Pediatric News

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

Exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is more strongly associated with viral respiratory infections in children, compared with children who were exposed to tobacco smoke and those with no smoke exposure, new research shows.

“The findings of this study are interesting and pleasantly raise further questions,” said Kristen Miller, MD, attending physician in the division of pulmonary and sleep medicine at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study. “Given the robust literature regarding secondhand smoke exposure and the current landscape surrounding marijuana, this is a timely study to evaluate the prevalence of marijuana use and the associated effects of marijuana exposure among children.”

Prior research has linked primary marijuana use with respiratory effects. A 2020 study associated cannabis use with an increased risk of severe bronchitis, lung hyperinflation, and increased central airway resistance. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are still a lot of unanswered questions surrounding secondhand marijuana smoke exposure and its effects.

“If kids are exposed to enough secondhand smoke, regardless of what the substance is, they’re going to have some negative health outcomes with it,” study author Adam Johnson, MD, of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

The study, published in Pediatric Research, looked at rates of reported ED and urgent care visits and specific illnesses – such as otitis media, viral respiratory infections, and asthma exacerbations – among children with marijuana exposure and tobacco exposure.

For the study, Dr. Johnson and colleagues surveyed 1,500 parents and caregivers who went to an academic children’s hospital between Dec. 1, 2015, and July 30, 2017. Researchers found that children exposed to marijuana smoke had higher rates of ED visits at 2.21 within the past 12 months, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke (2.14 within the past 12 months) and those with no smoke exposure (1.94 within the past 12 months). However, the difference in these visits were not statistically significant.

Researchers saw that children exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke saw a 30% increase in viral respiratory infections, compared with those who were not exposed to tobacco or marijuana smoke, Dr. Johnson said. Caregivers who smoked marijuana reported a rate of 1.31 viral infections in their children within the last year. Meanwhile those who smoked tobacco reported a rate of 1.00 infections within the last 12 months and caregivers who did not smoke reported 1.04 infections within the year.

“It suggests that components in marijuana smoke may depress the body’s immune responses to viral infections in children,” Dr. Miller said in an interview.

When it came to otitis media episodes, children exposed to marijuana had a rate of 0.96 episodes within the past 12 months. Children experiencing secondhand tobacco smoke had a rate of 0.83 episodes and those with no smoke exposure had 0.75 episodes within the past 12 months. Researchers did not note this difference as statistically significant.

When it came to asthma exacerbations, children exposed to marijuana smoke also had statistically insignificantly higher rates of exacerbations, compared with those exposed to tobacco smoke and those not exposed to smoke.

“I think it was surprising that the survey results found that marijuana seemed to be more strongly associated with the viral respiratory infections than tobacco,” Dr. Johnson said. “We know that secondhand tobacco smoke exposure in kids does lead to things like otitis media or ear infections, asthma attacks, and other processes, including colds. It was interesting that we didn’t find that association [in the new study], but we found that with marijuana.”

Dr. Johnson said the findings are especially concerning with increases in the acceptance and accessibility of marijuana as it becomes legalized in many states.

A 2015 study examined the effect of secondhand marijuana smoke exposure. Researchers found that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke can increase heart rate, have mild to moderate sedative effects and can produce detectable cannabinoid levels in blood and urine. However, another study published in 2012 found that low to moderate primary marijuana use is less harmful to users’ lungs than tobacco exposure.

Dr. Miller added that little is known about how exposure to marijuana smoke can affect the innate responses to pathogens and there is a need to “study this in more detail” to figure out if secondhand marijuana smoke is a risk factor for either an increase in respiratory virus infections or their severity.

“These questions could have considerable implications for the health of our children and public health measures regarding marijuana use,” she explained. “As documented marijuana use increases, health care providers need to be aware of the effects of marijuana use and exposure.”

Neither Dr. Johnson nor Dr. Miller has any relevant financial disclosures.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if they’ve had the virus before. Yet many skeptics have held off getting the shots, believing that immunity generated by their previous infection will protect them if they should encounter the virus again. 

A new study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report pokes holes in this notion. It shows people who have recovered from COVID-19 but haven’t been vaccinated have more than double the risk of testing positive for the virus again, compared with someone who was vaccinated after an initial infection.

The study looked at 738 Kentucky residents who had an initial bout of COVID-19 in 2020. About 250 of them tested positive for COVID-19 a second time between May and July of 2021, when the Delta variant became dominant in the United States. 

The study matched each person who’d been reinfected with two people of the same sex and roughly the same age who had caught their initial COVID infection within the same week. The researchers then cross-matched those cases with data from Kentucky’s Immunization Registry.

They found that those who were unvaccinated had more than double the risk of being reinfected during the Delta wave. Partial vaccination appeared to have no significant impact on the risk of reinfection.

Among those who were reinfected, 20% were fully vaccinated, while 34% of those who did not get reinfected were fully vaccinated.

The study is observational, meaning it can’t show cause and effect; and the researchers had no information on the severity of the infections. Alyson Cavanaugh, PhD, a member of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service who led the study, said it is possible that some of the people who tested positive a second time had asymptomatic infections that were picked up through routine screening.

Still, the study backs up previous research and suggests that vaccination offers important additional protection.

“Our laboratory studies have shown that there’s an added benefit of vaccine for people who’ve had previous COVID-19. This is a real-world, epidemiologic study that found that among people who’d previously already had COVID-19, those who were vaccinated had lower odds of being reinfected,” Dr. Cavanaugh said.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, in a written media statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing in May, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, explained why vaccines create stronger immunity than infection. He highlighted new research showing that two doses of an mRNA vaccine produce levels of neutralizing antibodies that are up to 10 times higher than the levels found in the blood of people who’ve recovered from COVID-19. Vaccines also enhance B cells and T cells in people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, which broadens the spectrum of protection and helps to fend off variants.

The study has some important limitations, which the authors acknowledged. The first is that second infections weren’t confirmed with genetic sequencing, so the researchers couldn’t definitively tell if a person tested positive a second time because they caught a new virus, or if they were somehow still shedding virus from their first infection. Given that the tests were at least 5 months apart, though, the researchers think reinfection is the most likely explanation.

Another bias in the study could have something to do with vaccination. Vaccinated people may have been less likely to be tested for COVID-19 after their vaccines, so the association or reinfection with a lack of vaccination may be overestimated. 

Also, people who were vaccinated at federal sites or in another state were not logged in the state’s immunization registry, which may have skewed the data.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if they’ve had the virus before. Yet many skeptics have held off getting the shots, believing that immunity generated by their previous infection will protect them if they should encounter the virus again. 

A new study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report pokes holes in this notion. It shows people who have recovered from COVID-19 but haven’t been vaccinated have more than double the risk of testing positive for the virus again, compared with someone who was vaccinated after an initial infection.

The study looked at 738 Kentucky residents who had an initial bout of COVID-19 in 2020. About 250 of them tested positive for COVID-19 a second time between May and July of 2021, when the Delta variant became dominant in the United States. 

The study matched each person who’d been reinfected with two people of the same sex and roughly the same age who had caught their initial COVID infection within the same week. The researchers then cross-matched those cases with data from Kentucky’s Immunization Registry.

They found that those who were unvaccinated had more than double the risk of being reinfected during the Delta wave. Partial vaccination appeared to have no significant impact on the risk of reinfection.

Among those who were reinfected, 20% were fully vaccinated, while 34% of those who did not get reinfected were fully vaccinated.

The study is observational, meaning it can’t show cause and effect; and the researchers had no information on the severity of the infections. Alyson Cavanaugh, PhD, a member of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service who led the study, said it is possible that some of the people who tested positive a second time had asymptomatic infections that were picked up through routine screening.

Still, the study backs up previous research and suggests that vaccination offers important additional protection.

“Our laboratory studies have shown that there’s an added benefit of vaccine for people who’ve had previous COVID-19. This is a real-world, epidemiologic study that found that among people who’d previously already had COVID-19, those who were vaccinated had lower odds of being reinfected,” Dr. Cavanaugh said.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, in a written media statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing in May, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, explained why vaccines create stronger immunity than infection. He highlighted new research showing that two doses of an mRNA vaccine produce levels of neutralizing antibodies that are up to 10 times higher than the levels found in the blood of people who’ve recovered from COVID-19. Vaccines also enhance B cells and T cells in people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, which broadens the spectrum of protection and helps to fend off variants.

The study has some important limitations, which the authors acknowledged. The first is that second infections weren’t confirmed with genetic sequencing, so the researchers couldn’t definitively tell if a person tested positive a second time because they caught a new virus, or if they were somehow still shedding virus from their first infection. Given that the tests were at least 5 months apart, though, the researchers think reinfection is the most likely explanation.

Another bias in the study could have something to do with vaccination. Vaccinated people may have been less likely to be tested for COVID-19 after their vaccines, so the association or reinfection with a lack of vaccination may be overestimated. 

Also, people who were vaccinated at federal sites or in another state were not logged in the state’s immunization registry, which may have skewed the data.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended that everyone get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if they’ve had the virus before. Yet many skeptics have held off getting the shots, believing that immunity generated by their previous infection will protect them if they should encounter the virus again. 

A new study published in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report pokes holes in this notion. It shows people who have recovered from COVID-19 but haven’t been vaccinated have more than double the risk of testing positive for the virus again, compared with someone who was vaccinated after an initial infection.

The study looked at 738 Kentucky residents who had an initial bout of COVID-19 in 2020. About 250 of them tested positive for COVID-19 a second time between May and July of 2021, when the Delta variant became dominant in the United States. 

The study matched each person who’d been reinfected with two people of the same sex and roughly the same age who had caught their initial COVID infection within the same week. The researchers then cross-matched those cases with data from Kentucky’s Immunization Registry.

They found that those who were unvaccinated had more than double the risk of being reinfected during the Delta wave. Partial vaccination appeared to have no significant impact on the risk of reinfection.

Among those who were reinfected, 20% were fully vaccinated, while 34% of those who did not get reinfected were fully vaccinated.

The study is observational, meaning it can’t show cause and effect; and the researchers had no information on the severity of the infections. Alyson Cavanaugh, PhD, a member of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service who led the study, said it is possible that some of the people who tested positive a second time had asymptomatic infections that were picked up through routine screening.

Still, the study backs up previous research and suggests that vaccination offers important additional protection.

“Our laboratory studies have shown that there’s an added benefit of vaccine for people who’ve had previous COVID-19. This is a real-world, epidemiologic study that found that among people who’d previously already had COVID-19, those who were vaccinated had lower odds of being reinfected,” Dr. Cavanaugh said.

“If you have had COVID-19 before, please still get vaccinated,” said CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, in a written media statement. “This study shows you are twice as likely to get infected again if you are unvaccinated. Getting the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself and others around you, especially as the more contagious Delta variant spreads around the country.”

In a White House COVID-19 Response Team briefing in May, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, explained why vaccines create stronger immunity than infection. He highlighted new research showing that two doses of an mRNA vaccine produce levels of neutralizing antibodies that are up to 10 times higher than the levels found in the blood of people who’ve recovered from COVID-19. Vaccines also enhance B cells and T cells in people who’ve recovered from COVID-19, which broadens the spectrum of protection and helps to fend off variants.

The study has some important limitations, which the authors acknowledged. The first is that second infections weren’t confirmed with genetic sequencing, so the researchers couldn’t definitively tell if a person tested positive a second time because they caught a new virus, or if they were somehow still shedding virus from their first infection. Given that the tests were at least 5 months apart, though, the researchers think reinfection is the most likely explanation.

Another bias in the study could have something to do with vaccination. Vaccinated people may have been less likely to be tested for COVID-19 after their vaccines, so the association or reinfection with a lack of vaccination may be overestimated. 

Also, people who were vaccinated at federal sites or in another state were not logged in the state’s immunization registry, which may have skewed the data.

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

“From a public health standpoint, I think we have an evolving situation,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a moderated session with Lee Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“From a public health standpoint, I think we have an evolving situation,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a moderated session with Lee Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

“From a public health standpoint, I think we have an evolving situation,” said Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in a moderated session with Lee Beers, MD, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Over the 10 years we’ve been writing this column, we have often found inspiration for topics while traveling – especially while flying. This is not just because of the idle time spent in the air, but instead because of the many ways that air travel and health care experiences are similar. Both industries focus heavily on safety, are tightly regulated, and employ highly trained individuals.

