MDedge Pediatrics

Baby formula trials are not reliable, and have an “almost universal lack of transparency” which could undermine breastfeeding, according to the results of a systematic review published in BMJ. The findings underscore the need for significant change in the way such trials are conducted and reported, concluded lead author Bartosz Helfer, PhD, of the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London and the University of Wroclaw (Poland) Institute of Psychology and his coauthors. Citing a high risk of bias, selective reporting, and “almost universally favourable conclusions,” the international team of investigators suggested “some trials might have a marketing aim and no robust scientific aim,” concluding “much of the recent information generated about formula products might be misleading.”

The review included a detailed evaluation of 125 trials published since 2015, that compared at least two formula products in 23,757 children less than 3 years of age. The trials were evaluated for how they were conducted and reported, with specific attention paid to their risk of bias and risk of undermining breastfeeding.

Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment 2.0 (ROB2), the analysis found that risk of bias was high in 80% of trials “usually because of inappropriate exclusions of participants from the analysis, and selective reporting,” the investigators noted. “This lack of transparency was complemented by favourable conclusions in more than 90% of recent trials, and evidence of publication bias in recent superiority trials.”

When conflict of interest was assessed, the analysis showed 84% of the trials received support from the formula milk industry, and of these, 77% had at least one author affiliated with a formula company. Overall, only 14% of trials had a low level of conflicts of interest according to the investigators’ definition “that the main source of funding had no commercial interest in the outcome of the trial and all of the authors of the study declared no financial ties to an entity with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.”

The investigators also noted that, by providing free formula to parents of breastfed or mixed-fed infants, many of the trials may have contravened the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes – an international agreement used to protect breastfeeding and limit the marketing of formula. “Claims arising from formula trials can contribute to formula marketing by narrowing the perceived benefits of breast milk over formula for consumers,” they wrote, calling for “improved oversight, conduct, and reporting of formula trials to ensure they provide a rigorous evidence base to inform nutrition in infants and young children.”

Asked to comment, Jennifer L. Pomeranz, JD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this publication the findings are “very concerning.” Ms. Pomeranz of New York University’s School of Global Public Health, recently reported similar issues in an analysis of baby formula websites. “Infant formula labels in the U.S. are adorned with a plethora of unsupported health and nutrition-related claims, including unregulated structure/function claims and breast milk comparison claims,” she said. “Moreover, infant formula marketing uses these claims to convince new parents that infant formula is necessary and even better for their infants than breast milk. Our research indicates that parents believe the popular claims made by formula companies and some even believe that infant formula is better for their child’s development than breast milk. If these claims are based on trials with no robust scientific basis, as the study suggests might be the case, then they are certainly false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading.”

Ms. Pomeranz called for the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of infant formula labels, adding that “Congress should grant the FDA the explicit authority to require evidence to support structure/function claims on infant formula and prohibit breast milk comparison claims. ... The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general should bring actions against infant formula manufacturers for false and deceptive claims made in marketing materials,” she added.

Jack Newman, MD, another expert not involved in the study told this publication that the findings show how most formula studies “are essentially another marketing tool of the formula companies and are aimed at a very susceptible audience – health care professionals.” According to Dr. Newman, chief pediatrician and founder of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic in Toronto and a former UNICEF consultant for the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, “health care professionals often like to believe they are immune to formula company marketing – yet this study shows that, even if they believed they were relying on scientific evidence, they were in fact being influenced toward formula feeding by studies that are biased, unreliable, and designed to promote formula to begin with.”

However, Stewart Forsyth, MD, honorary professor in child health, at the University of Dundee (Scotland) and retired consultant pediatrician and medical director at NHS Tayside, Scotland, cautioned that this is a delicate issue on all sides of the debate. The possibility of bias “is a potential issue with all aspects of research but is heightened in relation to infant feeding research because of the longstanding conflict involving the World Health Organisation, breastfeeding activist groups, and the infant formula industry, and as a consequence, all three of these organisations frequently resort to overinterpreting the data to favour their arguments,” he told this publication. An example is the suggestion that formula trials might contravene the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes because they provide free formula to participants. “Since when do participants in a research study have to pay for the intervention that is being studied?” he asked.

Dr. Stewart advised three key considerations “to mitigate the damaging effects that this type of inappropriate and misleading information may have on policy, practice, and engagement with parents.” First, it must be acknowledged that there is need for “a product that will provide a safety net for infants who are not offered breast milk,” he said. “It has been argued that to determine optimum nutrient requirements in infants and young children collaboration with nutrition companies is required.” Second, “all researchers need to comply with regulations relating to scientific methods, ethical standards, and financial diligence.” And finally, “there needs to be more effective planning and coordination of research activities to ensure that lessons are learned from the many studies that have design and methodological deficiencies.”

The study was funded by Imperial Health Charity. Ms. Pomeranz and Dr. Newman reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Forsyth has undertaken consultancy work with governments, health care institutions, academia, and industry and has received research grants and honoraria from governments, charitable organizations and industry, including infant formula companies.

Senior author Robert J. Boyle, MBChB, MRCP, PhD, received personal fees from Cochrane, DBV Technologies, and Prota Therapeutics, and from expert witness work in cases of food anaphylaxis and class actions related to infant formula health claims, outside the submitted work, and received personal fees from Public Health England as a member of the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Coauthor Jo Leonardi-Bee, MSc, PhD, received fees from Danone Nutricia Research and the Food Standards Agency, outside of the submitted work.

