MDedge ObGyn

Objectivity is tough, but essential: a critical part of patient care, allowing you to make appropriate decisions based on facts and circumstances, not emotions. We’re supposed to be compassionate Vulcans – able to logically weigh possibilities and treatment options under pressure, and at the same time exhibit empathy and sensitivity.

For the most part, all of us become very good at this juggling act. But we’re only human, and once the ability to do that with a given person is lost, it’s gone for good.

Have you ever lost objectivity with a patient? I have. Generally it involves the patient being so difficult, unpleasant, or dislikable that it exceeds my ability to remain impartial and pragmatic in their care.

I don’t know any physician it hasn’t happened to. And when it does, ending the doctor-patient relationship is the only effective answer.

It’s never easy sending that letter, telling someone that they need to seek care elsewhere, and often the specific reason is harder to define. In patients who are overtly rude or noncompliant it’s easy. But often a loss in objectivity is from something less tangible, such as the vagaries of personal chemistry.

I try to get along with all my patients. I really do. That’s part of the job. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s just an impossible task. Too many conflicts and differences of opinion over treatments, tests, diagnosis, what they read on Facebook … whatever. When these differences reach a point where they’re an impediment to good patient care … it’s time for both of us to move on.

Regardless of cause, professionalism requires that it be the end of the road. If I can’t objectively weigh a patient’s symptoms and treatment options, then I’m not going to be able to do my very best for them. And my very best is what every patient deserves.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Objectivity is tough, but essential: a critical part of patient care, allowing you to make appropriate decisions based on facts and circumstances, not emotions. We’re supposed to be compassionate Vulcans – able to logically weigh possibilities and treatment options under pressure, and at the same time exhibit empathy and sensitivity.

For the most part, all of us become very good at this juggling act. But we’re only human, and once the ability to do that with a given person is lost, it’s gone for good.

Have you ever lost objectivity with a patient? I have. Generally it involves the patient being so difficult, unpleasant, or dislikable that it exceeds my ability to remain impartial and pragmatic in their care.

I don’t know any physician it hasn’t happened to. And when it does, ending the doctor-patient relationship is the only effective answer.

It’s never easy sending that letter, telling someone that they need to seek care elsewhere, and often the specific reason is harder to define. In patients who are overtly rude or noncompliant it’s easy. But often a loss in objectivity is from something less tangible, such as the vagaries of personal chemistry.

I try to get along with all my patients. I really do. That’s part of the job. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s just an impossible task. Too many conflicts and differences of opinion over treatments, tests, diagnosis, what they read on Facebook … whatever. When these differences reach a point where they’re an impediment to good patient care … it’s time for both of us to move on.

Regardless of cause, professionalism requires that it be the end of the road. If I can’t objectively weigh a patient’s symptoms and treatment options, then I’m not going to be able to do my very best for them. And my very best is what every patient deserves.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Objectivity is tough, but essential: a critical part of patient care, allowing you to make appropriate decisions based on facts and circumstances, not emotions. We’re supposed to be compassionate Vulcans – able to logically weigh possibilities and treatment options under pressure, and at the same time exhibit empathy and sensitivity.

For the most part, all of us become very good at this juggling act. But we’re only human, and once the ability to do that with a given person is lost, it’s gone for good.

Have you ever lost objectivity with a patient? I have. Generally it involves the patient being so difficult, unpleasant, or dislikable that it exceeds my ability to remain impartial and pragmatic in their care.

I don’t know any physician it hasn’t happened to. And when it does, ending the doctor-patient relationship is the only effective answer.

It’s never easy sending that letter, telling someone that they need to seek care elsewhere, and often the specific reason is harder to define. In patients who are overtly rude or noncompliant it’s easy. But often a loss in objectivity is from something less tangible, such as the vagaries of personal chemistry.

I try to get along with all my patients. I really do. That’s part of the job. But sometimes, for whatever reason, it’s just an impossible task. Too many conflicts and differences of opinion over treatments, tests, diagnosis, what they read on Facebook … whatever. When these differences reach a point where they’re an impediment to good patient care … it’s time for both of us to move on.

Regardless of cause, professionalism requires that it be the end of the road. If I can’t objectively weigh a patient’s symptoms and treatment options, then I’m not going to be able to do my very best for them. And my very best is what every patient deserves.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

A preprint study finding that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA COVID vaccine is associated with an increased risk for cardiac adverse events in teenage boys has elicited a firestorm on Twitter. Although some people issued thoughtful critiques, others lobbed insults against the authors, and still others accused them of either being antivaccine or stoking the fires of the vaccine skeptic movement.

The controversy began soon after the study was posted online September 8 on medRxiv. The authors conclude that for boys, the risk for a cardiac adverse event or hospitalization after the second dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was “considerably higher” than the 120-day risk for hospitalization for COVID-19, “even at times of peak disease prevalence.” This was especially true for those aged 12 to 15 years and even those with no underlying health conditions.

The conclusion – as well as the paper’s source, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and its methodology, modeled after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention assessment of the database – did not sit well with many.

“Your methodology hugely overestimates risk, which many commentators who are specialists in the field have highlighted,” tweeted Deepti Gurdasani, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Queen Mary University of London. “Why make this claim when you must know it’s wrong?”

“The authors don’t know what they are doing and they are following their own ideology,” tweeted Boback Ziaeian, MD, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, in the cardiology division. Dr. Ziaeian also tweeted, “I believe the CDC is doing honest work and not dredging slop like you are.”

“Holy shit. Truly terrible methods in that paper,” tweeted Michael Mina, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and immunologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, more bluntly.

Some pointed out that VAERS is often used by vaccine skeptics to spread misinformation. “‘Dumpster diving’ describes studies using #VAERS by authors (almost always antivaxxers) who don’t understand its limitations,” tweeted David Gorski, MD, PhD, the editor of Science-Based Medicine, who says in his Twitter bio that he “exposes quackery.”

Added Dr. Gorski: “Doctors fell into this trap with their study suggesting #CovidVaccine is more dangerous to children than #COVID19.”

Dr. Gorski said he did not think that the authors were antivaccine. But, he tweeted, “I’d argue that at least one of the authors (Stevenson) is grossly unqualified to analyze the data. Mandrola? Marginal. The other two *might* be qualified in public health/epi, but they clearly either had no clue about #VAERS limitations or didn’t take them seriously enough.” 

Two of the authors, John Mandrola, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist who is also a columnist for Medscape, and Tracy Beth Hoeg, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist and sports medicine specialist, told this news organization that their estimates are not definitive, owing to the nature of the VAERS database.

