patients healthy, Dr. Sterling said. “Hospital systems make money off of filling beds, and providing a lot of inpatient care and hospital days,” he said. “That may be not necessarily congruent with a health system that is supposed to provide health for these covered lives.”

Neither Dr. Chela nor Dr. Sterling reported any relevant financial relationships.

SAN FRANCISCO – Along with first responders, health care workers in pulmonary and critical care have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s not surprising that a large proportion have suffered from burnout, a syndrome characterized by chronic workplace stress, emotional exhaustion, cynicism about the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

“Prior to the pandemic, 50% of providers reported burnout, and that, of course, has been exacerbated, with recent surveys showing up to 80% of health care workers reporting burnout,” said Sangeeta Joshi, MD, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

In a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Joshi and colleagues showed that transcendental meditation (TM) can significantly improve burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and insomnia compared with other interventions, albeit without significant improvement in acute psychological distress.

Dr. Joshi reported the results of the trial at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

Mind-body intervention

TM, popularized in the 1960s by the Beatles and their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is a nonpharmacologic mind-body intervention that has been shown to reduce sympathetic arousal and to promote a state of relaxation, Dr. Joshi said.

Although the mechanism of action is not fully understood, proposed explanations for its efficacy include increased alpha coherence, as seen on electroencephalography, and increases in blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, as visualized on functional MRI.

TM has been shown to be effective for reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans and for reducing stress and burnout symptoms in teachers, Dr. Joshi noted.
 

Randomized trial

To see whether TM could make a difference for health care providers, Dr. Joshi and colleagues screened candidates for burnout with the single-item Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale and digital autonomic reactivity, a measure of the depth of physiologic stimulus.

Their study included 80 eligible participants, who were randomly assigned to receive either TM or treatment as usual.

The participants who received the intervention were assigned to attend four TM instruction sessions over 4 consecutive days, followed by four virtual follow-up sessions over the 3-month period. The investigators hypothesized that these participants would have significant improvements in symptoms of burnout over baseline compared with those assigned to standard treatments. Participants who underwent the intervention were encouraged to perform TM at home for 20 minutes twice each day.

Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month follow-up with the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)–25.

At baseline, 70% of all participants reported a history of visiting a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, and 91% reported onset of a mental health condition. Only 30% reported that they had had a mental health condition that resolved with treatment.

At 3 months, there were significant improvements over baseline in the TM group compared with the treatment-as-usual group for the MBI emotional exhaustion item (P = .005), insomnia (P = .029), and anxiety (P = .010). There was trend toward significance on the PHQ-9 (P = .057), but no significant difference in the Global Severity Index (the total score of BSI items).

There were improvements in both study arms in both the MBI professional accomplishment item and in the CD-RISC scale, but the between-group differences were not significant.

The results show that “TM is a feasible, efficacious intervention in health care workers, especially during a pandemic,” Dr. Joshi said.

Future studies of TM in this setting should expand the number of participants and recruitment sites so as to have the necessary power to detect statistically significant changes in the numerical scales, she said.
 

Integrating TM into employee wellness

“These results are really encouraging,” said Seppo Rinne, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, who comoderated the oral abstract session in which the data were presented but was not involved in the study.

Commenting on the fact that TM is not more widely offered as part of a package of services for treating employees with symptoms of burnout, he noted that “in the burnout literature, we have a tendency to dichotomize these individual vs. organizational interventions, and the reality is that they are probably more integrated, and it’s not really helpful for us to think about these as totally separate.

“We need organizational interventions that support individual wellness,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by Duke University. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Rinne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Along with first responders, health care workers in pulmonary and critical care have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s not surprising that a large proportion have suffered from burnout, a syndrome characterized by chronic workplace stress, emotional exhaustion, cynicism about the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

“Prior to the pandemic, 50% of providers reported burnout, and that, of course, has been exacerbated, with recent surveys showing up to 80% of health care workers reporting burnout,” said Sangeeta Joshi, MD, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

In a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Joshi and colleagues showed that transcendental meditation (TM) can significantly improve burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and insomnia compared with other interventions, albeit without significant improvement in acute psychological distress.

Dr. Joshi reported the results of the trial at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

Mind-body intervention

TM, popularized in the 1960s by the Beatles and their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is a nonpharmacologic mind-body intervention that has been shown to reduce sympathetic arousal and to promote a state of relaxation, Dr. Joshi said.

Although the mechanism of action is not fully understood, proposed explanations for its efficacy include increased alpha coherence, as seen on electroencephalography, and increases in blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, as visualized on functional MRI.

TM has been shown to be effective for reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans and for reducing stress and burnout symptoms in teachers, Dr. Joshi noted.
 

Randomized trial

To see whether TM could make a difference for health care providers, Dr. Joshi and colleagues screened candidates for burnout with the single-item Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale and digital autonomic reactivity, a measure of the depth of physiologic stimulus.

Their study included 80 eligible participants, who were randomly assigned to receive either TM or treatment as usual.

The participants who received the intervention were assigned to attend four TM instruction sessions over 4 consecutive days, followed by four virtual follow-up sessions over the 3-month period. The investigators hypothesized that these participants would have significant improvements in symptoms of burnout over baseline compared with those assigned to standard treatments. Participants who underwent the intervention were encouraged to perform TM at home for 20 minutes twice each day.

Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month follow-up with the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)–25.

At baseline, 70% of all participants reported a history of visiting a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, and 91% reported onset of a mental health condition. Only 30% reported that they had had a mental health condition that resolved with treatment.

At 3 months, there were significant improvements over baseline in the TM group compared with the treatment-as-usual group for the MBI emotional exhaustion item (P = .005), insomnia (P = .029), and anxiety (P = .010). There was trend toward significance on the PHQ-9 (P = .057), but no significant difference in the Global Severity Index (the total score of BSI items).

There were improvements in both study arms in both the MBI professional accomplishment item and in the CD-RISC scale, but the between-group differences were not significant.

The results show that “TM is a feasible, efficacious intervention in health care workers, especially during a pandemic,” Dr. Joshi said.

Future studies of TM in this setting should expand the number of participants and recruitment sites so as to have the necessary power to detect statistically significant changes in the numerical scales, she said.
 

Integrating TM into employee wellness

“These results are really encouraging,” said Seppo Rinne, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, who comoderated the oral abstract session in which the data were presented but was not involved in the study.

Commenting on the fact that TM is not more widely offered as part of a package of services for treating employees with symptoms of burnout, he noted that “in the burnout literature, we have a tendency to dichotomize these individual vs. organizational interventions, and the reality is that they are probably more integrated, and it’s not really helpful for us to think about these as totally separate.

“We need organizational interventions that support individual wellness,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by Duke University. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Rinne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Along with first responders, health care workers in pulmonary and critical care have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s not surprising that a large proportion have suffered from burnout, a syndrome characterized by chronic workplace stress, emotional exhaustion, cynicism about the job, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

“Prior to the pandemic, 50% of providers reported burnout, and that, of course, has been exacerbated, with recent surveys showing up to 80% of health care workers reporting burnout,” said Sangeeta Joshi, MD, of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

In a randomized clinical trial, Dr. Joshi and colleagues showed that transcendental meditation (TM) can significantly improve burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion, anxiety, and insomnia compared with other interventions, albeit without significant improvement in acute psychological distress.

Dr. Joshi reported the results of the trial at the American Thoracic Society’s international conference.
 

Mind-body intervention

TM, popularized in the 1960s by the Beatles and their guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is a nonpharmacologic mind-body intervention that has been shown to reduce sympathetic arousal and to promote a state of relaxation, Dr. Joshi said.

Although the mechanism of action is not fully understood, proposed explanations for its efficacy include increased alpha coherence, as seen on electroencephalography, and increases in blood flow to the prefrontal cortex, as visualized on functional MRI.

TM has been shown to be effective for reducing symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans and for reducing stress and burnout symptoms in teachers, Dr. Joshi noted.
 

Randomized trial

To see whether TM could make a difference for health care providers, Dr. Joshi and colleagues screened candidates for burnout with the single-item Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale and digital autonomic reactivity, a measure of the depth of physiologic stimulus.

Their study included 80 eligible participants, who were randomly assigned to receive either TM or treatment as usual.

The participants who received the intervention were assigned to attend four TM instruction sessions over 4 consecutive days, followed by four virtual follow-up sessions over the 3-month period. The investigators hypothesized that these participants would have significant improvements in symptoms of burnout over baseline compared with those assigned to standard treatments. Participants who underwent the intervention were encouraged to perform TM at home for 20 minutes twice each day.

Participants were evaluated at baseline and at 3-month follow-up with the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 (BSI), the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), and the Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)–25.

At baseline, 70% of all participants reported a history of visiting a psychiatrist or other mental health worker, and 91% reported onset of a mental health condition. Only 30% reported that they had had a mental health condition that resolved with treatment.

At 3 months, there were significant improvements over baseline in the TM group compared with the treatment-as-usual group for the MBI emotional exhaustion item (P = .005), insomnia (P = .029), and anxiety (P = .010). There was trend toward significance on the PHQ-9 (P = .057), but no significant difference in the Global Severity Index (the total score of BSI items).

There were improvements in both study arms in both the MBI professional accomplishment item and in the CD-RISC scale, but the between-group differences were not significant.

The results show that “TM is a feasible, efficacious intervention in health care workers, especially during a pandemic,” Dr. Joshi said.

Future studies of TM in this setting should expand the number of participants and recruitment sites so as to have the necessary power to detect statistically significant changes in the numerical scales, she said.
 

Integrating TM into employee wellness

“These results are really encouraging,” said Seppo Rinne, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, who comoderated the oral abstract session in which the data were presented but was not involved in the study.

Commenting on the fact that TM is not more widely offered as part of a package of services for treating employees with symptoms of burnout, he noted that “in the burnout literature, we have a tendency to dichotomize these individual vs. organizational interventions, and the reality is that they are probably more integrated, and it’s not really helpful for us to think about these as totally separate.

“We need organizational interventions that support individual wellness,” he said.

The trial was sponsored by Duke University. Dr. Joshi and Dr. Rinne reported no relevant financial relationships.

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