Baby formula trials are not reliable, and have an “almost universal lack of transparency” which could undermine breastfeeding, according to the results of a systematic review published in BMJ. The findings underscore the need for significant change in the way such trials are conducted and reported, concluded lead author Bartosz Helfer, PhD, of the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London and the University of Wroclaw (Poland) Institute of Psychology and his coauthors. Citing a high risk of bias, selective reporting, and “almost universally favourable conclusions,” the international team of investigators suggested “some trials might have a marketing aim and no robust scientific aim,” concluding “much of the recent information generated about formula products might be misleading.”

The review included a detailed evaluation of 125 trials published since 2015, that compared at least two formula products in 23,757 children less than 3 years of age. The trials were evaluated for how they were conducted and reported, with specific attention paid to their risk of bias and risk of undermining breastfeeding.

Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment 2.0 (ROB2), the analysis found that risk of bias was high in 80% of trials “usually because of inappropriate exclusions of participants from the analysis, and selective reporting,” the investigators noted. “This lack of transparency was complemented by favourable conclusions in more than 90% of recent trials, and evidence of publication bias in recent superiority trials.”

When conflict of interest was assessed, the analysis showed 84% of the trials received support from the formula milk industry, and of these, 77% had at least one author affiliated with a formula company. Overall, only 14% of trials had a low level of conflicts of interest according to the investigators’ definition “that the main source of funding had no commercial interest in the outcome of the trial and all of the authors of the study declared no financial ties to an entity with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.”

The investigators also noted that, by providing free formula to parents of breastfed or mixed-fed infants, many of the trials may have contravened the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes – an international agreement used to protect breastfeeding and limit the marketing of formula. “Claims arising from formula trials can contribute to formula marketing by narrowing the perceived benefits of breast milk over formula for consumers,” they wrote, calling for “improved oversight, conduct, and reporting of formula trials to ensure they provide a rigorous evidence base to inform nutrition in infants and young children.”

Asked to comment, Jennifer L. Pomeranz, JD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this publication the findings are “very concerning.” Ms. Pomeranz of New York University’s School of Global Public Health, recently reported similar issues in an analysis of baby formula websites. “Infant formula labels in the U.S. are adorned with a plethora of unsupported health and nutrition-related claims, including unregulated structure/function claims and breast milk comparison claims,” she said. “Moreover, infant formula marketing uses these claims to convince new parents that infant formula is necessary and even better for their infants than breast milk. Our research indicates that parents believe the popular claims made by formula companies and some even believe that infant formula is better for their child’s development than breast milk. If these claims are based on trials with no robust scientific basis, as the study suggests might be the case, then they are certainly false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading.”

Ms. Pomeranz called for the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of infant formula labels, adding that “Congress should grant the FDA the explicit authority to require evidence to support structure/function claims on infant formula and prohibit breast milk comparison claims. ... The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general should bring actions against infant formula manufacturers for false and deceptive claims made in marketing materials,” she added.

Jack Newman, MD, another expert not involved in the study told this publication that the findings show how most formula studies “are essentially another marketing tool of the formula companies and are aimed at a very susceptible audience – health care professionals.” According to Dr. Newman, chief pediatrician and founder of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic in Toronto and a former UNICEF consultant for the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, “health care professionals often like to believe they are immune to formula company marketing – yet this study shows that, even if they believed they were relying on scientific evidence, they were in fact being influenced toward formula feeding by studies that are biased, unreliable, and designed to promote formula to begin with.”

However, Stewart Forsyth, MD, honorary professor in child health, at the University of Dundee (Scotland) and retired consultant pediatrician and medical director at NHS Tayside, Scotland, cautioned that this is a delicate issue on all sides of the debate. The possibility of bias “is a potential issue with all aspects of research but is heightened in relation to infant feeding research because of the longstanding conflict involving the World Health Organisation, breastfeeding activist groups, and the infant formula industry, and as a consequence, all three of these organisations frequently resort to overinterpreting the data to favour their arguments,” he told this publication. An example is the suggestion that formula trials might contravene the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes because they provide free formula to participants. “Since when do participants in a research study have to pay for the intervention that is being studied?” he asked.

Dr. Stewart advised three key considerations “to mitigate the damaging effects that this type of inappropriate and misleading information may have on policy, practice, and engagement with parents.” First, it must be acknowledged that there is need for “a product that will provide a safety net for infants who are not offered breast milk,” he said. “It has been argued that to determine optimum nutrient requirements in infants and young children collaboration with nutrition companies is required.” Second, “all researchers need to comply with regulations relating to scientific methods, ethical standards, and financial diligence.” And finally, “there needs to be more effective planning and coordination of research activities to ensure that lessons are learned from the many studies that have design and methodological deficiencies.”

The study was funded by Imperial Health Charity. Ms. Pomeranz and Dr. Newman reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Forsyth has undertaken consultancy work with governments, health care institutions, academia, and industry and has received research grants and honoraria from governments, charitable organizations and industry, including infant formula companies.

Senior author Robert J. Boyle, MBChB, MRCP, PhD, received personal fees from Cochrane, DBV Technologies, and Prota Therapeutics, and from expert witness work in cases of food anaphylaxis and class actions related to infant formula health claims, outside the submitted work, and received personal fees from Public Health England as a member of the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Coauthor Jo Leonardi-Bee, MSc, PhD, received fees from Danone Nutricia Research and the Food Standards Agency, outside of the submitted work.

Baby formula trials are not reliable, and have an “almost universal lack of transparency” which could undermine breastfeeding, according to the results of a systematic review published in BMJ. The findings underscore the need for significant change in the way such trials are conducted and reported, concluded lead author Bartosz Helfer, PhD, of the National Heart and Lung Institute at Imperial College London and the University of Wroclaw (Poland) Institute of Psychology and his coauthors. Citing a high risk of bias, selective reporting, and “almost universally favourable conclusions,” the international team of investigators suggested “some trials might have a marketing aim and no robust scientific aim,” concluding “much of the recent information generated about formula products might be misleading.”