“I want to emphasize that our signal is hypothesis-generating,” said Dr. Mandrola. “There’s obviously more research that needs to be done.” 

“I don’t think it should be used to establish a for-certain rate,” said Dr. Hoeg, about the study. “It’s not a perfect way of establishing what the rate of cardiac adverse events was, but it gives you an estimate, and generally with VAERS, it’s a significant underestimate.”

Both Dr. Hoeg and Dr. Mandrola said their analysis showed enough of a signal that it warranted a rush to publish. “We felt that it was super time-sensitive,” Dr. Mandrola said.
 

Vaccine risks versus COVID harm

The authors searched the VAERS system for children aged 12 to 17 years who had received one or two doses of an mRNA vaccine and had symptoms of myocarditis, pericarditis, myopericarditis, or chest pain, and also troponin levels available in the lab data.

Of the 257 patients they examined, 211 had peak troponin values available for analysis. All but one received the Pfizer vaccine. Results were stratified by age and sex.

The authors found that the rates of cardiac adverse events (CAEs) after dose 1 were 12.0 per million for 12- to 15-year-old boys and 8.2 per million for 16- and 17-year-old boys, compared with 0.0 per million and 2.0 per million for girls the same ages.

The estimates for the 12- to 15-year-old boys were 22% to 150% higher than what the CDC had previously reported.

After the second dose, the rate of CAEs for boys 12 to 15 years was 162.2 per million (143% to 280% higher than the CDC estimate) and for boys 16 and 17 years, it was 94.0 per million, or 30% to 40% higher than CDC estimate.

Dr. Mandrola said he and his colleagues found potentially more cases by using slightly broader search terms than those employed by the CDC but agreed with some critics that a limitation was that they did not call the reporting physicians, as is typical with CDC follow-up on VAERS reports.

The authors point to troponin levels as valid indicators of myocardial damage. Peak troponin levels exceeded 2 ng/mL in 71% of the 12- to 15-year-olds and 82% of 16- and 17-year-olds.

The study shows that for boys 12 to 15 years with no comorbidities, the risk for a CAE after the second dose would be 22.8 times higher than the risk for hospitalization for COVID-19 during periods of low disease burden, 6.0 times higher during periods of moderate transmission, and 4.3 times higher during periods of high transmission.

The authors acknowledge in the paper that their analysis “does not take into account any benefits the vaccine provides against transmission to others, long-term COVID-19 disease risk, or protection from nonsevere COVID-19 symptoms.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg told this news organization that they are currently recalculating their estimates because of the rising numbers of pediatric hospitalizations from the Delta variant surge.
 

Paper rejected by journals

Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that the paper went through peer-review at three journals but was rejected by all three, for reasons that were not made clear.

She and the other authors incorporated the reviewers’ feedback at each turn and included all of their suggestions in the paper that was ultimately uploaded to medRxiv, said Dr. Hoeg.

They decided to put it out as a preprint after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its data and then a warning on June 25 about myocarditis with use of the Pfizer vaccine in children 12 to 15 years of age.

The preprint study was picked up by some media outlets, including The Telegraph and The Guardian newspapers, and tweeted out by vaccine skeptics like Robert W. Malone, MD. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), an outspoken vaccine skeptic, tweeted out the Guardian story saying that the findings mean “there is every reason to stop the covid vaccine mandates.”

Dr. Gorski noted in tweets and in a blog post that one of the paper’s coauthors, Josh Stevenson, is part of Rational Ground, a group that supports the Great Barrington Declaration and is against lockdowns and mask mandates.

Mr. Stevenson did not disclose his affiliation in the paper, and Dr. Hoeg said in an interview that she was unaware of the group and Mr. Stevenson’s association with it and that she did not have the impression that he was altering the data to show any bias.

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they are provaccine and that they were dismayed to find their work being used to support any agenda. “It’s very frustrating,” said Dr. Hoeg, adding that she understands that “when you publish research on a controversial topic, people are going to take it and use it for their agendas.”

Some on Twitter blamed the open and free-wheeling nature of preprints.

Harlan Krumholz, MD, SM, the Harold H. Hines, junior professor of medicine and public health at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., which oversees medRxiv, tweeted, “Do you get that the discussion about the preprint is exactly the purpose of #preprints. So that way when someone claims something, you can look at the source and experts can comment.”

But Dr. Ziaeian tweeted back, “Preprints like this one can be weaponized to stir anti-vaccine lies and damage public health.”

In turn, the Yale physician replied, “Unfortunately these days, almost anything can be weaponized, distorted, misunderstood.” Dr. Krumholz added: “There is no question that this preprint is worthy of deep vetting and discussion. But there is a #preprint artifact to examine.”
 

Measured support

Some clinicians signaled their support for open debate and the preprint’s findings.

“I’ve been very critical of preprints that are too quickly disseminated in the media, and this one is no exception,” tweeted Walid Gellad, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. “On the other hand, I think the vitriol directed at these authors is wrong,” he added.

“Like it or not, the issue of myocarditis in kids is an issue. Other countries have made vaccination decisions because of this issue, not because they’re driven by some ideology,” he tweeted.

Dr. Gellad also notes that the FDA has estimated the risk could be as high as one in 5,000 and that the preprint numbers could actually be underestimates.

In a long thread, Frank Han, MD, an adult congenital and pediatric cardiologist at the University of Illinois, tweets that relying on the VAERS reports might be faulty and that advanced cardiac imaging – guided by strict criteria – is the best way to determine myocarditis. And, he tweeted, “Physician review of VAERS reports really matters.”

Dr. Han concluded that vaccination “trades in a significant risk with a much smaller risk. That’s what counts in the end.”

In a response, Dr. Mandrola called Han’s tweets “reasoned criticism of our analysis.” He adds that his and Dr. Hoeg’s study have limits, but “our point is not to avoid protecting kids, but how to do so most safely.”

Both Dr. Mandrola and Dr. Hoeg said they welcomed critiques, but they felt blindsided by the vehemence of some of the Twitter debate.

“Some of the vitriol was surprising,” Dr. Mandrola said. “I kind of have this naive notion that people would assume that we’re not bad people,” he added.

However, Dr. Mandrola is known on Twitter for sometimes being highly critical of other researchers’ work, referring to some studies as “howlers,” and has in the past called out others for citing those papers.

Dr. Hoeg said she found critiques about weaknesses in the methods to be helpful. But she said many tweets were “attacking us as people, or not really attacking anything about our study, but just attacking the finding,” which does not help anyone “figure out what we should do about the safety signal or how we can research it further.”

Said Dr. Mandrola: “Why would we just ignore that and go forward with two-shot vaccination as a mandate when other countries are looking at other strategies?”