Consumers may recognize the similarities as well – health care and air travel are both well-known for long waits, uncertainty, and implicit risk. Both sectors are also notorious drivers of innovation, constantly leveraging new technologies in pursuit of better outcomes and experiences. Occasionally, however, advancements in technology can present unforeseen challenges and even compromise safety, with the potential to produce unexpected consequences.

A familiar reminder of this potential was provided to us at the commencement of a recent flight, when we were instructed to turn off our personal electronic devices or flip them into “airplane mode.” This same admonishment is often given to patients and visitors in health care settings – everywhere from clinic waiting rooms to intensive care units – though the reason for this is typically left vague. This got us thinking. We wondered, what is the real risk of smart phones in medicine , or aviation, for that matter. More importantly, what other emerging technologies have the potential to create issues we may not have anticipated?

Mayo Clinic findings on radio communication used by mobile phones

Once our flight landed, we did some research to answer our initial question about personal communication technology and its ability to interfere with sensitive electronic devices. Specifically, we wanted to know whether radio communication used by mobile phones could affect the operation of medical equipment, potentially leading to dire consequences for patients. Spoiler alert: There is very little evidence that this can occur. In fact, a well-documented study performed by the Mayo Clinic in 2007 found interference in 0 out of 300 tests performed. To quote the authors, “the incidence of clinically important interference was 0%.”

We could find no other studies since 2007 that strongly contradict Mayo’s findings, except for several anecdotal reports and articles that postulate the theoretical possibility.

This is confirmed by the American Heart Association, who maintains a list of devices that may interfere with ICDs and pacemakers on their website. According to the AHA, “wireless transmissions from the antennae of phones available in the United States are a very small risk to ICDs and even less of a risk for pacemakers.” And in case you’re wondering, the story is quite similar for airplanes as well.

The latest publication from NASA’s Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) documents incidents related to personal electronic devices during air travel. Most involve smoke production – or even small fires – caused by malfunctioning phone batteries during charging. Only a few entries reference wireless interference, and these were all minor and unconfirmed events. As with health care environments, airplanes don’t appear to face significant risks from radio interference. But that doesn’t mean personal electronics are completely harmless to patients.

Smartphones’ risks to patient with cardiac devices

On May 13 of 2021, the FDA issued a warning to cardiac patients about their smart phones and smart watches. Many current personal electronic devices and accessories are equipped with strong magnets, such as those contained in the “MagSafe” connector on the iPhone 12, that can deactivate pacemakers and implanted cardiac defibrillators. These medical devices are designed to be manipulated by magnets for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, but strong magnetic fields can disable them unintentionally, leading to catastrophic results.

Apple and other manufacturers have acknowledged this risk and recommend that smartphones and other devices be kept at least 6 inches from cardiac devices. Given the ubiquity of offending products, it is also imperative that we warn our patients about this risk to their physical wellbeing.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

A combination of two monoclonal antibodies given as a subcutaneous injection prevented COVID-19 in patients at a high risk of infection due to household exposure, according to results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published online August 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The cocktail of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) reduced participants’ relative risk of infection by 72%, compared with placebo within the first week. After the first week, risk reduction increased to 93%.

“Long after you would be exposed by your household, there is an enduring effect that prevents you from community spread,” said David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was a site investigator for the trial but not a study author.

Participants were enrolled within 96 hours after someone in their household tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV subcutaneously or a placebo. Based on serologic testing, study participants showed no evidence of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age of participants was 42.9, but 45% were male teenagers (ages 12-17).

In the group that received REGEN-COV, 11 out of 753 participants developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared with 59 out of 752 participants who received placebo. The relative risk reduction for the study’s 4-week period was 81.4% (P < .001). Of the participants that did develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection, those that received REGEN-COV were less likely to be symptomatic. Asymptomatic infections developed in 25 participants who received REGEN-COV versus 48 in the placebo group. The relative risk of developing any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was reduced by 66.4% with REGEN-COV (P < .001).

Among the patients who were symptomatic, symptoms subsided within a median of 1.2 weeks for the group that received REGEN-COV, 2 weeks earlier than the placebo group. These patients also had a shorter duration of a high viral load (>104 copies/mL). Few adverse events were reported in the treatment or placebo groups. Monoclonal antibodies “seem to be incredibly safe,” Dr. Wohl said.

“These monoclonal antibodies have proven they can reduce the viral replication in the nose,” said study author Myron Cohen, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

The Food and Drug Administration first granted REGEN-COV emergency use authorization (EUA) in November 2020 for use in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who were also at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19. At that time, the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies was delivered by a single intravenous infusion.

In January, Regeneron first announced the success of this trial of the subcutaneous injection for exposed household contacts based on early results, and in June of 2021, the FDA expanded the EUA to include a subcutaneous delivery when IV is not feasible. On July 30, the EUA was expanded again to include prophylactic use in exposed patients based on these trial results.

The U.S. government has purchased approximately 1.5 million doses of REGEN-COV from Regeneron and has agreed to make the treatments free of charge to patients.

But despite being free, available, and backed by promising data, monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic answer to COVID-19 still hasn’t really taken off. “The problem is, it first requires knowledge and awareness,” Dr. Wohl said. “A lot [of people] don’t know this exists. To be honest, vaccination has taken up all the oxygen in the room.”

Dr. Cohen agreed. One reason for the slow uptake may be because the drug supply is owned by the government and not a pharmaceutical company. There hasn’t been a typical marketing push to make physicians and consumers aware. Additionally, “the logistics are daunting,” Dr. Cohen said. The office spaces where many physicians care for patients “often aren’t appropriate for patients who think they have SARS-CoV-2.”

“Right now, there’s not a mechanism” to administer the drug to people who could benefit from it, Dr. Wohl said. Eligible patients are either immunocompromised and unlikely to mount a sufficient immune response with vaccination, or not fully vaccinated. They should have been exposed to an infected individual or have a high likelihood of exposure due to where they live, such as in a prison or nursing home. Local doctors are unlikely to be the primary administrators of the drug, Dr. Wohl added. “How do we operationalize this for people who fit the criteria?”

There’s also an issue of timing. REGEN-COV is most effective when given early, Dr. Cohen said. “[Monoclonal antibodies] really only work well in the replication phase.” Many patients who would be eligible delay care until they’ve had symptoms for several days, when REGEN-COV would no longer have the desired effect.

Eventually, Dr. Wohl suspects demand will increase when people realize REGEN-COV can help those with COVID-19 and those who have been exposed. But before then, “we do have to think about how to integrate this into a workflow people can access without being confused.”

The trial was done before there was widespread vaccination, so it’s unclear what the results mean for people who have been vaccinated. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Wohl said there are ongoing conversations about whether monoclonal antibodies could be complementary to vaccination and if there’s potential for continued monthly use of these therapies.

Cohen and Wohl reported no relevant financial relationships. The trial was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, and the COVID-19 Prevention Network.

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

A combination of two monoclonal antibodies given as a subcutaneous injection prevented COVID-19 in patients at a high risk of infection due to household exposure, according to results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published online August 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The cocktail of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) reduced participants’ relative risk of infection by 72%, compared with placebo within the first week. After the first week, risk reduction increased to 93%.

“Long after you would be exposed by your household, there is an enduring effect that prevents you from community spread,” said David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was a site investigator for the trial but not a study author.

Participants were enrolled within 96 hours after someone in their household tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV subcutaneously or a placebo. Based on serologic testing, study participants showed no evidence of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age of participants was 42.9, but 45% were male teenagers (ages 12-17).

In the group that received REGEN-COV, 11 out of 753 participants developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared with 59 out of 752 participants who received placebo. The relative risk reduction for the study’s 4-week period was 81.4% (P < .001). Of the participants that did develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection, those that received REGEN-COV were less likely to be symptomatic. Asymptomatic infections developed in 25 participants who received REGEN-COV versus 48 in the placebo group. The relative risk of developing any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was reduced by 66.4% with REGEN-COV (P < .001).

Among the patients who were symptomatic, symptoms subsided within a median of 1.2 weeks for the group that received REGEN-COV, 2 weeks earlier than the placebo group. These patients also had a shorter duration of a high viral load (>104 copies/mL). Few adverse events were reported in the treatment or placebo groups. Monoclonal antibodies “seem to be incredibly safe,” Dr. Wohl said.

“These monoclonal antibodies have proven they can reduce the viral replication in the nose,” said study author Myron Cohen, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

The Food and Drug Administration first granted REGEN-COV emergency use authorization (EUA) in November 2020 for use in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who were also at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19. At that time, the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies was delivered by a single intravenous infusion.

In January, Regeneron first announced the success of this trial of the subcutaneous injection for exposed household contacts based on early results, and in June of 2021, the FDA expanded the EUA to include a subcutaneous delivery when IV is not feasible. On July 30, the EUA was expanded again to include prophylactic use in exposed patients based on these trial results.

The U.S. government has purchased approximately 1.5 million doses of REGEN-COV from Regeneron and has agreed to make the treatments free of charge to patients.

But despite being free, available, and backed by promising data, monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic answer to COVID-19 still hasn’t really taken off. “The problem is, it first requires knowledge and awareness,” Dr. Wohl said. “A lot [of people] don’t know this exists. To be honest, vaccination has taken up all the oxygen in the room.”

Dr. Cohen agreed. One reason for the slow uptake may be because the drug supply is owned by the government and not a pharmaceutical company. There hasn’t been a typical marketing push to make physicians and consumers aware. Additionally, “the logistics are daunting,” Dr. Cohen said. The office spaces where many physicians care for patients “often aren’t appropriate for patients who think they have SARS-CoV-2.”

“Right now, there’s not a mechanism” to administer the drug to people who could benefit from it, Dr. Wohl said. Eligible patients are either immunocompromised and unlikely to mount a sufficient immune response with vaccination, or not fully vaccinated. They should have been exposed to an infected individual or have a high likelihood of exposure due to where they live, such as in a prison or nursing home. Local doctors are unlikely to be the primary administrators of the drug, Dr. Wohl added. “How do we operationalize this for people who fit the criteria?”

There’s also an issue of timing. REGEN-COV is most effective when given early, Dr. Cohen said. “[Monoclonal antibodies] really only work well in the replication phase.” Many patients who would be eligible delay care until they’ve had symptoms for several days, when REGEN-COV would no longer have the desired effect.

Eventually, Dr. Wohl suspects demand will increase when people realize REGEN-COV can help those with COVID-19 and those who have been exposed. But before then, “we do have to think about how to integrate this into a workflow people can access without being confused.”

The trial was done before there was widespread vaccination, so it’s unclear what the results mean for people who have been vaccinated. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Wohl said there are ongoing conversations about whether monoclonal antibodies could be complementary to vaccination and if there’s potential for continued monthly use of these therapies.

Cohen and Wohl reported no relevant financial relationships. The trial was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, and the COVID-19 Prevention Network.

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

A combination of two monoclonal antibodies given as a subcutaneous injection prevented COVID-19 in patients at a high risk of infection due to household exposure, according to results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial published online August 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The cocktail of the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (REGEN-COV, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals) reduced participants’ relative risk of infection by 72%, compared with placebo within the first week. After the first week, risk reduction increased to 93%.

“Long after you would be exposed by your household, there is an enduring effect that prevents you from community spread,” said David Wohl, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was a site investigator for the trial but not a study author.

Participants were enrolled within 96 hours after someone in their household tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1,200 mg of REGEN-COV subcutaneously or a placebo. Based on serologic testing, study participants showed no evidence of current or previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The median age of participants was 42.9, but 45% were male teenagers (ages 12-17).

In the group that received REGEN-COV, 11 out of 753 participants developed symptomatic COVID-19, compared with 59 out of 752 participants who received placebo. The relative risk reduction for the study’s 4-week period was 81.4% (P < .001). Of the participants that did develop a SARS-CoV-2 infection, those that received REGEN-COV were less likely to be symptomatic. Asymptomatic infections developed in 25 participants who received REGEN-COV versus 48 in the placebo group. The relative risk of developing any SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptomatic or asymptomatic, was reduced by 66.4% with REGEN-COV (P < .001).

Among the patients who were symptomatic, symptoms subsided within a median of 1.2 weeks for the group that received REGEN-COV, 2 weeks earlier than the placebo group. These patients also had a shorter duration of a high viral load (>104 copies/mL). Few adverse events were reported in the treatment or placebo groups. Monoclonal antibodies “seem to be incredibly safe,” Dr. Wohl said.