The review included a detailed evaluation of 125 trials published since 2015, that compared at least two formula products in 23,757 children less than 3 years of age. The trials were evaluated for how they were conducted and reported, with specific attention paid to their risk of bias and risk of undermining breastfeeding.

Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment 2.0 (ROB2), the analysis found that risk of bias was high in 80% of trials “usually because of inappropriate exclusions of participants from the analysis, and selective reporting,” the investigators noted. “This lack of transparency was complemented by favourable conclusions in more than 90% of recent trials, and evidence of publication bias in recent superiority trials.”

When conflict of interest was assessed, the analysis showed 84% of the trials received support from the formula milk industry, and of these, 77% had at least one author affiliated with a formula company. Overall, only 14% of trials had a low level of conflicts of interest according to the investigators’ definition “that the main source of funding had no commercial interest in the outcome of the trial and all of the authors of the study declared no financial ties to an entity with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.”

The investigators also noted that, by providing free formula to parents of breastfed or mixed-fed infants, many of the trials may have contravened the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes – an international agreement used to protect breastfeeding and limit the marketing of formula. “Claims arising from formula trials can contribute to formula marketing by narrowing the perceived benefits of breast milk over formula for consumers,” they wrote, calling for “improved oversight, conduct, and reporting of formula trials to ensure they provide a rigorous evidence base to inform nutrition in infants and young children.”

Asked to comment, Jennifer L. Pomeranz, JD, MPH, who was not involved in the study, told this publication the findings are “very concerning.” Ms. Pomeranz of New York University’s School of Global Public Health, recently reported similar issues in an analysis of baby formula websites. “Infant formula labels in the U.S. are adorned with a plethora of unsupported health and nutrition-related claims, including unregulated structure/function claims and breast milk comparison claims,” she said. “Moreover, infant formula marketing uses these claims to convince new parents that infant formula is necessary and even better for their infants than breast milk. Our research indicates that parents believe the popular claims made by formula companies and some even believe that infant formula is better for their child’s development than breast milk. If these claims are based on trials with no robust scientific basis, as the study suggests might be the case, then they are certainly false, deceptive, unfair, and misleading.”

Ms. Pomeranz called for the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of infant formula labels, adding that “Congress should grant the FDA the explicit authority to require evidence to support structure/function claims on infant formula and prohibit breast milk comparison claims. ... The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general should bring actions against infant formula manufacturers for false and deceptive claims made in marketing materials,” she added.

Jack Newman, MD, another expert not involved in the study told this publication that the findings show how most formula studies “are essentially another marketing tool of the formula companies and are aimed at a very susceptible audience – health care professionals.” According to Dr. Newman, chief pediatrician and founder of the Newman Breastfeeding Clinic in Toronto and a former UNICEF consultant for the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, “health care professionals often like to believe they are immune to formula company marketing – yet this study shows that, even if they believed they were relying on scientific evidence, they were in fact being influenced toward formula feeding by studies that are biased, unreliable, and designed to promote formula to begin with.”

However, Stewart Forsyth, MD, honorary professor in child health, at the University of Dundee (Scotland) and retired consultant pediatrician and medical director at NHS Tayside, Scotland, cautioned that this is a delicate issue on all sides of the debate. The possibility of bias “is a potential issue with all aspects of research but is heightened in relation to infant feeding research because of the longstanding conflict involving the World Health Organisation, breastfeeding activist groups, and the infant formula industry, and as a consequence, all three of these organisations frequently resort to overinterpreting the data to favour their arguments,” he told this publication. An example is the suggestion that formula trials might contravene the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes because they provide free formula to participants. “Since when do participants in a research study have to pay for the intervention that is being studied?” he asked.

Dr. Stewart advised three key considerations “to mitigate the damaging effects that this type of inappropriate and misleading information may have on policy, practice, and engagement with parents.” First, it must be acknowledged that there is need for “a product that will provide a safety net for infants who are not offered breast milk,” he said. “It has been argued that to determine optimum nutrient requirements in infants and young children collaboration with nutrition companies is required.” Second, “all researchers need to comply with regulations relating to scientific methods, ethical standards, and financial diligence.” And finally, “there needs to be more effective planning and coordination of research activities to ensure that lessons are learned from the many studies that have design and methodological deficiencies.”

The study was funded by Imperial Health Charity. Ms. Pomeranz and Dr. Newman reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Forsyth has undertaken consultancy work with governments, health care institutions, academia, and industry and has received research grants and honoraria from governments, charitable organizations and industry, including infant formula companies.

Senior author Robert J. Boyle, MBChB, MRCP, PhD, received personal fees from Cochrane, DBV Technologies, and Prota Therapeutics, and from expert witness work in cases of food anaphylaxis and class actions related to infant formula health claims, outside the submitted work, and received personal fees from Public Health England as a member of the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee and the Maternal and Child Nutrition Subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. Coauthor Jo Leonardi-Bee, MSc, PhD, received fees from Danone Nutricia Research and the Food Standards Agency, outside of the submitted work.

A new analysis has shown disparities in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White adults in the United States, disparities that may be largely attributable to social determinants of health.

Investigators analyzed 20 years of data on over 50,500 U.S. adults drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and found that, in the overall population, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were significantly increased between 1999 and 2018, while serum total cholesterol and cigarette smoking were significantly decreased. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased between 1999 and 2010, but then increased after 2010.