He noted that the United Kingdom has announced that children 12 to 15 years of age should receive just one shot of the mRNA vaccines instead of two because of the risk for myocarditis. Sixteen- to 18-year-olds have already been advised to get only one dose.

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

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

Onions and iodine and COVID, oh my!

As surely as the sun rises, anti-vaxxers will come up with some wacky and dangerous new idea to prevent COVID. While perhaps nothing will top horse medication, gargling iodine (or spraying it into the nose) is also not a great idea.

Yagi-Studio/E+

Multiple social media posts have extolled the virtues of gargling Betadine (povidone iodine), which is a TOPICAL disinfectant commonly used in EDs and operating rooms. One post cited a paper by a Bangladeshi plastic surgeon who hypothesized on the subject, and if that’s not a peer-reviewed, rigorously researched source, we don’t know what is.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, actual medical experts do not recommend using Betadine to prevent COVID. Ingesting it can cause iodine poisoning and plenty of nasty GI side effects; while Betadine does make a diluted product safe for gargling use (used for the treatment of sore throats), it has not shown any effectiveness against viruses or COVID in particular.

A New York ED doctor summed it up best in the Rolling Stone article when he was told anti-vaxxers were gargling iodine: He offered a choice four-letter expletive, then said, “Of course they are.”

But wait! We’ve got a two-for-one deal on dubious COVID cures this week. Health experts in Myanmar (Burma to all the “Seinfeld” fans) and Thailand have been combating social media posts claiming that onion fumes will cure COVID. All you need to do is slice an onion in half, sniff it for a while, then chew on a second onion, and your COVID will be cured!

In what is surely the most radical understatement of the year, a professor in the department of preventive and social medicine at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, said in the AFP article that there is “no solid evidence” to support onion sniffing from “any clinical research.”

We’re just going to assume the expletives that surely followed were kept off the record.
 

Pro-Trump state governor encourages vaccination

Clearly, the politics of COVID-19 have been working against the science of COVID-19. Politicians can’t, or won’t, agree on what to do about it, and many prominent Republicans have been actively resisting vaccine and mask mandates.

Governor Jim Justice / YouTube.com

There is at least one Republican governor who has wholeheartedly encouraged vaccination in his pro-Trump state. We’re talking about Gov. Jim Justice of West Virginia, and not for the first time.

The Washington Post has detailed his efforts to promote the COVID vaccine, and we would like to share a couple of examples.

In June he suggested that people who didn’t get vaccinated were “entering the death drawing.” He followed that by saying, “If I knew for certain that there was going to be eight or nine people die by next Tuesday, and I could be one of them if I don’t take the vaccine ... What in the world do you think I would do? I mean, I would run over top of somebody.”

More recently, Gov. Justice took on vaccine conspiracy theories.

“For God’s sakes a livin’, how difficult is this to understand? Why in the world do we have to come up with these crazy ideas – and they’re crazy ideas – that the vaccine’s got something in it and it’s tracing people wherever they go? And the very same people that are saying that are carrying their cellphones around. I mean, come on. Come on.”

Nuff said.
 

Jet lag may be a gut feeling

After a week-long vacation halfway around the world, it’s time to go back to your usual routine and time zone. But don’t forget about that free souvenir, jet lag. A disrupted circadian rhythm can be a real bummer, but researchers may have found the fix in your belly.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

In a study funded by the U.S. Navy, researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, looked into how the presence of a prebiotic in one’s diet can have on the disrupted biological clocks. They’re not the same as probiotics, which help you stay regular in another way. Prebiotics work as food to help the good gut bacteria you already have. An earlier study had suggested that prebiotics may have a positive effect on the brain.

To test the theory, the researchers gave one group of rats their regular food while another group received food with two different prebiotics. After manipulating the rats’ light-dark cycle for 8 weeks to give the illusion of traveling to a time zone 12 hours ahead every week, they found that the rats who ate the prebiotics were able to bounce back faster.

The possibility of ingesting something to keep your body clock regular sounds like a dream, but the researchers don’t really advise you to snatch all the supplements you can at your local pharmacy just yet.

“If you know you are going to come into a challenge, you could take a look at some of the prebiotics that are available. Just realize that they are not customized yet, so it might work for you but it won’t work for your neighbor,” said senior author Monika Fleshner.

Until there’s more conclusive research, just be good to your bacteria.
 

How to make stuff up and influence people

You’ve probably heard that we use only 10% of our brain. It’s right up there with “the Earth is flat” and “an apple a day keeps the doctor away.”

MarkRyanDesigns/Getty Images

The idea that we use only 10% of our brains can probably be traced back to the early 1900s, suggests Discover magazine, when psychologist William James wrote, “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.”

There are many different takes on it, but it is indeed a myth that we use only 10% of our brains. Dale Carnegie, the public speaking teacher, seems to be the one who put the specific number of 10% on James’ idea in his 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“We think that people are excited by this pseudo fact because it’s very optimistic,” neuroscientist Sandra Aamodt told Discover. “Wouldn’t we all love to think our brains had some giant pool of untapped potential that we’re not using?”

The reality is, we do use our whole brain. Functional MRI shows that different parts of the brain are used for different things such as language and memories. “Not all at the same time, of course. But every part of the brain has a job to do,” the Discover article explained.

There are many things we don’t know about how the brain works, but at least you know you use more than 10%. After all, a brain just told you so.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) announced on Tuesday that it is standing by its 2014 recommendations that sexually active girls and young women be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea. But the panel is not ready to provide guidance about screening males even amid an outbreak of gonorrhea infections among men who have sex with men (MSM).

“For men in general, there’s not enough evidence to determine whether screening will reduce the risk of complications or spreading infections to others,” said Marti Kubik, PhD, RN, in an interview. Dr. Kubik is a professor at the George Mason University School of Nursing, Fairfax, Va., and is a member of the task force. “We need further research so we will know how to make those recommendations,” she said.

The screening recommendations for chlamydia and gonorrhea were published Sept. 14 in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The guidance is identical to the panel’s 2014 recommendations. The task force recommends screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in all sexually active females aged 24 years or younger and in sexually active women aged 25 and older if they are at higher risk because of factors such as new or multiple sex partners.

“We continue to see rising rates of these infections in spite of consistent screening recommendations,” Dr. Kubik said. “In 2019, the CDC recorded nearly 2 million cases of chlamydia and a half million cases of gonorrhea. The big clincher is that chlamydia and gonorrhea can occur without symptoms. It’s critical to screen if we’re going to prevent serious health complications.”