“These monoclonal antibodies have proven they can reduce the viral replication in the nose,” said study author Myron Cohen, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor of epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

The Food and Drug Administration first granted REGEN-COV emergency use authorization (EUA) in November 2020 for use in patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 who were also at high risk for progressing to severe COVID-19. At that time, the cocktail of monoclonal antibodies was delivered by a single intravenous infusion.

In January, Regeneron first announced the success of this trial of the subcutaneous injection for exposed household contacts based on early results, and in June of 2021, the FDA expanded the EUA to include a subcutaneous delivery when IV is not feasible. On July 30, the EUA was expanded again to include prophylactic use in exposed patients based on these trial results.

The U.S. government has purchased approximately 1.5 million doses of REGEN-COV from Regeneron and has agreed to make the treatments free of charge to patients.

But despite being free, available, and backed by promising data, monoclonal antibodies as a therapeutic answer to COVID-19 still hasn’t really taken off. “The problem is, it first requires knowledge and awareness,” Dr. Wohl said. “A lot [of people] don’t know this exists. To be honest, vaccination has taken up all the oxygen in the room.”

Dr. Cohen agreed. One reason for the slow uptake may be because the drug supply is owned by the government and not a pharmaceutical company. There hasn’t been a typical marketing push to make physicians and consumers aware. Additionally, “the logistics are daunting,” Dr. Cohen said. The office spaces where many physicians care for patients “often aren’t appropriate for patients who think they have SARS-CoV-2.”

“Right now, there’s not a mechanism” to administer the drug to people who could benefit from it, Dr. Wohl said. Eligible patients are either immunocompromised and unlikely to mount a sufficient immune response with vaccination, or not fully vaccinated. They should have been exposed to an infected individual or have a high likelihood of exposure due to where they live, such as in a prison or nursing home. Local doctors are unlikely to be the primary administrators of the drug, Dr. Wohl added. “How do we operationalize this for people who fit the criteria?”

There’s also an issue of timing. REGEN-COV is most effective when given early, Dr. Cohen said. “[Monoclonal antibodies] really only work well in the replication phase.” Many patients who would be eligible delay care until they’ve had symptoms for several days, when REGEN-COV would no longer have the desired effect.

Eventually, Dr. Wohl suspects demand will increase when people realize REGEN-COV can help those with COVID-19 and those who have been exposed. But before then, “we do have to think about how to integrate this into a workflow people can access without being confused.”

The trial was done before there was widespread vaccination, so it’s unclear what the results mean for people who have been vaccinated. Dr. Cohen and Dr. Wohl said there are ongoing conversations about whether monoclonal antibodies could be complementary to vaccination and if there’s potential for continued monthly use of these therapies.

Cohen and Wohl reported no relevant financial relationships. The trial was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH, and the COVID-19 Prevention Network.

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

The U.S. health care system ranked last overall among 11 high-income countries in an analysis by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, according to a report released on Aug. 4.

The report is the seventh international comparison of countries’ health systems by the Commonwealth Fund since 2004, and the United States has ranked last in every edition, David Blumenthal, MD, president of the Commonwealth Fund, told reporters during a press briefing.

Researchers analyzed survey answers from tens of thousands of patients and physicians in 11 countries. They analyzed performance on 71 measures across five categories – access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. Administrative data were gathered from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Health Organization.

Among contributors to the poor showing by the United States is that half (50%) of lower-income U.S. adults and 27% of higher-income U.S. adults say costs keep them from getting needed health care.

“In no other country does income inequality so profoundly limit access to care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

In the United Kingdom, only 12% with lower incomes and 7% with higher incomes said costs kept them from care.

In a stark comparison, the researchers found that “a high-income person in the U.S. was more likely to report financial barriers than a low-income person in nearly all the other countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.”

Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia were ranked at the top overall in that order. Rounding out the 11 in overall ranking were the U.K., Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Canada, and the United States.

“What this report tells us is that our health care system is not working for Americans, particularly those with lower incomes, who are at a severe disadvantage compared to citizens of other countries. And they are paying the price with their health and their lives,” Dr. Blumenthal said in a press release.

“To catch up with other high-income countries, the administration and Congress would have to expand access to health care, equitably, to all Americans, act aggressively to control costs, and invest in the social services we know can lead to a healthier population.”
 

High infant mortality, low life expectancy in U.S.

Several factors contributed to the U.S. ranking at the bottom of the outcomes category. Among them are that the United States has the highest infant mortality rate (5.7 deaths per 1,000 live births) and lowest life expectancy at age 60 (living on average 23.1 years after age 60), compared with the other countries surveyed. The U.S. rate of preventable mortality (177 deaths per 100,000 population) is more than double that of the best-performing country, Switzerland.

Lead author Eric Schneider, MD, senior vice president for policy and research at the Commonwealth Fund, pointed out that, in terms of the change in avoidable mortality over a decade, not only did the United States have the highest rate, compared with the other countries surveyed, “it also experienced the smallest decline in avoidable mortality over that 10-year period.”

The U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births is twice that of France, the country with the next-highest rate (7.6 deaths per 100,000 live births).
 

U.S. excelled in only one category

The only category in which the United States did not rank last was in “care process,” where it ranked second behind only New Zealand.

The care process category combines preventive care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient engagement and preferences. The category includes indicators such as mammography screening and influenza vaccination for older adults as well as the percentage of adults counseled by a health care provider about nutrition, smoking, or alcohol use.

The United States and Germany performed best on engagement and patient preferences, although U.S. adults have the lowest rates of continuity with the same doctor.

New Zealand and the United States ranked highest in the safe care category, with higher reported use of computerized alerts and routine review of medications.
 

‘Too little, too late’: Key recommendations for U.S. to improve

Reginald Williams, vice president of International Health Policy and Practice Innovations at the Commonwealth Fund, pointed out that the U.S. shortcomings in health care come despite spending more than twice as much of its GDP (17% in 2019) as the average OECD country.

“It appears that the US delivers too little of the care that is most needed and often delivers that care too late, especially for people with chronic illnesses,” he said.

He then summarized the team’s recommendations on how the United States can change course.

First is expanding insurance coverage, he said, noting that the United States is the only one of the 11 countries that lacks universal coverage and nearly 30 million people remain uninsured.

Top-performing countries in the survey have universal coverage, annual out-of-pocket caps on covered benefits, and full coverage for primary care and treatment for chronic conditions, he said.

The United States must also improve access to care, he said.

“Top-ranking countries like the Netherlands and Norway ensure timely availability to care by telephone on nights and weekends, and in-person follow-up at home, if needed,” he said.

Mr. Williams said reducing administrative burdens is also critical to free up resources for improving health. He gave an example: “Norway determines patient copayments or physician fees on a regional basis, applying standardized copayments to all physicians within a specialty in a geographic area.”

Reducing income-related barriers is important as well, he said.

The fear of unpredictably high bills and other issues prevent people in the United States from getting the care they ultimately need, he said, adding that top-performing countries invest more in social services to reduce health risks.

That could have implications for the COVID-19 response.

Responding effectively to COVID-19 requires that patients can access affordable health care services, Mr. Williams noted.

“We know from our research that more than two-thirds of U.S. adults say their potential out-of-pocket costs would figure prominently in their decisions to get care if they had coronavirus symptoms,” he said.

Dr. Schneider summed up in the press release: “This study makes clear that higher U.S. spending on health care is not producing better health especially as the U.S. continues on a path of deepening inequality. A country that spends as much as we do should have the best health system in the world. We should adapt what works in other high-income countries to build a better health care system that provides affordable, high-quality health care for everyone.”

Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Schneider, and Mr. Williams reported no relevant financial relationships outside their employment with the Commonwealth Fund. 

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

The U.S. health care system ranked last overall among 11 high-income countries in an analysis by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, according to a report released on Aug. 4.

The report is the seventh international comparison of countries’ health systems by the Commonwealth Fund since 2004, and the United States has ranked last in every edition, David Blumenthal, MD, president of the Commonwealth Fund, told reporters during a press briefing.

Researchers analyzed survey answers from tens of thousands of patients and physicians in 11 countries. They analyzed performance on 71 measures across five categories – access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. Administrative data were gathered from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Health Organization.

Among contributors to the poor showing by the United States is that half (50%) of lower-income U.S. adults and 27% of higher-income U.S. adults say costs keep them from getting needed health care.

“In no other country does income inequality so profoundly limit access to care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

In the United Kingdom, only 12% with lower incomes and 7% with higher incomes said costs kept them from care.

In a stark comparison, the researchers found that “a high-income person in the U.S. was more likely to report financial barriers than a low-income person in nearly all the other countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.”

Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia were ranked at the top overall in that order. Rounding out the 11 in overall ranking were the U.K., Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Canada, and the United States.

“What this report tells us is that our health care system is not working for Americans, particularly those with lower incomes, who are at a severe disadvantage compared to citizens of other countries. And they are paying the price with their health and their lives,” Dr. Blumenthal said in a press release.

“To catch up with other high-income countries, the administration and Congress would have to expand access to health care, equitably, to all Americans, act aggressively to control costs, and invest in the social services we know can lead to a healthier population.”
 

High infant mortality, low life expectancy in U.S.

Several factors contributed to the U.S. ranking at the bottom of the outcomes category. Among them are that the United States has the highest infant mortality rate (5.7 deaths per 1,000 live births) and lowest life expectancy at age 60 (living on average 23.1 years after age 60), compared with the other countries surveyed. The U.S. rate of preventable mortality (177 deaths per 100,000 population) is more than double that of the best-performing country, Switzerland.

Lead author Eric Schneider, MD, senior vice president for policy and research at the Commonwealth Fund, pointed out that, in terms of the change in avoidable mortality over a decade, not only did the United States have the highest rate, compared with the other countries surveyed, “it also experienced the smallest decline in avoidable mortality over that 10-year period.”

The U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births is twice that of France, the country with the next-highest rate (7.6 deaths per 100,000 live births).
 

U.S. excelled in only one category

The only category in which the United States did not rank last was in “care process,” where it ranked second behind only New Zealand.

The care process category combines preventive care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient engagement and preferences. The category includes indicators such as mammography screening and influenza vaccination for older adults as well as the percentage of adults counseled by a health care provider about nutrition, smoking, or alcohol use.

The United States and Germany performed best on engagement and patient preferences, although U.S. adults have the lowest rates of continuity with the same doctor.

New Zealand and the United States ranked highest in the safe care category, with higher reported use of computerized alerts and routine review of medications.
 

‘Too little, too late’: Key recommendations for U.S. to improve

Reginald Williams, vice president of International Health Policy and Practice Innovations at the Commonwealth Fund, pointed out that the U.S. shortcomings in health care come despite spending more than twice as much of its GDP (17% in 2019) as the average OECD country.

“It appears that the US delivers too little of the care that is most needed and often delivers that care too late, especially for people with chronic illnesses,” he said.

He then summarized the team’s recommendations on how the United States can change course.

First is expanding insurance coverage, he said, noting that the United States is the only one of the 11 countries that lacks universal coverage and nearly 30 million people remain uninsured.

Top-performing countries in the survey have universal coverage, annual out-of-pocket caps on covered benefits, and full coverage for primary care and treatment for chronic conditions, he said.

The United States must also improve access to care, he said.

“Top-ranking countries like the Netherlands and Norway ensure timely availability to care by telephone on nights and weekends, and in-person follow-up at home, if needed,” he said.

Mr. Williams said reducing administrative burdens is also critical to free up resources for improving health. He gave an example: “Norway determines patient copayments or physician fees on a regional basis, applying standardized copayments to all physicians within a specialty in a geographic area.”

Reducing income-related barriers is important as well, he said.

The fear of unpredictably high bills and other issues prevent people in the United States from getting the care they ultimately need, he said, adding that top-performing countries invest more in social services to reduce health risks.

That could have implications for the COVID-19 response.

Responding effectively to COVID-19 requires that patients can access affordable health care services, Mr. Williams noted.

“We know from our research that more than two-thirds of U.S. adults say their potential out-of-pocket costs would figure prominently in their decisions to get care if they had coronavirus symptoms,” he said.

Dr. Schneider summed up in the press release: “This study makes clear that higher U.S. spending on health care is not producing better health especially as the U.S. continues on a path of deepening inequality. A country that spends as much as we do should have the best health system in the world. We should adapt what works in other high-income countries to build a better health care system that provides affordable, high-quality health care for everyone.”

Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Schneider, and Mr. Williams reported no relevant financial relationships outside their employment with the Commonwealth Fund. 