The mean age- and sex-adjusted estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was consistently higher in Black participants vs. White participants, but the difference was attenuated after further adjusting for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

“These findings are helpful to guide the development of national public health policies for targeted interventions aimed at eliminating health disparities,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Copes Chair and professor of epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

“Interventions on social determinants of cardiovascular health should be tested in rigorous designed intervention trials,” said Dr. He, director of the Tulane University Translational Science Institute.

The study was published online Oct. 5 in JAMA.
 

‘Flattened’ CVD mortality?

Recent data show that the CVD mortality rate flattened, while the total number of cardiovascular deaths increased in the U.S. general population from 2010 to 2018, “but the reasons for this deceleration in the decline of CVD mortality are not entirely understood,” Dr. He said.

Moreover, “racial and ethnic differences in CVD mortality persist in the U.S. general population [but] the secular trends of cardiovascular risk factors among U.S. subpopulations with various racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status are [also] not well understood,” he added. The effects of social determinants of health, such as education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care on racial/ethnic differences in CVD risk, “are not well documented.”

To investigate these questions, the researchers drew on data from NHANES, a series of cross-sectional surveys in nationally representative samples of the U.S. population aged 20 years and older. The surveys are conducted in 2-year cycles and include data from 10 cycles conducted from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 (n = 50,571, mean age 49.0-51.8 years; 48.2%-51.3% female).

Every 2 years, participants provided sociodemographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, employment, housing, health insurance, and access to health care, as well as medical history and medication use. They underwent a physical examination that included weight and height, blood pressure, lipid levels, plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c.
 

Social determinants of health

Between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, age- and sex-adjusted mean BMI and hemoglobin A1c increased, while mean serum total cholesterol and prevalence of smoking decreased (all P < .001).

Participants with at least a college education or high family income had “consistently lower levels” of cardiovascular risk factors. And although the mean age- and sex-adjusted 10-year risk for ASCVD was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White participants (difference, 1.4% [1.0%-1.7%] in 1999-2008 and 2.0% [1.7%-2.4%] in 2009-2018), the difference was attenuated (by –0.3% in 1999-2008 and 0.7% in 2009-2018) after the researchers further adjusted for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

The differences in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White participants “may have been moderated by social determinants of health,” the authors noted.
 

Provide appropriate education

Commenting on the study in an interview, Mary Ann McLaughlin, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine, cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, pointed out that two important cardiovascular risk factors associated with being overweight – hypertension and diabetes – remained higher in the Black population compared with the White population in this analysis.

“Physicians and health care systems should provide appropriate education and resources regarding risk factor modification regarding diet, exercise, and blood pressure control,” advised Dr. McLaughlin, who was not involved with the study.

“Importantly, smoking rates and cholesterol levels are lower in the Black population, compared to the White population, when adjusted for many important socioeconomic factors,” she pointed out.

Dr. McLaughlin added that other “important social determinants of health, such as neighborhood and access to healthy food, were not measured and should be addressed by physicians when optimizing cardiovascular risk.”

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. One of the researchers, Joshua D. Bundy, PhD, was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. He and the other coauthors and Dr. McLaughlin reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new analysis has shown disparities in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White adults in the United States, disparities that may be largely attributable to social determinants of health.

Investigators analyzed 20 years of data on over 50,500 U.S. adults drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and found that, in the overall population, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were significantly increased between 1999 and 2018, while serum total cholesterol and cigarette smoking were significantly decreased. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased between 1999 and 2010, but then increased after 2010.

The mean age- and sex-adjusted estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was consistently higher in Black participants vs. White participants, but the difference was attenuated after further adjusting for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

“These findings are helpful to guide the development of national public health policies for targeted interventions aimed at eliminating health disparities,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Copes Chair and professor of epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

“Interventions on social determinants of cardiovascular health should be tested in rigorous designed intervention trials,” said Dr. He, director of the Tulane University Translational Science Institute.

The study was published online Oct. 5 in JAMA.
 

‘Flattened’ CVD mortality?

Recent data show that the CVD mortality rate flattened, while the total number of cardiovascular deaths increased in the U.S. general population from 2010 to 2018, “but the reasons for this deceleration in the decline of CVD mortality are not entirely understood,” Dr. He said.

Moreover, “racial and ethnic differences in CVD mortality persist in the U.S. general population [but] the secular trends of cardiovascular risk factors among U.S. subpopulations with various racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status are [also] not well understood,” he added. The effects of social determinants of health, such as education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care on racial/ethnic differences in CVD risk, “are not well documented.”

To investigate these questions, the researchers drew on data from NHANES, a series of cross-sectional surveys in nationally representative samples of the U.S. population aged 20 years and older. The surveys are conducted in 2-year cycles and include data from 10 cycles conducted from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 (n = 50,571, mean age 49.0-51.8 years; 48.2%-51.3% female).

Every 2 years, participants provided sociodemographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, employment, housing, health insurance, and access to health care, as well as medical history and medication use. They underwent a physical examination that included weight and height, blood pressure, lipid levels, plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c.
 

Social determinants of health

Between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, age- and sex-adjusted mean BMI and hemoglobin A1c increased, while mean serum total cholesterol and prevalence of smoking decreased (all P < .001).

Participants with at least a college education or high family income had “consistently lower levels” of cardiovascular risk factors. And although the mean age- and sex-adjusted 10-year risk for ASCVD was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White participants (difference, 1.4% [1.0%-1.7%] in 1999-2008 and 2.0% [1.7%-2.4%] in 2009-2018), the difference was attenuated (by –0.3% in 1999-2008 and 0.7% in 2009-2018) after the researchers further adjusted for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

The differences in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White participants “may have been moderated by social determinants of health,” the authors noted.
 