The report notes that chlamydia and gonorrhea may lead to pelvic inflammatory disease in women and to multiple complications in infants born to infected mothers. Men can develop urethritis and epididymitis. Both diseases can boost the risk for HIV infection and transmission.

“We want clinicians to review the new recommendation and feel confident about the evidence base that supports a need for us to be screening young women and older women who are at increased risk,” Dr. Kubik said. She noted that almost two-thirds of chlamydia cases and more than half of gonorrhea cases occur in men and women aged 15-24.

Unlike the CDC, which recommends annual chlamydia and gonorrhea screening in appropriate female patients, the task force provides no guidance on screening frequency. “We didn’t have the evidence base to make a recommendation about how often to screen,” Dr. Kubik said. “But recognizing that these often occur without symptoms, it’s reasonable for clinicians to screen patients whose sexual history reveals new or consistent risk factors.”

Philip A. Chan, MD, an associate professor at Brown University, Providence, R.I., who directs a sexually transmitted disease clinic, told this news organization that he found it frustrating that the task force didn’t make recommendations about screening of MSM. According to a commentary accompanying the new recommendations, the rate of gonorrhea in MSM – 5,166 cases per 100,000, or more than 5% – is at a historic high.

In contrast to the task force, the CDC recommends annual or more frequent testing for gonorrhea and chlamydia plus HIV and syphilis in sexually active MSM.

Dr. Chan noted that the task force’s guidance “tends to be the most evidence-based recommendations that exist. If the evidence isn’t there, they usually don’t make a recommendation.” Still, he said, “I would argue that there’s good evidence that in MSM, the risk for HIV acquisition warrants routine screening.”

Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, director of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, also noted the limits of the task force’s insistence on certain kinds of evidence. Dr. Marrazzo, who coauthored a commentary that accompanies the recommendations, said in an interview that the panel’s “reliance on randomized-controlled-trial-level evidence tends to limit its ability to evolve their recommendations in a way that could account for evolving epidemiology or advances in our understanding of pathophysiology of these infections.”

Dr. Chan noted that obstacles exist for patients even when screening recommendations are in place. Although insurers typically cover costs of chlamydia and gonorrhea screening tests, he said, the uninsured may have to pay $100 or more each.

The USPSTF is supported by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Kubik, Dr. Chan, and Dr. Marrazzo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has updated its 2014 statement on screening asymptomatic individuals for chlamydia and gonorrhea infection.

Published online in JAMA, the 2021 version recommends that all sexually active women aged 24 years or younger and at-risk women 25 years or older should be screened for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

As in 2014, the task force made no screening recommendation for men owing to inconclusive evidence of benefit.

With cases of sexually transmitted infections reaching all-time highs, Amy G. Cantor, MD, MPH, of the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues noted that chlamydia and gonorrhea are among the most common STIs in this country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019 saw approximately 1.8 million reported cases of chlamydia and more than 600,000 of gonorrhea.

In the current analysis of 27 observational and randomized studies comprising 179,515 patients, the USPSTF panel found that, compared with no screening, chlamydia screening was significantly associated with a reduced risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) in young women in 2 out of 4 trials.

The authors cautioned, however, that the magnitude of benefit was relatively small. No studies reported on screening effectiveness in men, except for one reporting rates of epididymitis, and no studies were done on pregnant women for any outcome.

The largest and newest study, the Australian Chlamydia Control Effectiveness Pilot trial of 2018, assessed chlamydia screening against usual care in 180,355 men and women aged 16-29 years in 130 rural Australian primary care clinics. Screening was associated with a reduced risk of hospital-diagnosed PID: the absolute risk was 0.24% for screening versus 0.38% for usual care (unadjusted risk ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.0). It was not, however, significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinic-diagnosed PID, with an absolute risk of 0.45% versus 0.39% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.7-18). Nor did it correlate with a risk reduction for clinic-diagnosed epididymitis: 0.26% vs. 0.27% (RR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4).

While risk prediction criteria apart from age were only minimally accurate, testing for asymptomatic chlamydial and gonococcal infections was highly accurate at most anatomical sites, including urine and self-collected specimens, the investigators observed. Age 22 years or younger alone versus multi-item risk criteria demonstrated similar discrimination in a study that included symptomatic and asymptomatic women.

Sensitivity of chlamydial testing was similar at endocervical (89%-100%) and self- and clinician-collected vaginal (90%-100%) sites for women and at meatal (100%), urethral (99%), and rectal (92%) sites for men. It was lower, however, at pharyngeal sites (69.2%) for men who have sex with men (MSM).

Sensitivity of gonococcal testing was 89% or greater for all anatomical samples. False-positive and false-negative testing rates were low across anatomical sites and collection methods.

“Effectiveness of screening in men and during pregnancy, optimal screening intervals, and adverse effects of screening require further evaluation, Dr. Cantor and associates concluded.

In an accompanying editorial, Jeanne Marrazzo, MD, MPH, and Jodie Dionne-Odom, MD, MSPH, of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, called the guidelines “timely” and “powerful agents of change” that “influence a wide spectrum of health-based metrics, from quality assurance measures to criteria for financial reimbursement.”

They pointed out that men who have sex with men are experiencing historically high rates of gonorrhea, with most infections occurring extragenitally at the pharynx or rectum. In 2019 CDC data, MSM had substantially higher rates of gonorrhea than men who had sex only with women. They recommended that guidelines for men consider STI risk because of sexual relations with men, women, or both.

“Comprehensive screening guidelines for common STIs like chlamydia and gonorrhea could incorporate the limited evidence base for MSM, whether it is regular practice or not,” they wrote, with the same approach for women who have sex with women but may be at risk for chlamydia, particularly if they also have sex with men.

In their view, these latest guidelines appropriately prioritize high-level clinically based data. They pointed, however, to recent progress in understanding the pathogenesis of upper reproductive tract infection in women and the sexual networks behind the current resurgence of STIs in the United States in the failure to manage exposed sex partners.

“Considering these critical advances in the evolution of clinic-based screening guidelines is a work in progress,” they wrote, “the dialogue among basic scientists, clinical trial investigators, and public health professionals to inform the next version of updated USPSTF chlamydia and gonorrhea screening guidelines should start now.”

In the opinion of Jennifer L. Reed, MD, MS, a professor of pediatrics and an emergency medicine physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center and not involved in the updated statement, the recommendations are very reasonable. “The highest rates of infection occur in females 15-24 years of age, and therefore asymptomatic screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea is imperative at least annually or more often if they are high risk,” she said in an interview.