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

The U.S. health care system ranked last overall among 11 high-income countries in an analysis by the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, according to a report released on Aug. 4.

The report is the seventh international comparison of countries’ health systems by the Commonwealth Fund since 2004, and the United States has ranked last in every edition, David Blumenthal, MD, president of the Commonwealth Fund, told reporters during a press briefing.

Researchers analyzed survey answers from tens of thousands of patients and physicians in 11 countries. They analyzed performance on 71 measures across five categories – access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes. Administrative data were gathered from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Health Organization.

Among contributors to the poor showing by the United States is that half (50%) of lower-income U.S. adults and 27% of higher-income U.S. adults say costs keep them from getting needed health care.

“In no other country does income inequality so profoundly limit access to care,” Dr. Blumenthal said.

In the United Kingdom, only 12% with lower incomes and 7% with higher incomes said costs kept them from care.

In a stark comparison, the researchers found that “a high-income person in the U.S. was more likely to report financial barriers than a low-income person in nearly all the other countries surveyed: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K.”

Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia were ranked at the top overall in that order. Rounding out the 11 in overall ranking were the U.K., Germany, New Zealand, Sweden, France, Switzerland, Canada, and the United States.

“What this report tells us is that our health care system is not working for Americans, particularly those with lower incomes, who are at a severe disadvantage compared to citizens of other countries. And they are paying the price with their health and their lives,” Dr. Blumenthal said in a press release.

“To catch up with other high-income countries, the administration and Congress would have to expand access to health care, equitably, to all Americans, act aggressively to control costs, and invest in the social services we know can lead to a healthier population.”
 

High infant mortality, low life expectancy in U.S.

Several factors contributed to the U.S. ranking at the bottom of the outcomes category. Among them are that the United States has the highest infant mortality rate (5.7 deaths per 1,000 live births) and lowest life expectancy at age 60 (living on average 23.1 years after age 60), compared with the other countries surveyed. The U.S. rate of preventable mortality (177 deaths per 100,000 population) is more than double that of the best-performing country, Switzerland.

Lead author Eric Schneider, MD, senior vice president for policy and research at the Commonwealth Fund, pointed out that, in terms of the change in avoidable mortality over a decade, not only did the United States have the highest rate, compared with the other countries surveyed, “it also experienced the smallest decline in avoidable mortality over that 10-year period.”

The U.S. maternal mortality rate of 17.4 deaths per 100,000 live births is twice that of France, the country with the next-highest rate (7.6 deaths per 100,000 live births).
 

U.S. excelled in only one category

The only category in which the United States did not rank last was in “care process,” where it ranked second behind only New Zealand.

The care process category combines preventive care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient engagement and preferences. The category includes indicators such as mammography screening and influenza vaccination for older adults as well as the percentage of adults counseled by a health care provider about nutrition, smoking, or alcohol use.

The United States and Germany performed best on engagement and patient preferences, although U.S. adults have the lowest rates of continuity with the same doctor.

New Zealand and the United States ranked highest in the safe care category, with higher reported use of computerized alerts and routine review of medications.
 

‘Too little, too late’: Key recommendations for U.S. to improve

Reginald Williams, vice president of International Health Policy and Practice Innovations at the Commonwealth Fund, pointed out that the U.S. shortcomings in health care come despite spending more than twice as much of its GDP (17% in 2019) as the average OECD country.

“It appears that the US delivers too little of the care that is most needed and often delivers that care too late, especially for people with chronic illnesses,” he said.

He then summarized the team’s recommendations on how the United States can change course.

First is expanding insurance coverage, he said, noting that the United States is the only one of the 11 countries that lacks universal coverage and nearly 30 million people remain uninsured.

Top-performing countries in the survey have universal coverage, annual out-of-pocket caps on covered benefits, and full coverage for primary care and treatment for chronic conditions, he said.

The United States must also improve access to care, he said.

“Top-ranking countries like the Netherlands and Norway ensure timely availability to care by telephone on nights and weekends, and in-person follow-up at home, if needed,” he said.

Mr. Williams said reducing administrative burdens is also critical to free up resources for improving health. He gave an example: “Norway determines patient copayments or physician fees on a regional basis, applying standardized copayments to all physicians within a specialty in a geographic area.”

Reducing income-related barriers is important as well, he said.

The fear of unpredictably high bills and other issues prevent people in the United States from getting the care they ultimately need, he said, adding that top-performing countries invest more in social services to reduce health risks.

That could have implications for the COVID-19 response.

Responding effectively to COVID-19 requires that patients can access affordable health care services, Mr. Williams noted.

“We know from our research that more than two-thirds of U.S. adults say their potential out-of-pocket costs would figure prominently in their decisions to get care if they had coronavirus symptoms,” he said.

Dr. Schneider summed up in the press release: “This study makes clear that higher U.S. spending on health care is not producing better health especially as the U.S. continues on a path of deepening inequality. A country that spends as much as we do should have the best health system in the world. We should adapt what works in other high-income countries to build a better health care system that provides affordable, high-quality health care for everyone.”

Dr. Blumenthal, Dr. Schneider, and Mr. Williams reported no relevant financial relationships outside their employment with the Commonwealth Fund. 

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

When the Delta variant of the coronavirus was first identified in India in December 2020, the threat may have seemed too remote to trigger worry in the United States, although the horror of it ripping through the country was soon hard to ignore.

Within months, the Delta variant had spread to more than 98 countries, including Scotland, the United Kingdom, Israel, and now, of course, the United States. The CDC said this week the Delta variant now accounts for 93% of all COVID cases.

Fueled by Delta, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are increasing in nearly all states, according to the latest CDC data. After the 7-day average number of cases dipped by June 22 to about 11,000, it rose by Aug. 3 to more than 85,000.

Some experts are heartened by the recent decrease in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom and India, both hard-hit with the Delta variant. COVID-19 cases in India peaked at more than 400,000 a day in May; by Aug. 2, that had dropped to about 30,500 daily.

Andy Slavitt, former Biden White House senior adviser for COVID-19 response, tweeted July 26 that, if the Delta variant acted the same in the United Kingdom as in India, it would have a quick rise and a quick drop.

The prediction seems to have come true. As of Aug. 3, U.K. cases have dropped to 7,467, compared with more than 46,800 July 19.

So the question of the summer has become: “When will Delta burn out here?”

Like other pandemic predictions, these are all over the board. Here are five predictions about when COVID cases will peak, then fall. They range from less than 2 weeks to more than 2 months:

• Mid-August: Among the most optimistic predictions of when the Delta-driven COVID-19 cases will decline is from Scott Gottlieb, MD, former FDA director. He told CNBC on July 28 that he would expect cases to decline in 2-3 weeks – so by August 11.
• Mid-August to mid-September: Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that, “right now for the U.S. as a country, cases will peak mid-August” and then decline. He is citing projections by the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. In its “most likely” scenario, it predicts COVID deaths will peak at about 1,000 daily by mid-September, then decline. (As of Aug. 3, daily deaths averaged 371.)
• September: “I am hoping we get over this Delta hump [by then],” says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. “But sometimes, I am too much of an optimist.”
• Mid-October: Experts at the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, a consortium of researchers from leading institutions who consult with the CDC, said the Delta-fueled pandemic will steadily increase through summer and fall, with a mid-October peak.
• Unclear: Because cases are underestimated, “I think it is unclear when we will see a peak of Delta,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore. He predicts a decline in cases as “more people get infected and develop natural immunity.”

The predictions are based on different scenarios, such as most likely or worst case. Factors such as personal behaviors, public mandates, and vaccination rates could all alter the projections.
 

What a difference vaccination may make

An uptick in vaccinations could change all the models and predictions, experts agree. As of Aug. 3, almost half (49.7%) of the total U.S. population was fully vaccinated, the CDC said. (And 80.1% of those 65 and over were.)

But that’s a long way from the 70% or 80% figure often cited to reach herd immunity. Recently, Ricardo Franco, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said at a briefing by the Infectious Diseases Society of America that the infectiousness of the Delta variant may mean the herd immunity threshold is actually closer to 90%.

Dr. Mokdad estimates that by Nov. 1, based on the current rate of infections, 64% of people in the United States will be immune to a variant like Delta, taking into account those already infected and those vaccinated against COVID-19.

Justin Lessler, PhD, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill epidemiologist involved in the modeling hub, says if enough people get vaccinated, it could stop the Delta variant in its tracks. But that percentage is high.

“I am relatively confident that if we could get 90% or more of the eligible population vaccinated that we would see the epidemic begin to recede,” he says.

It’s a huge leap from 50%, or even 64%, to 90%. Could the Delta surge really motivate that many people to head to a vaccination site?

That’s hard to predict, Dr. Topol said. Some unvaccinated people may feel like soldiers in a foxhole, especially if they are in hard-hit states like Louisiana, and rush to get the vaccine as soon as possible. Others, hearing about the “breakthrough” cases in the vaccinated, may dig in their heels and ask: “Why bother?” as they mistakenly conclude that the vaccine has not done its job.
 

Roles of public policy, individual behavior

Besides an increase in vaccinations, individual behaviors and mandates can change the scenario. Doctors can remind even vaccinated patients that behaviors such as social distancing and masks still matter, experts said.

“Don’t ‘stress test’ your vaccine, “ Dr. Topol said.

The vaccines against COVID are good but not perfect and, he notes, they offer less protection if many months have passed since the vaccines were given.

The best advice now, Dr. Topol said, is: “Don’t be inside without a mask.”

Even if outdoors, depending on how close others are and the level of the conversation, a mask might be wise, he says.

Dr. Mokdad finds that “when cases go up, people put on their best behavior,” such as going back to masks and social distancing.

“Unfortunately, we have two countries,” he said, referring to the way public health measures and mandates vary from state to state.
 

Once the Delta variant subsides, what’s next?

It’s not a matter of if there is another variant on the heels of Delta, but when, Dr. Topol and other experts said. A new variant, Lambda, was first identified in Peru in August 2020 but now makes up about 90% of the country’s infections.

There’s also Delta-plus, just found in two people in South Korea.

Future variants could be even more transmissible than Delta, “which would be a horror show,” Dr. Topol said. “This [Delta] is by far the worst version. The virus is going to keep evolving. It is not done with us.”
 

On the horizon: Variant-proof vaccines

What’s needed to tackle the next variant is another approach to vaccine development, according to Dr. Topol and his colleague, Dennis R. Burton, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research Institute.

Writing a commentary in Nature published in 2021, the two propose using a special class of protective antibodies, known as broadly neutralizing antibodies, to develop these vaccines. The success of the current COVID-19 vaccines is likely because of the vaccine’s ability to prompt the body to make protective neutralizing antibodies. These proteins bind to the viruses and prevent them from infecting the body’s cells.

The broadly neutralizing antibodies, however, can act against many different strains of related viruses, Dr. Topol and Mr. Burton wrote. Using this approach, which is already under study, scientists could make vaccines that would be effective against a family of viruses. The goal: to stop future outbreaks from becoming epidemics and then pandemics.

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

When the Delta variant of the coronavirus was first identified in India in December 2020, the threat may have seemed too remote to trigger worry in the United States, although the horror of it ripping through the country was soon hard to ignore.

Within months, the Delta variant had spread to more than 98 countries, including Scotland, the United Kingdom, Israel, and now, of course, the United States. The CDC said this week the Delta variant now accounts for 93% of all COVID cases.

Fueled by Delta, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are increasing in nearly all states, according to the latest CDC data. After the 7-day average number of cases dipped by June 22 to about 11,000, it rose by Aug. 3 to more than 85,000.

Some experts are heartened by the recent decrease in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom and India, both hard-hit with the Delta variant. COVID-19 cases in India peaked at more than 400,000 a day in May; by Aug. 2, that had dropped to about 30,500 daily.

Andy Slavitt, former Biden White House senior adviser for COVID-19 response, tweeted July 26 that, if the Delta variant acted the same in the United Kingdom as in India, it would have a quick rise and a quick drop.

The prediction seems to have come true. As of Aug. 3, U.K. cases have dropped to 7,467, compared with more than 46,800 July 19.

So the question of the summer has become: “When will Delta burn out here?”