Provide appropriate education

Commenting on the study in an interview, Mary Ann McLaughlin, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine, cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, pointed out that two important cardiovascular risk factors associated with being overweight – hypertension and diabetes – remained higher in the Black population compared with the White population in this analysis.

“Physicians and health care systems should provide appropriate education and resources regarding risk factor modification regarding diet, exercise, and blood pressure control,” advised Dr. McLaughlin, who was not involved with the study.

“Importantly, smoking rates and cholesterol levels are lower in the Black population, compared to the White population, when adjusted for many important socioeconomic factors,” she pointed out.

Dr. McLaughlin added that other “important social determinants of health, such as neighborhood and access to healthy food, were not measured and should be addressed by physicians when optimizing cardiovascular risk.”

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. One of the researchers, Joshua D. Bundy, PhD, was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. He and the other coauthors and Dr. McLaughlin reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

A new analysis has shown disparities in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White adults in the United States, disparities that may be largely attributable to social determinants of health.

Investigators analyzed 20 years of data on over 50,500 U.S. adults drawn from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) and found that, in the overall population, body mass index and hemoglobin A1c were significantly increased between 1999 and 2018, while serum total cholesterol and cigarette smoking were significantly decreased. Mean systolic blood pressure decreased between 1999 and 2010, but then increased after 2010.

The mean age- and sex-adjusted estimated 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was consistently higher in Black participants vs. White participants, but the difference was attenuated after further adjusting for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

“These findings are helpful to guide the development of national public health policies for targeted interventions aimed at eliminating health disparities,” Jiang He, MD, PhD, Joseph S. Copes Chair and professor of epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, said in an interview.

“Interventions on social determinants of cardiovascular health should be tested in rigorous designed intervention trials,” said Dr. He, director of the Tulane University Translational Science Institute.

The study was published online Oct. 5 in JAMA.
 

‘Flattened’ CVD mortality?

Recent data show that the CVD mortality rate flattened, while the total number of cardiovascular deaths increased in the U.S. general population from 2010 to 2018, “but the reasons for this deceleration in the decline of CVD mortality are not entirely understood,” Dr. He said.

Moreover, “racial and ethnic differences in CVD mortality persist in the U.S. general population [but] the secular trends of cardiovascular risk factors among U.S. subpopulations with various racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status are [also] not well understood,” he added. The effects of social determinants of health, such as education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care on racial/ethnic differences in CVD risk, “are not well documented.”

To investigate these questions, the researchers drew on data from NHANES, a series of cross-sectional surveys in nationally representative samples of the U.S. population aged 20 years and older. The surveys are conducted in 2-year cycles and include data from 10 cycles conducted from 1999-2000 to 2017-2018 (n = 50,571, mean age 49.0-51.8 years; 48.2%-51.3% female).

Every 2 years, participants provided sociodemographic information, including age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, income, employment, housing, health insurance, and access to health care, as well as medical history and medication use. They underwent a physical examination that included weight and height, blood pressure, lipid levels, plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c.
 

Social determinants of health

Between 1999-2000 and 2017-2018, age- and sex-adjusted mean BMI and hemoglobin A1c increased, while mean serum total cholesterol and prevalence of smoking decreased (all P < .001).

Participants with at least a college education or high family income had “consistently lower levels” of cardiovascular risk factors. And although the mean age- and sex-adjusted 10-year risk for ASCVD was significantly higher in non-Hispanic Black vs. non-Hispanic White participants (difference, 1.4% [1.0%-1.7%] in 1999-2008 and 2.0% [1.7%-2.4%] in 2009-2018), the difference was attenuated (by –0.3% in 1999-2008 and 0.7% in 2009-2018) after the researchers further adjusted for education, income, home ownership, employment, health insurance, and access to health care.

The differences in cardiovascular risk factors between Black and White participants “may have been moderated by social determinants of health,” the authors noted.
 

Provide appropriate education

Commenting on the study in an interview, Mary Ann McLaughlin, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine, cardiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, pointed out that two important cardiovascular risk factors associated with being overweight – hypertension and diabetes – remained higher in the Black population compared with the White population in this analysis.

“Physicians and health care systems should provide appropriate education and resources regarding risk factor modification regarding diet, exercise, and blood pressure control,” advised Dr. McLaughlin, who was not involved with the study.

“Importantly, smoking rates and cholesterol levels are lower in the Black population, compared to the White population, when adjusted for many important socioeconomic factors,” she pointed out.

Dr. McLaughlin added that other “important social determinants of health, such as neighborhood and access to healthy food, were not measured and should be addressed by physicians when optimizing cardiovascular risk.”

The research reported in this publication was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. One of the researchers, Joshua D. Bundy, PhD, was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Dr. He and the other coauthors and Dr. McLaughlin reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The Diagnosis: Striated Muscle Hamartoma

Histopathologic evaluation revealed a dome-shaped papule with a center composed of mature striated muscle bundles, vellus hairs, sebaceous lobules, and nerve twigs (Figure) consistent with a diagnosis of striated muscle hamartoma (SMH).