“I would hope that providers increase their asymptomatic screening as a result of these recommendations and highly consider it in the younger men,” Dr. Reed added. “I see a very high rate of gonorrhea and chlamydia infections.” Her center is studying the implementation of gonorrhea and chlamydia asymptomatic screening for adolescents in the pediatric emergency department, a high-risk patient population that will benefit from STI screening opportunities in nontraditional settings.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Department of Health & Human Services under a contract to support the USPSTF. One statement coauthor reported personal fees from Insmed, Paratek, RedHill, and Spero, as well as grants from Insmed. No other disclosures were reported. Dr. Dionne-Odom reported grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Child Health and Development. Dr. Reed reported a grant from NIH/NICHD for a pragmatic trial of improving STI detection in the pediatric ED.
 

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine could be authorized for ages 5-11 by the end of October, according to Reuters.

The timeline is based on the expectation that Pfizer will have enough data from clinical trials to request Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization for the age group near the end of September. Then the FDA would likely make a decision about the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness in children within about 3 weeks, two sources told Reuters.

Anthony Fauci, MD, chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden and director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, spoke about the timeline during an online town hall meeting Friday, Reuters reported. The meeting was attended by thousands of staff members at the National Institutes of Health.

If Pfizer submits paperwork to the FDA by the end of September, the vaccine could be available for kids around mid-October, Dr. Fauci said, and approval for the Moderna vaccine could come in November. Moderna will take about 3 weeks longer to collect and analyze data for ages 5-11.

Pfizer has said it would have enough data for ages 5-11 in September and would submit its documentation for FDA authorization soon after. Moderna told investors on Sept. 9 that data for ages 6-11 would be available by the end of the year.

On Sept. 10, the FDA said it would work to approve COVID-19 vaccines for children quickly once companies submit their data, according to Reuters. The agency said it would consider applications for emergency use, which would allow for faster approval.

Pfizer’s vaccine is the only one to receive full FDA approval, but only for people ages 16 and older. Adolescents ages 12-15 can receive the Pfizer vaccine under the FDA’s emergency use authorization.

For emergency use authorization, companies must submit 2 months of safety data versus 6 months for full approval. The FDA said on Sept. 10 that children in clinical trials should be monitored for at least 2 months to observe side effects.

BioNTech, Pfizer’s vaccine manufacturing partner, told a news outlet in Germany that it plans to request authorization globally for ages 5-11 in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

“Already over the next few weeks, we will file the results of our trial in 5- to 11-year-olds with regulators across the world and will request approval of the vaccine in this age group, also here in Europe,” Oezlem Tuereci, MD, the chief medical officer for BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

The company is completing the final production steps to make the vaccine at lower doses for the younger age group, she said. Pfizer and BioNTech will also seek vaccine approval for ages 6 months to 2 years later this year.

“Things are looking good, everything is going according to plan,” Ugur Sahin, MD, the CEO of BioNTech, told Der Spiegel.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

The White House has filled in more details of its newly announced plans to blunt the impact of COVID-19 in the United States.

The emergency rule ordering large employers to require COVID-19 vaccines or weekly tests for their workers could be ready “within weeks,” officials said in a news briefing Sept. 10.

Labor Secretary Martin Walsh will oversee the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as the agency drafts what’s known as an emergency temporary standard, similar to the one that was issued a few months ago to protect health care workers during the pandemic.

The rule should be ready within weeks, said Jeff Zients, coordinator of the White House COVID-19 response team.

He said the ultimate goal of the president’s plan is to increase vaccinations as quickly as possible to keep schools open, the economy recovering, and to decrease hospitalizations and deaths from COVID.

Mr. Zients declined to set hard numbers around those goals, but other experts did.

“What we need to get to is 85% to 90% population immunity, and that’s going to be immunity both from vaccines and infections, before that really begins to have a substantial dampening effect on viral spread,” Ashish Jha, MD, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., said on a call with reporters Sept. 9.

He said immunity needs to be that high because the Delta variant is so contagious.

Mandates are seen as the most effective way to increase immunity and do it quickly.

David Michaels, PhD, an epidemiologist and professor at George Washington University, Washington, says OSHA will have to work through a number of steps to develop the rule.

“OSHA will have to write a preamble explaining the standard, its justifications, its costs, and how it will be enforced,” says Dr. Michaels, who led OSHA for the Obama administration. After that, the rule will be reviewed by the White House. Then employers will have some time – typically 30 days – to comply.

In addition to drafting the standard, OSHA will oversee its enforcement.

Companies that refuse to follow the standard could be fined $13,600 per violation, Mr. Zients said.

Dr. Michaels said he doesn’t expect enforcement to be a big issue, and he said we’re likely to see the rule well before it is final.

“Most employers are law-abiding. When OSHA issues a standard, they try to meet whatever those requirements are, and generally that starts to happen when the rule is announced, even before it goes into effect,” he said.

The rule may face legal challenges as well. Several governors and state attorneys general, as well as the Republican National Committee, have promised lawsuits to stop the vaccine mandates.

Critics of the new mandates say they impinge on personal freedom and impose burdens on businesses.

But the president hit back at that notion Sept. 10.

“Look, I am so disappointed that, particularly some of the Republican governors, have been so cavalier with the health of these kids, so cavalier of the health of their communities,” President Biden told reporters.

“I don’t know of any scientist out there in this field who doesn’t think it makes considerable sense to do the six things I’ve suggested.”

Yet, others feel the new requirements didn’t go far enough.

“These are good steps in the right direction, but they’re not enough to get the job done,” said Leana Wen, MD, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

Dr. Wen, an expert in public health, wondered why President Biden didn’t mandate vaccinations for plane and train travel. She was disappointed that children 12 and older weren’t required to be vaccinated, too.

“There are mandates for childhood immunizations in every state. The coronavirus vaccine should be no different,” she wrote.

Vaccines remain the cornerstone of U.S. plans to control the pandemic.

On Sept. 10, there was new research from the CDC and state health departments showing that the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be highly effective at preventing severe illness and death.

But the study also found that the vaccines became less effective in the United States after Delta became the dominant cause of infections here.

The study, which included more than 600,000 COVID-19 cases, analyzed breakthrough infections – cases where people got sick despite being fully vaccinated – in 13 jurisdictions in the United States between April 4 and July 17, 2021.

Epidemiologists compared breakthrough infections between two distinct points in time: Before and after the period when the Delta variant began causing most infections.

From April 4 to June 19, fully vaccinated people made up just 5% of cases, 7% of hospitalizations, and 8% of deaths. From June 20 to July 17, 18% of cases, 14% of hospitalizations, and 16% of deaths occurred in fully vaccinated people.

“After the week of June 20, 2021, when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant became predominant, the percentage of fully vaccinated persons among cases increased more than expected,” the study authors wrote.