Like other pandemic predictions, these are all over the board. Here are five predictions about when COVID cases will peak, then fall. They range from less than 2 weeks to more than 2 months:

• Mid-August: Among the most optimistic predictions of when the Delta-driven COVID-19 cases will decline is from Scott Gottlieb, MD, former FDA director. He told CNBC on July 28 that he would expect cases to decline in 2-3 weeks – so by August 11.
• Mid-August to mid-September: Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that, “right now for the U.S. as a country, cases will peak mid-August” and then decline. He is citing projections by the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. In its “most likely” scenario, it predicts COVID deaths will peak at about 1,000 daily by mid-September, then decline. (As of Aug. 3, daily deaths averaged 371.)
• September: “I am hoping we get over this Delta hump [by then],” says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. “But sometimes, I am too much of an optimist.”
• Mid-October: Experts at the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, a consortium of researchers from leading institutions who consult with the CDC, said the Delta-fueled pandemic will steadily increase through summer and fall, with a mid-October peak.
• Unclear: Because cases are underestimated, “I think it is unclear when we will see a peak of Delta,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore. He predicts a decline in cases as “more people get infected and develop natural immunity.”

The predictions are based on different scenarios, such as most likely or worst case. Factors such as personal behaviors, public mandates, and vaccination rates could all alter the projections.
 

What a difference vaccination may make

An uptick in vaccinations could change all the models and predictions, experts agree. As of Aug. 3, almost half (49.7%) of the total U.S. population was fully vaccinated, the CDC said. (And 80.1% of those 65 and over were.)

But that’s a long way from the 70% or 80% figure often cited to reach herd immunity. Recently, Ricardo Franco, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said at a briefing by the Infectious Diseases Society of America that the infectiousness of the Delta variant may mean the herd immunity threshold is actually closer to 90%.

Dr. Mokdad estimates that by Nov. 1, based on the current rate of infections, 64% of people in the United States will be immune to a variant like Delta, taking into account those already infected and those vaccinated against COVID-19.

Justin Lessler, PhD, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill epidemiologist involved in the modeling hub, says if enough people get vaccinated, it could stop the Delta variant in its tracks. But that percentage is high.

“I am relatively confident that if we could get 90% or more of the eligible population vaccinated that we would see the epidemic begin to recede,” he says.

It’s a huge leap from 50%, or even 64%, to 90%. Could the Delta surge really motivate that many people to head to a vaccination site?

That’s hard to predict, Dr. Topol said. Some unvaccinated people may feel like soldiers in a foxhole, especially if they are in hard-hit states like Louisiana, and rush to get the vaccine as soon as possible. Others, hearing about the “breakthrough” cases in the vaccinated, may dig in their heels and ask: “Why bother?” as they mistakenly conclude that the vaccine has not done its job.
 

Roles of public policy, individual behavior

Besides an increase in vaccinations, individual behaviors and mandates can change the scenario. Doctors can remind even vaccinated patients that behaviors such as social distancing and masks still matter, experts said.

“Don’t ‘stress test’ your vaccine, “ Dr. Topol said.

The vaccines against COVID are good but not perfect and, he notes, they offer less protection if many months have passed since the vaccines were given.

The best advice now, Dr. Topol said, is: “Don’t be inside without a mask.”

Even if outdoors, depending on how close others are and the level of the conversation, a mask might be wise, he says.

Dr. Mokdad finds that “when cases go up, people put on their best behavior,” such as going back to masks and social distancing.

“Unfortunately, we have two countries,” he said, referring to the way public health measures and mandates vary from state to state.
 

Once the Delta variant subsides, what’s next?

It’s not a matter of if there is another variant on the heels of Delta, but when, Dr. Topol and other experts said. A new variant, Lambda, was first identified in Peru in August 2020 but now makes up about 90% of the country’s infections.

There’s also Delta-plus, just found in two people in South Korea.

Future variants could be even more transmissible than Delta, “which would be a horror show,” Dr. Topol said. “This [Delta] is by far the worst version. The virus is going to keep evolving. It is not done with us.”
 

On the horizon: Variant-proof vaccines

What’s needed to tackle the next variant is another approach to vaccine development, according to Dr. Topol and his colleague, Dennis R. Burton, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research Institute.

Writing a commentary in Nature published in 2021, the two propose using a special class of protective antibodies, known as broadly neutralizing antibodies, to develop these vaccines. The success of the current COVID-19 vaccines is likely because of the vaccine’s ability to prompt the body to make protective neutralizing antibodies. These proteins bind to the viruses and prevent them from infecting the body’s cells.

The broadly neutralizing antibodies, however, can act against many different strains of related viruses, Dr. Topol and Mr. Burton wrote. Using this approach, which is already under study, scientists could make vaccines that would be effective against a family of viruses. The goal: to stop future outbreaks from becoming epidemics and then pandemics.

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

When the Delta variant of the coronavirus was first identified in India in December 2020, the threat may have seemed too remote to trigger worry in the United States, although the horror of it ripping through the country was soon hard to ignore.

Within months, the Delta variant had spread to more than 98 countries, including Scotland, the United Kingdom, Israel, and now, of course, the United States. The CDC said this week the Delta variant now accounts for 93% of all COVID cases.

Fueled by Delta, COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are increasing in nearly all states, according to the latest CDC data. After the 7-day average number of cases dipped by June 22 to about 11,000, it rose by Aug. 3 to more than 85,000.

Some experts are heartened by the recent decrease in COVID-19 cases in the United Kingdom and India, both hard-hit with the Delta variant. COVID-19 cases in India peaked at more than 400,000 a day in May; by Aug. 2, that had dropped to about 30,500 daily.

Andy Slavitt, former Biden White House senior adviser for COVID-19 response, tweeted July 26 that, if the Delta variant acted the same in the United Kingdom as in India, it would have a quick rise and a quick drop.

The prediction seems to have come true. As of Aug. 3, U.K. cases have dropped to 7,467, compared with more than 46,800 July 19.

So the question of the summer has become: “When will Delta burn out here?”

Like other pandemic predictions, these are all over the board. Here are five predictions about when COVID cases will peak, then fall. They range from less than 2 weeks to more than 2 months:

• Mid-August: Among the most optimistic predictions of when the Delta-driven COVID-19 cases will decline is from Scott Gottlieb, MD, former FDA director. He told CNBC on July 28 that he would expect cases to decline in 2-3 weeks – so by August 11.
• Mid-August to mid-September: Ali Mokdad, PhD, chief strategy officer for population health at the University of Washington, Seattle, said that, “right now for the U.S. as a country, cases will peak mid-August” and then decline. He is citing projections by the university’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. In its “most likely” scenario, it predicts COVID deaths will peak at about 1,000 daily by mid-September, then decline. (As of Aug. 3, daily deaths averaged 371.)
• September: “I am hoping we get over this Delta hump [by then],” says Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape. “But sometimes, I am too much of an optimist.”
• Mid-October: Experts at the COVID-19 Scenario Modeling Hub, a consortium of researchers from leading institutions who consult with the CDC, said the Delta-fueled pandemic will steadily increase through summer and fall, with a mid-October peak.
• Unclear: Because cases are underestimated, “I think it is unclear when we will see a peak of Delta,” says Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Baltimore. He predicts a decline in cases as “more people get infected and develop natural immunity.”

The predictions are based on different scenarios, such as most likely or worst case. Factors such as personal behaviors, public mandates, and vaccination rates could all alter the projections.
 

What a difference vaccination may make

An uptick in vaccinations could change all the models and predictions, experts agree. As of Aug. 3, almost half (49.7%) of the total U.S. population was fully vaccinated, the CDC said. (And 80.1% of those 65 and over were.)

But that’s a long way from the 70% or 80% figure often cited to reach herd immunity. Recently, Ricardo Franco, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said at a briefing by the Infectious Diseases Society of America that the infectiousness of the Delta variant may mean the herd immunity threshold is actually closer to 90%.

Dr. Mokdad estimates that by Nov. 1, based on the current rate of infections, 64% of people in the United States will be immune to a variant like Delta, taking into account those already infected and those vaccinated against COVID-19.

Justin Lessler, PhD, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill epidemiologist involved in the modeling hub, says if enough people get vaccinated, it could stop the Delta variant in its tracks. But that percentage is high.

“I am relatively confident that if we could get 90% or more of the eligible population vaccinated that we would see the epidemic begin to recede,” he says.

It’s a huge leap from 50%, or even 64%, to 90%. Could the Delta surge really motivate that many people to head to a vaccination site?

That’s hard to predict, Dr. Topol said. Some unvaccinated people may feel like soldiers in a foxhole, especially if they are in hard-hit states like Louisiana, and rush to get the vaccine as soon as possible. Others, hearing about the “breakthrough” cases in the vaccinated, may dig in their heels and ask: “Why bother?” as they mistakenly conclude that the vaccine has not done its job.
 

Roles of public policy, individual behavior

Besides an increase in vaccinations, individual behaviors and mandates can change the scenario. Doctors can remind even vaccinated patients that behaviors such as social distancing and masks still matter, experts said.

“Don’t ‘stress test’ your vaccine, “ Dr. Topol said.

The vaccines against COVID are good but not perfect and, he notes, they offer less protection if many months have passed since the vaccines were given.

The best advice now, Dr. Topol said, is: “Don’t be inside without a mask.”

Even if outdoors, depending on how close others are and the level of the conversation, a mask might be wise, he says.

Dr. Mokdad finds that “when cases go up, people put on their best behavior,” such as going back to masks and social distancing.

“Unfortunately, we have two countries,” he said, referring to the way public health measures and mandates vary from state to state.
 

Once the Delta variant subsides, what’s next?

It’s not a matter of if there is another variant on the heels of Delta, but when, Dr. Topol and other experts said. A new variant, Lambda, was first identified in Peru in August 2020 but now makes up about 90% of the country’s infections.

There’s also Delta-plus, just found in two people in South Korea.

Future variants could be even more transmissible than Delta, “which would be a horror show,” Dr. Topol said. “This [Delta] is by far the worst version. The virus is going to keep evolving. It is not done with us.”
 

On the horizon: Variant-proof vaccines

What’s needed to tackle the next variant is another approach to vaccine development, according to Dr. Topol and his colleague, Dennis R. Burton, a professor of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research Institute.

Writing a commentary in Nature published in 2021, the two propose using a special class of protective antibodies, known as broadly neutralizing antibodies, to develop these vaccines. The success of the current COVID-19 vaccines is likely because of the vaccine’s ability to prompt the body to make protective neutralizing antibodies. These proteins bind to the viruses and prevent them from infecting the body’s cells.

The broadly neutralizing antibodies, however, can act against many different strains of related viruses, Dr. Topol and Mr. Burton wrote. Using this approach, which is already under study, scientists could make vaccines that would be effective against a family of viruses. The goal: to stop future outbreaks from becoming epidemics and then pandemics.

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

After SARS-CoV-2 spread at a sleepaway camp in Georgia last summer, researchers described the efficient spread and high attack rates at camp.

In a report published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that campers spread COVID to household members after returning home – but transmission was more likely from some than others. Distancing and masking helped reduce the risk.

Victoria T. Chu, MD, MPH, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues with the agency and the Georgia Department of Health followed up with 224 camp attendees, aged 7 to 19 years, who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on laboratory testing.

These index patients – 88% of whom had symptoms – had 526 household contacts, mainly parents and siblings. Of 377 household contacts who underwent testing, 46 (12%) tested positive. Another two cases in household contacts were identified using clinical and epidemiologic criteria.
 

Family members hospitalized

Of the 41 adult household contacts who were infected, four (about 10%) were hospitalized. Their hospital stays ranged from 5 to 11 days. Of the seven infected household contacts who were younger than 18 years, none were hospitalized.

The four hospitalized adults were parents and grandparents aged 45 to 80 years, Dr. Chu said. Two of the four had underlying conditions. None of the household contacts died.

In an adjusted analysis, campers who had practiced physical distancing were less likely to transmit the virus at home, compared with those who had not practiced physical distancing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4). Household members who had had close or direct contact with the index patients were more than 5 times more likely to become infected, compared with family members with minimal or no contact, analyses showed.

“This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.”

The secondary attack rates in this report may be an underestimate because testing was voluntary and participants reported the results themselves, the authors note. It is possible that infected household contacts spread the virus further, but this study did not address that question, Dr. Chu said.

For the study, investigators interviewed all camp attendees and their parents or guardians by phone between July 17, 2020 and Aug. 24, 2020, to collect information about demographic and clinical characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preventive measures. The researchers’ analysis excluded households in which illness onset in a household contact occurred before or less than 2 days after a camper became sick.

About a third of the index patients began to have symptoms while still at camp. These campers may have been less infectious by the time they got home, compared with those whose symptoms started after they returned.