Striated muscle hamartoma was first described in 1986 by Hendrick et al1 with 2 cases in neonates. Biopsies of the lesions taken from the upper lip and sternum showed a characteristic histology consisting of dermal striated muscle fibers and nerve bundles in the central core of the papules associated with a marked number of adnexa. In 1989, the diagnosis of rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma was described, which showed similar findings.² Cases reported since these entities were discovered have used the terms striated muscle hamartoma and rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma interchangeably.³

Most commonly found on the head and neck, SMH has now been observed in diverse locations including the sternum, hallux, vagina, and oral cavity.^1-15 Many reported cases describe lesions around or in the nose.^4,7,8 Multiple congenital anomalies have been described alongside SMH and may be associated with this entity including amniotic bands, cleft lip and palate, coloboma, and Delleman syndrome.^1,3,4 Almost all of the lesions present as a sessile or pedunculated papule, polyp, nodule, or plaque measuring from 0.3 cm up to 4.9 cm and typically are present since birth.^3,5,15 However, there are a few cases of lesions presenting in adults with no prior history.^5,6,15

Microscopically, SMH is defined by a dermal lesion with a core comprised of mature skeletal muscle admixed with adipose tissue, adnexa, nerve bundles, and fibrovascular tissue.¹ There are other entities that should be considered before making the diagnosis of SMH. Other hamartomas such as accessory tragus, connective tissue nevus, fibrous hamartoma of infancy, and nevus lipomatosis may present similarly; however, these lesions classically lack skeletal muscle. Benign triton tumors, or neuromuscular hamartomas, are rare lesions composed of skeletal muscle and abundant, intimately associated neural tissue. Neuromuscular hamartomas frequently involve large nerves.¹⁶ Rhabdomyomas also should be considered. Adult rhabdomyomas are composed of eosinophilic polygonal cells with granular cytoplasm and occasional cross-striations. Fetal rhabdomyomas have multiple histologic types and are defined by a variable myxoid stroma, eosinophilic spindled cells, and rhabdomyocytes in various stages of maturity. Genital rhabdomyomas histopathologically appear similar to fetal rhabdomyomas but are confined to the genital region. The skeletal muscle present in rhabdomyomas typically is less differentiated.¹⁷ TMature skeletal bundles should be a dominant component of the lesion before diagnosing SMH.

Typically presenting as congenital lesions in the head and neck region, papules with a dermal core of mature skeletal muscle associated with adnexa and nerve twigs should prompt consideration of a diagnosis of SMH or rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma. These lesions are benign and usually are cured with complete excision.

The Diagnosis: Striated Muscle Hamartoma

Histopathologic evaluation revealed a dome-shaped papule with a center composed of mature striated muscle bundles, vellus hairs, sebaceous lobules, and nerve twigs (Figure) consistent with a diagnosis of striated muscle hamartoma (SMH).

Striated muscle hamartoma was first described in 1986 by Hendrick et al1 with 2 cases in neonates. Biopsies of the lesions taken from the upper lip and sternum showed a characteristic histology consisting of dermal striated muscle fibers and nerve bundles in the central core of the papules associated with a marked number of adnexa. In 1989, the diagnosis of rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma was described, which showed similar findings.² Cases reported since these entities were discovered have used the terms striated muscle hamartoma and rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma interchangeably.³

Most commonly found on the head and neck, SMH has now been observed in diverse locations including the sternum, hallux, vagina, and oral cavity.^1-15 Many reported cases describe lesions around or in the nose.^4,7,8 Multiple congenital anomalies have been described alongside SMH and may be associated with this entity including amniotic bands, cleft lip and palate, coloboma, and Delleman syndrome.^1,3,4 Almost all of the lesions present as a sessile or pedunculated papule, polyp, nodule, or plaque measuring from 0.3 cm up to 4.9 cm and typically are present since birth.^3,5,15 However, there are a few cases of lesions presenting in adults with no prior history.^5,6,15

Microscopically, SMH is defined by a dermal lesion with a core comprised of mature skeletal muscle admixed with adipose tissue, adnexa, nerve bundles, and fibrovascular tissue.¹ There are other entities that should be considered before making the diagnosis of SMH. Other hamartomas such as accessory tragus, connective tissue nevus, fibrous hamartoma of infancy, and nevus lipomatosis may present similarly; however, these lesions classically lack skeletal muscle. Benign triton tumors, or neuromuscular hamartomas, are rare lesions composed of skeletal muscle and abundant, intimately associated neural tissue. Neuromuscular hamartomas frequently involve large nerves.¹⁶ Rhabdomyomas also should be considered. Adult rhabdomyomas are composed of eosinophilic polygonal cells with granular cytoplasm and occasional cross-striations. Fetal rhabdomyomas have multiple histologic types and are defined by a variable myxoid stroma, eosinophilic spindled cells, and rhabdomyocytes in various stages of maturity. Genital rhabdomyomas histopathologically appear similar to fetal rhabdomyomas but are confined to the genital region. The skeletal muscle present in rhabdomyomas typically is less differentiated.¹⁷ TMature skeletal bundles should be a dominant component of the lesion before diagnosing SMH.

Typically presenting as congenital lesions in the head and neck region, papules with a dermal core of mature skeletal muscle associated with adnexa and nerve twigs should prompt consideration of a diagnosis of SMH or rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma. These lesions are benign and usually are cured with complete excision.

The Diagnosis: Striated Muscle Hamartoma

Histopathologic evaluation revealed a dome-shaped papule with a center composed of mature striated muscle bundles, vellus hairs, sebaceous lobules, and nerve twigs (Figure) consistent with a diagnosis of striated muscle hamartoma (SMH).