Even after Delta swept the United States, fully vaccinated people were 5 times less likely to get a COVID-19 infection and more than 10 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from one.

“As we have shown in study after study, vaccination works,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said during the White House news briefing.

“We have the scientific tools we need to turn the corner on this pandemic. Vaccination works and will protect us from the severe complications of COVID-19,” she said.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Lung function in early infancy may be influenced by the mother’s level of physical activity during pregnancy, results of a study from Sweden suggest.

Low-lung function at 3 months of age, as measured by the ratio of time to peak tidal expiratory flow to expiratory time (tPTEF/tE), was more frequent among children whose mothers were physically inactive during the first half of pregnancy compared with those who exercised either moderately or strenuously, reported Hrefna Katrin Gudmundsdottir, MD, a pediatrician and PhD candidate at the University of Oslo, Norway. The results were based on a prospective observational study of 841 mother-child pairs.

“The potential link between maternal inactivity and low lung function in infancy adds to the importance of advising pregnant women and women of childbearing age on physical activity,” she said in an oral abstract presented during the virtual European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress.

Jonathan Grigg, MD, professor of pediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London, who was not involved in the study, commented that it “offers a fascinating hint that increased physical activity of mothers is associated with better lung function in their babies and, therefore, possibly their health in later life. More research is needed to confirm this link, but it is important that women feel supported by their health care providers to be active in a way that is comfortable and accessible to them.”

Impaired lung function in infancy is associated with wheezing and asthma in childhood, and lower lung function later in life, Dr. Gudmundsdottir said. She also noted that impaired lung function begins in utero and is related to fetal and infant size, family history of asthma, and/or maternal smoking.

Physical activity during pregnancy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of preterm birth and cesarean birth and of children being born either abnormally small or abnormally large for their gestational age, she explained.

To see where physical inactivity in the first half of pregnancy is associated with lower lung function in otherwise healthy 3-month old infants, Dr. Gudmundsdottir and colleagues looked at data on a mother-child cohort from the prospective population-based PreventADALL study, which was designed to study prevention of atopic dermatitis and allergies in children in Norway and Sweden.

A total of 814 infants (49% female) had available measures of tidal flow volume in the awake state at 3 months, as well as mother-reported data on physical activity at 18 weeks of pregnancy.

The investigators categorized the mothers as inactive, with either no or only low-intensity physical activity, “fairly” active, or “very” active based on self reporting.

The average tPTEF/tE value among all infants in the study was 0.391. The average value for 290 infants born to inactive mothers was 0.387, compared with 0.394 for 299 infants born to very active mothers, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Maternal physical activity level was not significantly associated with continuous tPTEF/tE, but the investigators did find that the offspring of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than the children of fairly or very active mothers to have a tPTEF/tE below 0.25 in both univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.15; P = .011), and in multivariate analysis controlling for maternal age, education, parity, prepregnancy body-mass index, parental atopy, and in-utero exposure to nicotine (OR, 2.18; P = .013).

In univariate but not multivariate analysis, children of inactive mothers were significantly more likely than infants of more active mothers to have tPTEF/tE values below the 50th percentile (OR, 1.35; P = .042).

“We observed a trend that adds to the importance of advising women of childbearing age and pregnant women about physical activity. However, there may be factors that affect both maternal physical activity and lung function in offspring that we have not accounted for and could affect the results, so more research is needed,” Dr. Gudmundsdottir said in a statement.

Dr. Grigg pointed out that “it’s also worth keeping in mind that the single most important thing that mothers can do for their own health and that of their baby is to ensure that they do not smoke or use other tobacco products before, during, and after pregnancy. A smoke-free home has the biggest impact on lung function and health in childhood and later life.”

The study was supported by the University of Oslo. Dr. Gudmundsdottir and Dr. Grigg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term symptoms, like those linked with COVID-19, were common in people who had even just a single positive test, new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show.

The data show that symptoms in this group – including fatigue, cough, and headache – tended to last for more than a month. 

Frequency of symptoms in people with a positive test was 1.5 times higher, compared with people whose tests had always been negative, according to the research published in the CDC’s latest Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Lead author Valentine Wanga, PhD, with the CDC’s COVID-19 response team, and colleagues conducted a non–probability-based internet panel survey of about 6,000 U.S. adults to assess long-term symptoms often associated with COVID-19 among those who had ever tested positive or always tested negative for COVID-19 between January 2020 and April 2021.

William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview that this research “establishes more securely than before that you don’t have to be hospitalized with COVID in order to develop long COVID symptoms.”

That’s better known among infectious disease experts, he said, but added that “this survey really gives a firm database for that.”
 

Study results

The study’s results showed that, compared with respondents who had a negative test result, those who received a positive result reported a significantly higher prevalence of any long-term symptom (65.9% vs. 42.9%), fatigue (22.5% vs. 12.0%), change in sense of smell or taste (17.3% vs. 1.7%), shortness of breath (15.5% vs. 5.2%), cough (14.5% vs. 4.9%), and headache (13.8% vs. 9.9%).

More people who had a positive test result (76.2%) reported persistence for more than a month of at least one initially occurring symptom, compared with those whose test results were always negative (69.6%).

The numbers are further proof, Dr. Schaffner said, that COVID not only will be an acute stressor on the health care system but patients with long COVID will need help with managing care for the long term.

“We still don’t know what the COVID virus does that results in these long COVID symptoms,” he said. Vanderbilt and many other institutions have developed “long COVID” centers as a testament to how important the problem is.

Long COVID symptoms are not well understood and most studies have looked at the effects from patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19.

In this survey, respondents self-reported whether they had ever had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result (698), always received a negative test result (2,437), or never were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (2,750).

Compared with those who always tested negative, a larger proportion of those who tested positive (28.7% vs. 15.7%) reported believing that receiving a COVID-19 vaccine made their long-term symptoms better. No difference was found in reported beliefs that a vaccine made long-term symptoms worse.

Dr. Schaffner said he found that survey result interesting, but said that is not backed up by current data and would need further study.

“I would treat that with great caution,” he said. “I’m not dismissing it, but you can’t take that at face value. All of us who get sick and those of us who care for people who are sick – if there’s an intervention, we all hope for the best. We’re being optimistic. It’s when you do a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study that you can find out whether your instincts or hopes were correct.”

The authors said that findings can inform public health preparedness, help guide care for people with post-COVID conditions, and help make the case for vaccines.

The study authors and Dr. Schaffner disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Medical Power Couples is a new series highlighting spouses or domestic partners prominent in health care. Both have achieved high-level professional success and have made significant contributions to their respective fields.