Two-thirds of the index patients adopted physical distancing at home, which “probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household,” Dr. Chu and colleagues wrote.

“Children who have had a known COVID-19 exposure should quarantine and obtain testing if they develop symptoms within the 14 days of returning home,” Dr. Chu advised. “If a child develops COVID-19, the child should be cared for and monitored using the proper combination of physical distancing, isolation when feasible, and mask use to prevent household transmission as much as possible. In addition, any person over the age of 12 is now eligible for vaccination in the United States. If eligible, children attending camp and their family members should get vaccinated to protect themselves and others, as vaccinations are our most effective public health prevention strategy.”
 

Mitigation can help

Another report regarding four overnight camps in Maine – in which three campers tested positive after they arrived last summer – shows that “aggressive mitigation strategies can be effective” in limiting transmission of the virus, William T. Basco Jr., MD, writes in a commentary for this news organization.

This summer, a range of factors, including vaccination rates at the camp, may influence transmission dynamics, Dr. Chu said in an interview. In July, the Associated Press reported outbreaks tied to summer camps in several states.

“Transmission dynamics will probably vary from summer camp to summer camp depending on many factors, such as vaccination rates of camp attendees, the mitigation measures in place, and the number of individual introductions during camp,” Dr. Chu said. “We would expect that a camp with a low vaccination rate among attendees and no enforcement of mitigation measures” still may experience a large outbreak.

“On the other hand, a large proportion of vaccinated individuals and appropriate implementation of multiple mitigation measures, such as wearing masks, may be quite effective at keeping their transmission rates low,” Dr. Chu added. “For camps with younger children who are not currently eligible for vaccination, implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., mask use, physical distancing, and encouraging outdoor activities when feasible) is important to prevent transmission.”

Although COVID-19 transmission from children to adults, potentially leading to hospitalization, is not a new phenomenon, “data on the extent of transmission driven by children and adolescents in different settings are still quite sparse,” Dr. Chu said. “A better understanding of their impact on household and community transmission to help guide public health recommendations is particularly important, as most children are still not eligible for vaccination, and in-person schools will be reopening this fall.”

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

After SARS-CoV-2 spread at a sleepaway camp in Georgia last summer, researchers described the efficient spread and high attack rates at camp.

In a report published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that campers spread COVID to household members after returning home – but transmission was more likely from some than others. Distancing and masking helped reduce the risk.

Victoria T. Chu, MD, MPH, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues with the agency and the Georgia Department of Health followed up with 224 camp attendees, aged 7 to 19 years, who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on laboratory testing.

These index patients – 88% of whom had symptoms – had 526 household contacts, mainly parents and siblings. Of 377 household contacts who underwent testing, 46 (12%) tested positive. Another two cases in household contacts were identified using clinical and epidemiologic criteria.
 

Family members hospitalized

Of the 41 adult household contacts who were infected, four (about 10%) were hospitalized. Their hospital stays ranged from 5 to 11 days. Of the seven infected household contacts who were younger than 18 years, none were hospitalized.

The four hospitalized adults were parents and grandparents aged 45 to 80 years, Dr. Chu said. Two of the four had underlying conditions. None of the household contacts died.

In an adjusted analysis, campers who had practiced physical distancing were less likely to transmit the virus at home, compared with those who had not practiced physical distancing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4). Household members who had had close or direct contact with the index patients were more than 5 times more likely to become infected, compared with family members with minimal or no contact, analyses showed.

“This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.”

The secondary attack rates in this report may be an underestimate because testing was voluntary and participants reported the results themselves, the authors note. It is possible that infected household contacts spread the virus further, but this study did not address that question, Dr. Chu said.

For the study, investigators interviewed all camp attendees and their parents or guardians by phone between July 17, 2020 and Aug. 24, 2020, to collect information about demographic and clinical characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preventive measures. The researchers’ analysis excluded households in which illness onset in a household contact occurred before or less than 2 days after a camper became sick.

About a third of the index patients began to have symptoms while still at camp. These campers may have been less infectious by the time they got home, compared with those whose symptoms started after they returned.

Two-thirds of the index patients adopted physical distancing at home, which “probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household,” Dr. Chu and colleagues wrote.

“Children who have had a known COVID-19 exposure should quarantine and obtain testing if they develop symptoms within the 14 days of returning home,” Dr. Chu advised. “If a child develops COVID-19, the child should be cared for and monitored using the proper combination of physical distancing, isolation when feasible, and mask use to prevent household transmission as much as possible. In addition, any person over the age of 12 is now eligible for vaccination in the United States. If eligible, children attending camp and their family members should get vaccinated to protect themselves and others, as vaccinations are our most effective public health prevention strategy.”
 

Mitigation can help

Another report regarding four overnight camps in Maine – in which three campers tested positive after they arrived last summer – shows that “aggressive mitigation strategies can be effective” in limiting transmission of the virus, William T. Basco Jr., MD, writes in a commentary for this news organization.

This summer, a range of factors, including vaccination rates at the camp, may influence transmission dynamics, Dr. Chu said in an interview. In July, the Associated Press reported outbreaks tied to summer camps in several states.

“Transmission dynamics will probably vary from summer camp to summer camp depending on many factors, such as vaccination rates of camp attendees, the mitigation measures in place, and the number of individual introductions during camp,” Dr. Chu said. “We would expect that a camp with a low vaccination rate among attendees and no enforcement of mitigation measures” still may experience a large outbreak.

“On the other hand, a large proportion of vaccinated individuals and appropriate implementation of multiple mitigation measures, such as wearing masks, may be quite effective at keeping their transmission rates low,” Dr. Chu added. “For camps with younger children who are not currently eligible for vaccination, implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., mask use, physical distancing, and encouraging outdoor activities when feasible) is important to prevent transmission.”

Although COVID-19 transmission from children to adults, potentially leading to hospitalization, is not a new phenomenon, “data on the extent of transmission driven by children and adolescents in different settings are still quite sparse,” Dr. Chu said. “A better understanding of their impact on household and community transmission to help guide public health recommendations is particularly important, as most children are still not eligible for vaccination, and in-person schools will be reopening this fall.”

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

After SARS-CoV-2 spread at a sleepaway camp in Georgia last summer, researchers described the efficient spread and high attack rates at camp.

In a report published online in The New England Journal of Medicine, researchers found that campers spread COVID to household members after returning home – but transmission was more likely from some than others. Distancing and masking helped reduce the risk.

Victoria T. Chu, MD, MPH, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues with the agency and the Georgia Department of Health followed up with 224 camp attendees, aged 7 to 19 years, who had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection on laboratory testing.

These index patients – 88% of whom had symptoms – had 526 household contacts, mainly parents and siblings. Of 377 household contacts who underwent testing, 46 (12%) tested positive. Another two cases in household contacts were identified using clinical and epidemiologic criteria.
 

Family members hospitalized

Of the 41 adult household contacts who were infected, four (about 10%) were hospitalized. Their hospital stays ranged from 5 to 11 days. Of the seven infected household contacts who were younger than 18 years, none were hospitalized.

The four hospitalized adults were parents and grandparents aged 45 to 80 years, Dr. Chu said. Two of the four had underlying conditions. None of the household contacts died.

In an adjusted analysis, campers who had practiced physical distancing were less likely to transmit the virus at home, compared with those who had not practiced physical distancing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.4). Household members who had had close or direct contact with the index patients were more than 5 times more likely to become infected, compared with family members with minimal or no contact, analyses showed.

“This retrospective study showed that the efficient transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from school-age children and adolescents to household members led to the hospitalization of adults with secondary cases of COVID-19,” the researchers write. “In households in which transmission occurred, half the household contacts were infected.”

The secondary attack rates in this report may be an underestimate because testing was voluntary and participants reported the results themselves, the authors note. It is possible that infected household contacts spread the virus further, but this study did not address that question, Dr. Chu said.

For the study, investigators interviewed all camp attendees and their parents or guardians by phone between July 17, 2020 and Aug. 24, 2020, to collect information about demographic and clinical characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 testing, and preventive measures. The researchers’ analysis excluded households in which illness onset in a household contact occurred before or less than 2 days after a camper became sick.

About a third of the index patients began to have symptoms while still at camp. These campers may have been less infectious by the time they got home, compared with those whose symptoms started after they returned.

Two-thirds of the index patients adopted physical distancing at home, which “probably reduced the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the household,” Dr. Chu and colleagues wrote.

“Children who have had a known COVID-19 exposure should quarantine and obtain testing if they develop symptoms within the 14 days of returning home,” Dr. Chu advised. “If a child develops COVID-19, the child should be cared for and monitored using the proper combination of physical distancing, isolation when feasible, and mask use to prevent household transmission as much as possible. In addition, any person over the age of 12 is now eligible for vaccination in the United States. If eligible, children attending camp and their family members should get vaccinated to protect themselves and others, as vaccinations are our most effective public health prevention strategy.”
 

Mitigation can help

Another report regarding four overnight camps in Maine – in which three campers tested positive after they arrived last summer – shows that “aggressive mitigation strategies can be effective” in limiting transmission of the virus, William T. Basco Jr., MD, writes in a commentary for this news organization.

This summer, a range of factors, including vaccination rates at the camp, may influence transmission dynamics, Dr. Chu said in an interview. In July, the Associated Press reported outbreaks tied to summer camps in several states.

“Transmission dynamics will probably vary from summer camp to summer camp depending on many factors, such as vaccination rates of camp attendees, the mitigation measures in place, and the number of individual introductions during camp,” Dr. Chu said. “We would expect that a camp with a low vaccination rate among attendees and no enforcement of mitigation measures” still may experience a large outbreak.

“On the other hand, a large proportion of vaccinated individuals and appropriate implementation of multiple mitigation measures, such as wearing masks, may be quite effective at keeping their transmission rates low,” Dr. Chu added. “For camps with younger children who are not currently eligible for vaccination, implementing layered prevention strategies (e.g., mask use, physical distancing, and encouraging outdoor activities when feasible) is important to prevent transmission.”

Although COVID-19 transmission from children to adults, potentially leading to hospitalization, is not a new phenomenon, “data on the extent of transmission driven by children and adolescents in different settings are still quite sparse,” Dr. Chu said. “A better understanding of their impact on household and community transmission to help guide public health recommendations is particularly important, as most children are still not eligible for vaccination, and in-person schools will be reopening this fall.”

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

School-aged children with SARS-CoV-2 infection had only a few mild symptoms and typically recovered in 6 days, with more than 98% recovering in 8 weeks, a large U.K. study of smartphone data reassuringly reports.

In a small proportion (4.4%), however, COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, headache, or loss of smell persisted beyond a month, highlighting the need for ongoing pediatric care, according to Erika Molteni, PhD, a research fellow at King’s College, London, and colleagues.

The results, published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, also indicated that some children who had non-COVID infections were also susceptible to prolonged symptoms. “Our data highlight that other illnesses, such as colds and flu, can also have prolonged symptoms in children and it is important to consider this when planning for pediatric health services during the pandemic and beyond,” Michael Absoud, PhD, a senior coauthor and a King’s College consultant and senior lecturer, said in a news release. “All children who have persistent symptoms – from any illness – need timely multidisciplinary support linked with education, to enable them to find their individual pathway to recovery.”

Using a “citizen science” approach, the study extracted data from a smartphone app for tracking COVID symptoms in the ZOE COVID Study. The researchers looked at 258,790 children aged 5-17 years whose details were reported by adult proxies such as parents and carers from March 24, 2020, to Feb. 22, 2021. Of these, 75,529 had undergone a valid SARS-CoV-2 test.

The study also assessed symptoms in a randomly selected, age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,734 children in the app database who tested negative for COVID-19 but may have had other illnesses such as colds or flu.

In the 1,734 children testing positive for COVID-19 (approximately 50% each boys and girls), the most common symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). More than 10% of the entire cohort had underlying asthma, but other comorbidities were very rare.

To assess the effect of age, the children were assessed in two groups: 5-11 years (n = 588) and 12-17 years (n = 1,146).

While unable to cross-check app reporting against actual medical records, the study suggested that illness lasted longer in COVID-positive than COVID-negative children, with a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3-11) versus 3 days (IQR, 2-7). Furthermore, illness duration was positively associated with age: older children (median, 7 days; IQR, 3-12) versus younger children (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-9).

In 77 (4.4%) of the 1,734 COVID-positive children, illness persisted for at least 28 days, again more often in older than younger children: 5.1% of older children versus 3.1% of younger children (P = .046).