Striated muscle hamartoma was first described in 1986 by Hendrick et al1 with 2 cases in neonates. Biopsies of the lesions taken from the upper lip and sternum showed a characteristic histology consisting of dermal striated muscle fibers and nerve bundles in the central core of the papules associated with a marked number of adnexa. In 1989, the diagnosis of rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma was described, which showed similar findings.² Cases reported since these entities were discovered have used the terms striated muscle hamartoma and rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma interchangeably.³

Most commonly found on the head and neck, SMH has now been observed in diverse locations including the sternum, hallux, vagina, and oral cavity.^1-15 Many reported cases describe lesions around or in the nose.^4,7,8 Multiple congenital anomalies have been described alongside SMH and may be associated with this entity including amniotic bands, cleft lip and palate, coloboma, and Delleman syndrome.^1,3,4 Almost all of the lesions present as a sessile or pedunculated papule, polyp, nodule, or plaque measuring from 0.3 cm up to 4.9 cm and typically are present since birth.^3,5,15 However, there are a few cases of lesions presenting in adults with no prior history.^5,6,15

Microscopically, SMH is defined by a dermal lesion with a core comprised of mature skeletal muscle admixed with adipose tissue, adnexa, nerve bundles, and fibrovascular tissue.¹ There are other entities that should be considered before making the diagnosis of SMH. Other hamartomas such as accessory tragus, connective tissue nevus, fibrous hamartoma of infancy, and nevus lipomatosis may present similarly; however, these lesions classically lack skeletal muscle. Benign triton tumors, or neuromuscular hamartomas, are rare lesions composed of skeletal muscle and abundant, intimately associated neural tissue. Neuromuscular hamartomas frequently involve large nerves.¹⁶ Rhabdomyomas also should be considered. Adult rhabdomyomas are composed of eosinophilic polygonal cells with granular cytoplasm and occasional cross-striations. Fetal rhabdomyomas have multiple histologic types and are defined by a variable myxoid stroma, eosinophilic spindled cells, and rhabdomyocytes in various stages of maturity. Genital rhabdomyomas histopathologically appear similar to fetal rhabdomyomas but are confined to the genital region. The skeletal muscle present in rhabdomyomas typically is less differentiated.¹⁷ TMature skeletal bundles should be a dominant component of the lesion before diagnosing SMH.

Typically presenting as congenital lesions in the head and neck region, papules with a dermal core of mature skeletal muscle associated with adnexa and nerve twigs should prompt consideration of a diagnosis of SMH or rhabdomyomatous mesenchymal hamartoma. These lesions are benign and usually are cured with complete excision.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices has voted to recommend Shingrix (zoster vaccine recombinant, adjuvanted) for the prevention of shingles in immunodeficient or immunosuppressed adults aged 19 or older. The recommendation was approved Oct. 20 by a unanimous vote.

Shingles is a reactivation of varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox. There are about 1 million cases of shingles in the United States every year, according to CDC estimates, and one in three Americans will develop shingles over their lifetime. While adults older than 50 are one of the most vulnerable groups to reinfection – with about 99% having been infected with VZV – a weakened immune system is another common risk factor.

The Food and Drug Administration originally approved Shingrix in 2017 for the prevention of shingles in adults over 50; in July of this year, the vaccine was approved for immunodeficient adults aged 18 or older. The approval and subsequent recommendation by ACIP were based on clinical studies of Shingrix in adults being treated for hematologic malignancies or those who had undergone an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant.

According to a press statement from the FDA, “Further safety and immunogenicity data were generated in adults who were, or were anticipated to be, immunodeficient or immunosuppressed due to known disease or therapy, including patients with HIV, solid tumors, and renal transplants.”

For adults with functional immune systems, Shingrix is administered in two doses, 2-6 months apart. For immunocompromised individuals, the second dose can be given 1-2 months after the first dose.

During the same meeting, ACIP also voted to recommend pneumococcal vaccines for routine use in adults older than 65 and in adults aged 19-64 with chronic conditions such as diabetes, chronic heart disease, chronic liver disease, and HIV, and disease risk factors like smoking and alcoholism. The recommendation only applies to those who have not received a pneumococcal conjugate vaccine or whose vaccination history is unknown. The recommendation states that qualifying adults should be vaccinated with the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Vaxneuvance followed by Pneumovax23, or a single dose of the 20-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine Prevnar 20.

These ACIP recommendations will now be sent to the directors of the CDC and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services for review and approval. If approved, the recommendations are considered finalized and will be published in a future Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

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

Physicians may be able to help students get back on track after the pandemic derailed normal schooling, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician suggests.

The disruptions especially affected vulnerable students, such as those with disabilities and those affected by poverty. But academic setbacks occurred across grades and demographics.

“What we know is that, if it was bad before COVID, things are much worse now,” Eric Tridas, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations. It exacerbated their learning and mental health problems to a high degree.”

In an effort to help kids catch up, pediatricians can provide information to parents about approaches to accelerated academic instruction, Dr. Tridas suggested. They also can monitor for depression and anxiety, and provide appropriate referrals and, if needed, medication, said Dr. Tridas, who is a member of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.

Doctors also can collaborate with educators to establish schoolwide plans to address mental health problems, he said.

Dr. Tridas focused on vulnerable populations, including students with neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as students of color, English language learners, and Indigenous populations. But other research presented at the AAP meeting focused on challenges that college students in general encountered during the pandemic.

Nelson Chow, a research intern at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., and colleagues surveyed college students in June 2020 about academic barriers when their schools switched to virtual learning.

Nearly 80% of the 307 respondents had difficulties concentrating. Many students also agreed that responsibilities at home (57.6%), mental health issues (46.3%), family relationships (37.8%), financial hardships (31.5%), and limited Internet access (25.1%) were among the factors that posed academic barriers.

A larger proportion of Hispanic students reported that responsibilities at home were a challenge, compared with non-Hispanic students, the researchers found.

“It is especially important to have a particular awareness of the cultural and socioeconomic factors that may impact students’ outcomes,” Mr. Chow said in a news release highlighting the research.

Although studies indicate that the pandemic led to academic losses across the board in terms of students not learning as much as usual, these setbacks were more pronounced for vulnerable populations, Dr. Tridas said.