Julie Shah, PhD, and Neel Shah, MD

The Shah family

Ob.gyn. Neel Shah was telling his wife how challenging it was for labor and delivery nurses to make room assignments: to delegate available beds, predict the timing of patient progression from one room to another, and pair patients with staff nurses, equipment, and resources. 

Julie Shah, a roboticist with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, compared the head nurses to air traffic controllers, but without near the decision support. Julie had previously worked for aerospace giant Boeing, where she helped design a set of algorithmic techniques to give decision support to manufacturing personnel and embed robots to aid their work.

Suddenly the Shahs had an idea.

“We got a grant together to see if we could augment the nurses by supporting them with computing,” Neel said. “We put a robot on the labor floor. And it worked.”

The robot, tested in 2018 at a Boston tertiary care center, produced high-quality recommendations accepted by nurses and physicians 90% of the time. The android was taught to observe actual performances of human tasks – what was done and not done in certain situations – and develop a scheduling policy. The Shahs and their team were the first to field a robotic system on a labor and delivery unit to aid in the coordination of resources required for patient care.

“For the first time, we were able to develop a novel machine-learning technique that could learn from demonstration or observation, heuristics, or strategies for solving resource allocation and scheduling problems, which was really exciting,” Julie said. “We were able to show also how that system could be embedded to offer decision support to reduce the cognitive burden of nurses.”

Neel and Julie joke that their first collaboration dates back to middle school when they sang together in chorus. The Shahs grew up in the same small New Jersey town and met as 14-year-olds.

Though the Shahs have known each other more than half their lives, they haven’t always lived side by side. After they married, Julie accepted an opportunity in Seattle, while Neel remained 3,000 miles away in Boston.

“He does all the cooking, so I did not eat well,” Julie recalled with a laugh. “It was not great.”

“I don’t self-regulate well,” Neel adds. “I just worked 24/7. I started a nonprofit that year, so externally, it looked like I was crushing it, but …”

“He was lonely,” Julie says.

The Shah family

Now back in the same city, the Shahs are doting parents to two toddlers aged 2 and 4, and also serve as heads of house at an MIT graduate dorm.

Julie, 39, is an associate professor in the department of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT and leads the Interactive Robotics Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She is renowned for her innovative methods for enabling fluid human-robot teamwork in time- and safety-critical environments such as surgery, manufacturing, and space exploration. In 2014, she was recognized by the MIT Technology Review as one of the world’s top innovators under 35, and her work on industrial human-robot collaboration was recognized as one of the 10 breakthrough technologies of 2013.

Neel, 39, is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief medical officer of Maven Clinic, a virtual clinic for women’s and family health. A scientist and entrepreneur, Neel is globally recognized for designing solutions to improve health care. He is founder of Costs of Care, an NGO that curates insights from clinicians and patients to help delivery systems provide better care.

He also cofounded the March for Moms Association, a coalition of organizations that works to raise public and private investment in mothers’ well-being. Most recently, Neel and his team designed TeamBirth, an intrapartum care process that aims to improve the safety and dignity of childbirth care and promote communication and teamwork.

The Shah family

The Shahs say their personalities are sometimes opposite, but that they balance each other well.

“Julie thinks in lists, which sometimes drives me crazy, and I think in exploding clouds, which I think drives her crazy, but the combination usually works out,” Neel said. “We seem to be good complements for each other.”
 

In their own words

What is one food that your spouse eats that you can’t stand?

Neel: She eats raisins, and I hate raisins. Raisins are a crime against humanity. They’re wrong. The chocolate-covered raisins are even grosser.

What is one parenting difference you have?

Julie: Safety. I hover around the kids around safety hazards, and Neel is very relaxed. 

What’s one quirky thing about your partner?

Neel: She has a parrot that predates our marriage. He started out as an illegal dorm bird. He just screeches and poops. If you’re developing a character in a book or a movie and you want to make them seem slightly off, you make them a bird owner. Think about it.

Julie: He’s 19 and his name is Bolivar, after the South American revolutionary. He’s very sweet.

Neel: I live in a Hitchcock movie.

If you weren’t a physician/scientist, what is a dream job you might have?

Julie: I would be a dolphin trainer. That was my childhood dream.

Neel: I’d want to do something creative. I’ve always wanted to be a better musician. I play the guitar and piano.

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

Medical Power Couples is a new series highlighting spouses or domestic partners prominent in health care. Both have achieved high-level professional success and have made significant contributions to their respective fields.

Julie Shah, PhD, and Neel Shah, MD

The Shah family

Ob.gyn. Neel Shah was telling his wife how challenging it was for labor and delivery nurses to make room assignments: to delegate available beds, predict the timing of patient progression from one room to another, and pair patients with staff nurses, equipment, and resources. 

Julie Shah, a roboticist with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, compared the head nurses to air traffic controllers, but without near the decision support. Julie had previously worked for aerospace giant Boeing, where she helped design a set of algorithmic techniques to give decision support to manufacturing personnel and embed robots to aid their work.

Suddenly the Shahs had an idea.

“We got a grant together to see if we could augment the nurses by supporting them with computing,” Neel said. “We put a robot on the labor floor. And it worked.”

The robot, tested in 2018 at a Boston tertiary care center, produced high-quality recommendations accepted by nurses and physicians 90% of the time. The android was taught to observe actual performances of human tasks – what was done and not done in certain situations – and develop a scheduling policy. The Shahs and their team were the first to field a robotic system on a labor and delivery unit to aid in the coordination of resources required for patient care.

“For the first time, we were able to develop a novel machine-learning technique that could learn from demonstration or observation, heuristics, or strategies for solving resource allocation and scheduling problems, which was really exciting,” Julie said. “We were able to show also how that system could be embedded to offer decision support to reduce the cognitive burden of nurses.”

Neel and Julie joke that their first collaboration dates back to middle school when they sang together in chorus. The Shahs grew up in the same small New Jersey town and met as 14-year-olds.

Though the Shahs have known each other more than half their lives, they haven’t always lived side by side. After they married, Julie accepted an opportunity in Seattle, while Neel remained 3,000 miles away in Boston.

“He does all the cooking, so I did not eat well,” Julie recalled with a laugh. “It was not great.”

“I don’t self-regulate well,” Neel adds. “I just worked 24/7. I started a nonprofit that year, so externally, it looked like I was crushing it, but …”

“He was lonely,” Julie says.

The Shah family

Now back in the same city, the Shahs are doting parents to two toddlers aged 2 and 4, and also serve as heads of house at an MIT graduate dorm.