In addition, those with COVID-19 were more likely than children with non-COVID illness to be sick for more than 4 weeks: 4.4% versus 0.9%. At 4 weeks, however, the few children with other illnesses tended to have more symptoms, exhibiting a median of five symptoms versus two symptoms in the COVID-positive group.

“I tend to agree with the U.K. findings. COVID-19 in most school-age children is asymptomatic or a brief, self-limiting illness,” Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said in an interview. “The few children who need hospitalization have also mostly fully recovered by the time they are seen for their first outpatient clinic follow-up visit.”

Dr. Mohandas, who was not involved in the U.K. study, added that in her experience a small percentage, particularly adolescents, have some lingering symptoms after infection including fatigue, loss of appetite, and changes in smell and taste. “Identifying children with persistent illness and providing support and multidisciplinary care based on their symptomatology can make a positive impact on patients and their families.”

Recent research has suggested that long symptoms can persist for 3 months in 6% of children with COVID-19. And data from China have indicated that the prevalence of coinfection may be higher than in older patients.

In an accompanying comment, Dana Mahr, PhD, and Bruno J. Strasser, PhD, researchers in the faculty of science at the University of Geneva, said the app-based study “illustrates the potential and challenges of what has been called citizenship science,” in which projects rely on data input from nonscientists.

But while potentially democratizing participation in medical research, this subjective approach has the inherent bias of self-reporting (and in the case of the current study, proxy reporting), and can introduce potential conflicts of interest owing to the politicization of certain diseases.

In the case of the current study, Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser argued that, since the COVID-19 test result is known to participants, a pediatrician using objective criteria is better positioned to control for reporting biases than a parent asking a child about symptoms. “Entering data on a smartphone app is not equivalent to discussing with a pediatrician or health care worker who can answer further questions and concerns of participants, an especially important factor for underserved communities,” they wrote. “Citizen science will continue to require a close interaction with professional medical researchers to turn unique illness experiences into research data.”

This study was funded by Zoe Limited, the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the U.K. Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Society. Several study authors have disclosed support from various research-funding agencies and Zoe Limited supported all aspects of building and running the symptom-tracking application. Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser declared no competing interests. Dr. Mohandas disclosed no competing interests with regard to her comments.
 

School-aged children with SARS-CoV-2 infection had only a few mild symptoms and typically recovered in 6 days, with more than 98% recovering in 8 weeks, a large U.K. study of smartphone data reassuringly reports.

In a small proportion (4.4%), however, COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, headache, or loss of smell persisted beyond a month, highlighting the need for ongoing pediatric care, according to Erika Molteni, PhD, a research fellow at King’s College, London, and colleagues.

The results, published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, also indicated that some children who had non-COVID infections were also susceptible to prolonged symptoms. “Our data highlight that other illnesses, such as colds and flu, can also have prolonged symptoms in children and it is important to consider this when planning for pediatric health services during the pandemic and beyond,” Michael Absoud, PhD, a senior coauthor and a King’s College consultant and senior lecturer, said in a news release. “All children who have persistent symptoms – from any illness – need timely multidisciplinary support linked with education, to enable them to find their individual pathway to recovery.”

Using a “citizen science” approach, the study extracted data from a smartphone app for tracking COVID symptoms in the ZOE COVID Study. The researchers looked at 258,790 children aged 5-17 years whose details were reported by adult proxies such as parents and carers from March 24, 2020, to Feb. 22, 2021. Of these, 75,529 had undergone a valid SARS-CoV-2 test.

The study also assessed symptoms in a randomly selected, age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,734 children in the app database who tested negative for COVID-19 but may have had other illnesses such as colds or flu.

In the 1,734 children testing positive for COVID-19 (approximately 50% each boys and girls), the most common symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). More than 10% of the entire cohort had underlying asthma, but other comorbidities were very rare.

To assess the effect of age, the children were assessed in two groups: 5-11 years (n = 588) and 12-17 years (n = 1,146).

While unable to cross-check app reporting against actual medical records, the study suggested that illness lasted longer in COVID-positive than COVID-negative children, with a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3-11) versus 3 days (IQR, 2-7). Furthermore, illness duration was positively associated with age: older children (median, 7 days; IQR, 3-12) versus younger children (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-9).

In 77 (4.4%) of the 1,734 COVID-positive children, illness persisted for at least 28 days, again more often in older than younger children: 5.1% of older children versus 3.1% of younger children (P = .046).

In addition, those with COVID-19 were more likely than children with non-COVID illness to be sick for more than 4 weeks: 4.4% versus 0.9%. At 4 weeks, however, the few children with other illnesses tended to have more symptoms, exhibiting a median of five symptoms versus two symptoms in the COVID-positive group.

“I tend to agree with the U.K. findings. COVID-19 in most school-age children is asymptomatic or a brief, self-limiting illness,” Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said in an interview. “The few children who need hospitalization have also mostly fully recovered by the time they are seen for their first outpatient clinic follow-up visit.”

Dr. Mohandas, who was not involved in the U.K. study, added that in her experience a small percentage, particularly adolescents, have some lingering symptoms after infection including fatigue, loss of appetite, and changes in smell and taste. “Identifying children with persistent illness and providing support and multidisciplinary care based on their symptomatology can make a positive impact on patients and their families.”

Recent research has suggested that long symptoms can persist for 3 months in 6% of children with COVID-19. And data from China have indicated that the prevalence of coinfection may be higher than in older patients.

In an accompanying comment, Dana Mahr, PhD, and Bruno J. Strasser, PhD, researchers in the faculty of science at the University of Geneva, said the app-based study “illustrates the potential and challenges of what has been called citizenship science,” in which projects rely on data input from nonscientists.

But while potentially democratizing participation in medical research, this subjective approach has the inherent bias of self-reporting (and in the case of the current study, proxy reporting), and can introduce potential conflicts of interest owing to the politicization of certain diseases.

In the case of the current study, Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser argued that, since the COVID-19 test result is known to participants, a pediatrician using objective criteria is better positioned to control for reporting biases than a parent asking a child about symptoms. “Entering data on a smartphone app is not equivalent to discussing with a pediatrician or health care worker who can answer further questions and concerns of participants, an especially important factor for underserved communities,” they wrote. “Citizen science will continue to require a close interaction with professional medical researchers to turn unique illness experiences into research data.”

This study was funded by Zoe Limited, the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the U.K. Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Society. Several study authors have disclosed support from various research-funding agencies and Zoe Limited supported all aspects of building and running the symptom-tracking application. Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser declared no competing interests. Dr. Mohandas disclosed no competing interests with regard to her comments.
 

School-aged children with SARS-CoV-2 infection had only a few mild symptoms and typically recovered in 6 days, with more than 98% recovering in 8 weeks, a large U.K. study of smartphone data reassuringly reports.

In a small proportion (4.4%), however, COVID-19 symptoms such as fatigue, headache, or loss of smell persisted beyond a month, highlighting the need for ongoing pediatric care, according to Erika Molteni, PhD, a research fellow at King’s College, London, and colleagues.

The results, published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, also indicated that some children who had non-COVID infections were also susceptible to prolonged symptoms. “Our data highlight that other illnesses, such as colds and flu, can also have prolonged symptoms in children and it is important to consider this when planning for pediatric health services during the pandemic and beyond,” Michael Absoud, PhD, a senior coauthor and a King’s College consultant and senior lecturer, said in a news release. “All children who have persistent symptoms – from any illness – need timely multidisciplinary support linked with education, to enable them to find their individual pathway to recovery.”

Using a “citizen science” approach, the study extracted data from a smartphone app for tracking COVID symptoms in the ZOE COVID Study. The researchers looked at 258,790 children aged 5-17 years whose details were reported by adult proxies such as parents and carers from March 24, 2020, to Feb. 22, 2021. Of these, 75,529 had undergone a valid SARS-CoV-2 test.

The study also assessed symptoms in a randomly selected, age- and sex-matched cohort of 1,734 children in the app database who tested negative for COVID-19 but may have had other illnesses such as colds or flu.

In the 1,734 children testing positive for COVID-19 (approximately 50% each boys and girls), the most common symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). More than 10% of the entire cohort had underlying asthma, but other comorbidities were very rare.

To assess the effect of age, the children were assessed in two groups: 5-11 years (n = 588) and 12-17 years (n = 1,146).

While unable to cross-check app reporting against actual medical records, the study suggested that illness lasted longer in COVID-positive than COVID-negative children, with a median of 6 days (interquartile range, 3-11) versus 3 days (IQR, 2-7). Furthermore, illness duration was positively associated with age: older children (median, 7 days; IQR, 3-12) versus younger children (median, 5 days; IQR, 2-9).

In 77 (4.4%) of the 1,734 COVID-positive children, illness persisted for at least 28 days, again more often in older than younger children: 5.1% of older children versus 3.1% of younger children (P = .046).

In addition, those with COVID-19 were more likely than children with non-COVID illness to be sick for more than 4 weeks: 4.4% versus 0.9%. At 4 weeks, however, the few children with other illnesses tended to have more symptoms, exhibiting a median of five symptoms versus two symptoms in the COVID-positive group.

“I tend to agree with the U.K. findings. COVID-19 in most school-age children is asymptomatic or a brief, self-limiting illness,” Sindhu Mohandas, MD, a pediatric infectious disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, said in an interview. “The few children who need hospitalization have also mostly fully recovered by the time they are seen for their first outpatient clinic follow-up visit.”

Dr. Mohandas, who was not involved in the U.K. study, added that in her experience a small percentage, particularly adolescents, have some lingering symptoms after infection including fatigue, loss of appetite, and changes in smell and taste. “Identifying children with persistent illness and providing support and multidisciplinary care based on their symptomatology can make a positive impact on patients and their families.”

Recent research has suggested that long symptoms can persist for 3 months in 6% of children with COVID-19. And data from China have indicated that the prevalence of coinfection may be higher than in older patients.

In an accompanying comment, Dana Mahr, PhD, and Bruno J. Strasser, PhD, researchers in the faculty of science at the University of Geneva, said the app-based study “illustrates the potential and challenges of what has been called citizenship science,” in which projects rely on data input from nonscientists.

But while potentially democratizing participation in medical research, this subjective approach has the inherent bias of self-reporting (and in the case of the current study, proxy reporting), and can introduce potential conflicts of interest owing to the politicization of certain diseases.

In the case of the current study, Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser argued that, since the COVID-19 test result is known to participants, a pediatrician using objective criteria is better positioned to control for reporting biases than a parent asking a child about symptoms. “Entering data on a smartphone app is not equivalent to discussing with a pediatrician or health care worker who can answer further questions and concerns of participants, an especially important factor for underserved communities,” they wrote. “Citizen science will continue to require a close interaction with professional medical researchers to turn unique illness experiences into research data.”

This study was funded by Zoe Limited, the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the U.K. Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the U.K. National Institute for Health Research, the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer’s Society. Several study authors have disclosed support from various research-funding agencies and Zoe Limited supported all aspects of building and running the symptom-tracking application. Dr. Mahr and Dr. Strasser declared no competing interests. Dr. Mohandas disclosed no competing interests with regard to her comments.
 

Bother me, I’m working 

Although some of us have been comfortably functioning in a virtual work environment, others are now trickling back into the office. And you know what that means? People come to your desk to show you pictures of their cat or tell you about their kid’s birthday party. You may sneer at the interruption, but a study shows you actually like it.

Rawpixel/Thinkstock

A team of researchers at the University of Cincinnati surveyed 111 full-time employees twice a day for 3 weeks about their work experience. They asked about mental exhaustion, workplace interruptions, sense of belonging, and overall job satisfaction. They found that employees had a higher sense of belonging and job satisfaction when interrupted with a social versus work interruption.

“Interruptions can actually benefit individuals from an interpersonal perspective – people feel like they belong when others come and talk to them or ask them questions, even while being distracted from their tasks,” said Heather C. Vough, senior investigator and a former university faculty member.

Chitchatting at work is often seen as a distraction, but this study suggests that it’s not like heating up fish in the breakroom microwave.

So the next time someone hits you with the “Hey, do you have a sec?,” do yourself a favor and enjoy the interruption.
 

A smorgasbord of science

It’s probably difficult to recruit patients for some medical trials. Try this new drug and potentially get all sorts of interesting and unpleasant side effects. Pass. We suggest the approach a group of researchers from the University of Kansas took for a recent study into weight gain: Invite a bunch of 20-something adults to an all-you-can-eat buffet. They’ll be beating down your door in no time.

pxfuel

Their study, published in Appetite, focused on hyperpalatable food – the sort of food you can keep eating – and compared it with high-energy-dense food and ultra processed food. The test patients had their body composition measured, were let loose on the buffet, and were measured again a year later.

The patients who favored salty/carbohydrate-filled hyperpalatable food (such as pretzels or popcorn) were much more likely to gain weight, compared with those who focused on salty/fat-filled food of any variety. As a matter of fact, those who stuck to fatty food during the buffet had no change in weight over the 1-year study period. The researchers noted that those who ate the carb-filled food tended more toward hedonic eating, or the act of eating simply for pleasure.

The study is no doubt helpful in the long battle against obesity and overeating, but it’s also a very helpful guide to getting the most bang for your buck at the buffet. Stay away from the cheap salty snack food. Go for the steak and seafood. Get your money’s worth. In the long run you won’t even gain any weight. No promises about tomorrow though.
 

There’s a cheat code for that

For a large percentage of kids and young adults, and maybe even older adults (we don’t judge), a storm warning means a cozy night in playing video games. Staying inside is probably the safest bet when there’s a storm, and the weatherman never says to avoid playing video games when there’s lightning.

xresch/Pixabay

Maybe he should, though, since a man from Tennessee reportedly got struck by lightning through his game controller. Emergency crews determined that lightning either hit the man’s house or struck near it and went through the controller. The type of console was not revealed, even though some people may want to know the specifics before playing during the next storm.

Luckily, the man was not seriously hurt and did not need to go to the hospital. This is apparently not unheard of, as a professional gamer was shocked through a wired controller last year, causing burns on her hands and a broken controller.

This might be our cue to do less electrical types of activities during thunderstorms, like knitting or reading by candlelight.
 

Freeze, squeeze, and enjoy … cramping

As you were ingesting last week’s installment of the never-ending buffet that is LOTME, you probably wondered: What’s going on? Where’s the latest bodily insult being perpetuated by the gang over at TikTok?

Daria-Yakovleva/Pixabay

Have no fear, good readers. We would never make you go 2 straight weeks without serving up some hyperpalatable TikTok tidbits.

Our bodily insult du jour is frozen honey, and it’s exploding all over TikTok … and a few other places. “The hashtag ‘#FrozenHoney’ has been viewed nearly 600 million times, and the hashtag ‘#FrozenHoneyChallenge’ has been viewed more than 80 million times,” NBC News recently reported.

After a few hours in the freezer, honey can be squeezed out of a plastic bottle as a semisolid, toothpastelike goo – it’s stiff enough to rise out of a container that’s pointed straight up – and bitten off in large chunks. And therein lies the problem.

Some people are overdoing it. “Honey is great, but having it in small amounts to sweeten is really a healthy relationship with food, and using it to get a lot of followers and a lot of attention and having it in excess amounts is crazy,” Kristin Kirkpatrick, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic, told NBC.

Besides the possible weight gain from eating massive amounts of sugar, experts warned that “gobbling up bottles of frozen honey” could lead to stomach cramping, bloating, and diarrhea. Some TikTokers, NBC noted, said that they “were running for the bathroom.”

As we said, it’s a trend that is exploding.

Be sure to tune in next week, when we learn how TikTokers use ground meat as a skin moisturizer.
 

Bother me, I’m working 

Although some of us have been comfortably functioning in a virtual work environment, others are now trickling back into the office. And you know what that means? People come to your desk to show you pictures of their cat or tell you about their kid’s birthday party. You may sneer at the interruption, but a study shows you actually like it.

Rawpixel/Thinkstock

A team of researchers at the University of Cincinnati surveyed 111 full-time employees twice a day for 3 weeks about their work experience. They asked about mental exhaustion, workplace interruptions, sense of belonging, and overall job satisfaction. They found that employees had a higher sense of belonging and job satisfaction when interrupted with a social versus work interruption.

“Interruptions can actually benefit individuals from an interpersonal perspective – people feel like they belong when others come and talk to them or ask them questions, even while being distracted from their tasks,” said Heather C. Vough, senior investigator and a former university faculty member.

Chitchatting at work is often seen as a distraction, but this study suggests that it’s not like heating up fish in the breakroom microwave.

So the next time someone hits you with the “Hey, do you have a sec?,” do yourself a favor and enjoy the interruption.
 

A smorgasbord of science

It’s probably difficult to recruit patients for some medical trials. Try this new drug and potentially get all sorts of interesting and unpleasant side effects. Pass. We suggest the approach a group of researchers from the University of Kansas took for a recent study into weight gain: Invite a bunch of 20-something adults to an all-you-can-eat buffet. They’ll be beating down your door in no time.

pxfuel

Their study, published in Appetite, focused on hyperpalatable food – the sort of food you can keep eating – and compared it with high-energy-dense food and ultra processed food. The test patients had their body composition measured, were let loose on the buffet, and were measured again a year later.

The patients who favored salty/carbohydrate-filled hyperpalatable food (such as pretzels or popcorn) were much more likely to gain weight, compared with those who focused on salty/fat-filled food of any variety. As a matter of fact, those who stuck to fatty food during the buffet had no change in weight over the 1-year study period. The researchers noted that those who ate the carb-filled food tended more toward hedonic eating, or the act of eating simply for pleasure.

The study is no doubt helpful in the long battle against obesity and overeating, but it’s also a very helpful guide to getting the most bang for your buck at the buffet. Stay away from the cheap salty snack food. Go for the steak and seafood. Get your money’s worth. In the long run you won’t even gain any weight. No promises about tomorrow though.
 

There’s a cheat code for that

For a large percentage of kids and young adults, and maybe even older adults (we don’t judge), a storm warning means a cozy night in playing video games. Staying inside is probably the safest bet when there’s a storm, and the weatherman never says to avoid playing video games when there’s lightning.

xresch/Pixabay

Maybe he should, though, since a man from Tennessee reportedly got struck by lightning through his game controller. Emergency crews determined that lightning either hit the man’s house or struck near it and went through the controller. The type of console was not revealed, even though some people may want to know the specifics before playing during the next storm.

Luckily, the man was not seriously hurt and did not need to go to the hospital. This is apparently not unheard of, as a professional gamer was shocked through a wired controller last year, causing burns on her hands and a broken controller.

This might be our cue to do less electrical types of activities during thunderstorms, like knitting or reading by candlelight.
 

Freeze, squeeze, and enjoy … cramping

As you were ingesting last week’s installment of the never-ending buffet that is LOTME, you probably wondered: What’s going on? Where’s the latest bodily insult being perpetuated by the gang over at TikTok?

Daria-Yakovleva/Pixabay

Have no fear, good readers. We would never make you go 2 straight weeks without serving up some hyperpalatable TikTok tidbits.

Our bodily insult du jour is frozen honey, and it’s exploding all over TikTok … and a few other places. “The hashtag ‘#FrozenHoney’ has been viewed nearly 600 million times, and the hashtag ‘#FrozenHoneyChallenge’ has been viewed more than 80 million times,” NBC News recently reported.

After a few hours in the freezer, honey can be squeezed out of a plastic bottle as a semisolid, toothpastelike goo – it’s stiff enough to rise out of a container that’s pointed straight up – and bitten off in large chunks. And therein lies the problem.

Some people are overdoing it. “Honey is great, but having it in small amounts to sweeten is really a healthy relationship with food, and using it to get a lot of followers and a lot of attention and having it in excess amounts is crazy,” Kristin Kirkpatrick, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic, told NBC.

Besides the possible weight gain from eating massive amounts of sugar, experts warned that “gobbling up bottles of frozen honey” could lead to stomach cramping, bloating, and diarrhea. Some TikTokers, NBC noted, said that they “were running for the bathroom.”

As we said, it’s a trend that is exploding.

Be sure to tune in next week, when we learn how TikTokers use ground meat as a skin moisturizer.
 

Bother me, I’m working 

Although some of us have been comfortably functioning in a virtual work environment, others are now trickling back into the office. And you know what that means? People come to your desk to show you pictures of their cat or tell you about their kid’s birthday party. You may sneer at the interruption, but a study shows you actually like it.

Rawpixel/Thinkstock

A team of researchers at the University of Cincinnati surveyed 111 full-time employees twice a day for 3 weeks about their work experience. They asked about mental exhaustion, workplace interruptions, sense of belonging, and overall job satisfaction. They found that employees had a higher sense of belonging and job satisfaction when interrupted with a social versus work interruption.

“Interruptions can actually benefit individuals from an interpersonal perspective – people feel like they belong when others come and talk to them or ask them questions, even while being distracted from their tasks,” said Heather C. Vough, senior investigator and a former university faculty member.

Chitchatting at work is often seen as a distraction, but this study suggests that it’s not like heating up fish in the breakroom microwave.

So the next time someone hits you with the “Hey, do you have a sec?,” do yourself a favor and enjoy the interruption.
 

A smorgasbord of science

It’s probably difficult to recruit patients for some medical trials. Try this new drug and potentially get all sorts of interesting and unpleasant side effects. Pass. We suggest the approach a group of researchers from the University of Kansas took for a recent study into weight gain: Invite a bunch of 20-something adults to an all-you-can-eat buffet. They’ll be beating down your door in no time.

pxfuel

Their study, published in Appetite, focused on hyperpalatable food – the sort of food you can keep eating – and compared it with high-energy-dense food and ultra processed food. The test patients had their body composition measured, were let loose on the buffet, and were measured again a year later.

The patients who favored salty/carbohydrate-filled hyperpalatable food (such as pretzels or popcorn) were much more likely to gain weight, compared with those who focused on salty/fat-filled food of any variety. As a matter of fact, those who stuck to fatty food during the buffet had no change in weight over the 1-year study period. The researchers noted that those who ate the carb-filled food tended more toward hedonic eating, or the act of eating simply for pleasure.

The study is no doubt helpful in the long battle against obesity and overeating, but it’s also a very helpful guide to getting the most bang for your buck at the buffet. Stay away from the cheap salty snack food. Go for the steak and seafood. Get your money’s worth. In the long run you won’t even gain any weight. No promises about tomorrow though.
 

There’s a cheat code for that

For a large percentage of kids and young adults, and maybe even older adults (we don’t judge), a storm warning means a cozy night in playing video games. Staying inside is probably the safest bet when there’s a storm, and the weatherman never says to avoid playing video games when there’s lightning.

xresch/Pixabay

Maybe he should, though, since a man from Tennessee reportedly got struck by lightning through his game controller. Emergency crews determined that lightning either hit the man’s house or struck near it and went through the controller. The type of console was not revealed, even though some people may want to know the specifics before playing during the next storm.

Luckily, the man was not seriously hurt and did not need to go to the hospital. This is apparently not unheard of, as a professional gamer was shocked through a wired controller last year, causing burns on her hands and a broken controller.

This might be our cue to do less electrical types of activities during thunderstorms, like knitting or reading by candlelight.
 

Freeze, squeeze, and enjoy … cramping

As you were ingesting last week’s installment of the never-ending buffet that is LOTME, you probably wondered: What’s going on? Where’s the latest bodily insult being perpetuated by the gang over at TikTok?

Daria-Yakovleva/Pixabay

Have no fear, good readers. We would never make you go 2 straight weeks without serving up some hyperpalatable TikTok tidbits.

Our bodily insult du jour is frozen honey, and it’s exploding all over TikTok … and a few other places. “The hashtag ‘#FrozenHoney’ has been viewed nearly 600 million times, and the hashtag ‘#FrozenHoneyChallenge’ has been viewed more than 80 million times,” NBC News recently reported.

After a few hours in the freezer, honey can be squeezed out of a plastic bottle as a semisolid, toothpastelike goo – it’s stiff enough to rise out of a container that’s pointed straight up – and bitten off in large chunks. And therein lies the problem.

Some people are overdoing it. “Honey is great, but having it in small amounts to sweeten is really a healthy relationship with food, and using it to get a lot of followers and a lot of attention and having it in excess amounts is crazy,” Kristin Kirkpatrick, a registered dietitian at the Cleveland Clinic, told NBC.

Besides the possible weight gain from eating massive amounts of sugar, experts warned that “gobbling up bottles of frozen honey” could lead to stomach cramping, bloating, and diarrhea. Some TikTokers, NBC noted, said that they “were running for the bathroom.”

As we said, it’s a trend that is exploding.

Be sure to tune in next week, when we learn how TikTokers use ground meat as a skin moisturizer.