Julie, 39, is an associate professor in the department of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT and leads the Interactive Robotics Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She is renowned for her innovative methods for enabling fluid human-robot teamwork in time- and safety-critical environments such as surgery, manufacturing, and space exploration. In 2014, she was recognized by the MIT Technology Review as one of the world’s top innovators under 35, and her work on industrial human-robot collaboration was recognized as one of the 10 breakthrough technologies of 2013.

Neel, 39, is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief medical officer of Maven Clinic, a virtual clinic for women’s and family health. A scientist and entrepreneur, Neel is globally recognized for designing solutions to improve health care. He is founder of Costs of Care, an NGO that curates insights from clinicians and patients to help delivery systems provide better care.

He also cofounded the March for Moms Association, a coalition of organizations that works to raise public and private investment in mothers’ well-being. Most recently, Neel and his team designed TeamBirth, an intrapartum care process that aims to improve the safety and dignity of childbirth care and promote communication and teamwork.

The Shah family

The Shahs say their personalities are sometimes opposite, but that they balance each other well.

“Julie thinks in lists, which sometimes drives me crazy, and I think in exploding clouds, which I think drives her crazy, but the combination usually works out,” Neel said. “We seem to be good complements for each other.”
 

In their own words

What is one food that your spouse eats that you can’t stand?

Neel: She eats raisins, and I hate raisins. Raisins are a crime against humanity. They’re wrong. The chocolate-covered raisins are even grosser.

What is one parenting difference you have?

Julie: Safety. I hover around the kids around safety hazards, and Neel is very relaxed. 

What’s one quirky thing about your partner?

Neel: She has a parrot that predates our marriage. He started out as an illegal dorm bird. He just screeches and poops. If you’re developing a character in a book or a movie and you want to make them seem slightly off, you make them a bird owner. Think about it.

Julie: He’s 19 and his name is Bolivar, after the South American revolutionary. He’s very sweet.

Neel: I live in a Hitchcock movie.

If you weren’t a physician/scientist, what is a dream job you might have?

Julie: I would be a dolphin trainer. That was my childhood dream.

Neel: I’d want to do something creative. I’ve always wanted to be a better musician. I play the guitar and piano.

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

Medical Power Couples is a new series highlighting spouses or domestic partners prominent in health care. Both have achieved high-level professional success and have made significant contributions to their respective fields.

Julie Shah, PhD, and Neel Shah, MD

The Shah family

Ob.gyn. Neel Shah was telling his wife how challenging it was for labor and delivery nurses to make room assignments: to delegate available beds, predict the timing of patient progression from one room to another, and pair patients with staff nurses, equipment, and resources. 

Julie Shah, a roboticist with Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, compared the head nurses to air traffic controllers, but without near the decision support. Julie had previously worked for aerospace giant Boeing, where she helped design a set of algorithmic techniques to give decision support to manufacturing personnel and embed robots to aid their work.

Suddenly the Shahs had an idea.

“We got a grant together to see if we could augment the nurses by supporting them with computing,” Neel said. “We put a robot on the labor floor. And it worked.”

The robot, tested in 2018 at a Boston tertiary care center, produced high-quality recommendations accepted by nurses and physicians 90% of the time. The android was taught to observe actual performances of human tasks – what was done and not done in certain situations – and develop a scheduling policy. The Shahs and their team were the first to field a robotic system on a labor and delivery unit to aid in the coordination of resources required for patient care.

“For the first time, we were able to develop a novel machine-learning technique that could learn from demonstration or observation, heuristics, or strategies for solving resource allocation and scheduling problems, which was really exciting,” Julie said. “We were able to show also how that system could be embedded to offer decision support to reduce the cognitive burden of nurses.”

Neel and Julie joke that their first collaboration dates back to middle school when they sang together in chorus. The Shahs grew up in the same small New Jersey town and met as 14-year-olds.

Though the Shahs have known each other more than half their lives, they haven’t always lived side by side. After they married, Julie accepted an opportunity in Seattle, while Neel remained 3,000 miles away in Boston.

“He does all the cooking, so I did not eat well,” Julie recalled with a laugh. “It was not great.”

“I don’t self-regulate well,” Neel adds. “I just worked 24/7. I started a nonprofit that year, so externally, it looked like I was crushing it, but …”

“He was lonely,” Julie says.

The Shah family

Now back in the same city, the Shahs are doting parents to two toddlers aged 2 and 4, and also serve as heads of house at an MIT graduate dorm.

Julie, 39, is an associate professor in the department of aeronautics and astronautics at MIT and leads the Interactive Robotics Group of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. She is renowned for her innovative methods for enabling fluid human-robot teamwork in time- and safety-critical environments such as surgery, manufacturing, and space exploration. In 2014, she was recognized by the MIT Technology Review as one of the world’s top innovators under 35, and her work on industrial human-robot collaboration was recognized as one of the 10 breakthrough technologies of 2013.

Neel, 39, is an assistant professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology at Harvard Medical School in Boston and chief medical officer of Maven Clinic, a virtual clinic for women’s and family health. A scientist and entrepreneur, Neel is globally recognized for designing solutions to improve health care. He is founder of Costs of Care, an NGO that curates insights from clinicians and patients to help delivery systems provide better care.

He also cofounded the March for Moms Association, a coalition of organizations that works to raise public and private investment in mothers’ well-being. Most recently, Neel and his team designed TeamBirth, an intrapartum care process that aims to improve the safety and dignity of childbirth care and promote communication and teamwork.

The Shah family

The Shahs say their personalities are sometimes opposite, but that they balance each other well.

“Julie thinks in lists, which sometimes drives me crazy, and I think in exploding clouds, which I think drives her crazy, but the combination usually works out,” Neel said. “We seem to be good complements for each other.”
 

In their own words

What is one food that your spouse eats that you can’t stand?

Neel: She eats raisins, and I hate raisins. Raisins are a crime against humanity. They’re wrong. The chocolate-covered raisins are even grosser.

What is one parenting difference you have?

Julie: Safety. I hover around the kids around safety hazards, and Neel is very relaxed. 

What’s one quirky thing about your partner?

Neel: She has a parrot that predates our marriage. He started out as an illegal dorm bird. He just screeches and poops. If you’re developing a character in a book or a movie and you want to make them seem slightly off, you make them a bird owner. Think about it.

Julie: He’s 19 and his name is Bolivar, after the South American revolutionary. He’s very sweet.

Neel: I live in a Hitchcock movie.

If you weren’t a physician/scientist, what is a dream job you might have?

Julie: I would be a dolphin trainer. That was my childhood dream.

Neel: I’d want to do something creative. I’ve always wanted to be a better musician. I play the guitar and piano.

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