What can busy pediatricians do? “We can at least inquire about how the kids are doing educationally, and with mental health. That’s it. If we do that, we are doing an awful lot.”
 

Education

Dr. Tridas pointed meeting attendees to a report from the National Center for Learning Disabilities, “Promising Practices to Accelerate Learning for Students with Disabilities During COVID-19 and Beyond,” that he said could be a helpful resource for pediatricians, parents, and educators who want to learn more about accelerated learning approaches.

Research indicates that these strategies “may help in a situation like this,” Dr. Tridas said.

Accelerated approaches typically simplify the curriculum to focus on essential reading, writing, and math skills that most students should acquire by third grade, while capitalizing on students’ strengths and interests.

Despite vulnerable students having fallen farther behind academically, they likely are doing the same thing in school that they were doing before COVID-19, “which was not working to begin with,” he said. “That is why I try to provide parents and pediatricians with ways of ... recognizing when appropriate instruction is being provided.”

Sharing this information does not necessarily mean that schools will implement those strategies, or that schools are not applying them already. Still, making parents aware of these approaches can help, he said.
 

Emotional health

Social isolation, loss of routine and structure, more screen time, and changes in sleeping and eating patterns during the pandemic are factors that may have exacerbated mental health problems in students.

Vulnerable populations are at higher risk for these issues, and it will be important to monitor these kids for suicidal ideation and depression, especially in middle school and high school, Dr. Tridas said.

Doctors should establish alliances with mental health providers in their communities if they are not able to provide cognitive-behavioral therapy or medication management in their own practices.

And at home and at school, children should have structure and consistency, positive enforcement of appropriate conduct, and a safe environment that allows them to fail and try again, Dr. Tridas said.

Dr. Tridas and Mr. Chow had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Physicians may be able to help students get back on track after the pandemic derailed normal schooling, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician suggests.

The disruptions especially affected vulnerable students, such as those with disabilities and those affected by poverty. But academic setbacks occurred across grades and demographics.

“What we know is that, if it was bad before COVID, things are much worse now,” Eric Tridas, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations. It exacerbated their learning and mental health problems to a high degree.”

In an effort to help kids catch up, pediatricians can provide information to parents about approaches to accelerated academic instruction, Dr. Tridas suggested. They also can monitor for depression and anxiety, and provide appropriate referrals and, if needed, medication, said Dr. Tridas, who is a member of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.

Doctors also can collaborate with educators to establish schoolwide plans to address mental health problems, he said.

Dr. Tridas focused on vulnerable populations, including students with neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as students of color, English language learners, and Indigenous populations. But other research presented at the AAP meeting focused on challenges that college students in general encountered during the pandemic.

Nelson Chow, a research intern at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., and colleagues surveyed college students in June 2020 about academic barriers when their schools switched to virtual learning.

Nearly 80% of the 307 respondents had difficulties concentrating. Many students also agreed that responsibilities at home (57.6%), mental health issues (46.3%), family relationships (37.8%), financial hardships (31.5%), and limited Internet access (25.1%) were among the factors that posed academic barriers.

A larger proportion of Hispanic students reported that responsibilities at home were a challenge, compared with non-Hispanic students, the researchers found.

“It is especially important to have a particular awareness of the cultural and socioeconomic factors that may impact students’ outcomes,” Mr. Chow said in a news release highlighting the research.

Although studies indicate that the pandemic led to academic losses across the board in terms of students not learning as much as usual, these setbacks were more pronounced for vulnerable populations, Dr. Tridas said.

What can busy pediatricians do? “We can at least inquire about how the kids are doing educationally, and with mental health. That’s it. If we do that, we are doing an awful lot.”
 

Education

Dr. Tridas pointed meeting attendees to a report from the National Center for Learning Disabilities, “Promising Practices to Accelerate Learning for Students with Disabilities During COVID-19 and Beyond,” that he said could be a helpful resource for pediatricians, parents, and educators who want to learn more about accelerated learning approaches.

Research indicates that these strategies “may help in a situation like this,” Dr. Tridas said.

Accelerated approaches typically simplify the curriculum to focus on essential reading, writing, and math skills that most students should acquire by third grade, while capitalizing on students’ strengths and interests.

Despite vulnerable students having fallen farther behind academically, they likely are doing the same thing in school that they were doing before COVID-19, “which was not working to begin with,” he said. “That is why I try to provide parents and pediatricians with ways of ... recognizing when appropriate instruction is being provided.”

Sharing this information does not necessarily mean that schools will implement those strategies, or that schools are not applying them already. Still, making parents aware of these approaches can help, he said.
 

Emotional health

Social isolation, loss of routine and structure, more screen time, and changes in sleeping and eating patterns during the pandemic are factors that may have exacerbated mental health problems in students.

Vulnerable populations are at higher risk for these issues, and it will be important to monitor these kids for suicidal ideation and depression, especially in middle school and high school, Dr. Tridas said.

Doctors should establish alliances with mental health providers in their communities if they are not able to provide cognitive-behavioral therapy or medication management in their own practices.

And at home and at school, children should have structure and consistency, positive enforcement of appropriate conduct, and a safe environment that allows them to fail and try again, Dr. Tridas said.

Dr. Tridas and Mr. Chow had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Physicians may be able to help students get back on track after the pandemic derailed normal schooling, a developmental and behavioral pediatrician suggests.

The disruptions especially affected vulnerable students, such as those with disabilities and those affected by poverty. But academic setbacks occurred across grades and demographics.

“What we know is that, if it was bad before COVID, things are much worse now,” Eric Tridas, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “The pandemic disproportionately affected vulnerable populations. It exacerbated their learning and mental health problems to a high degree.”

In an effort to help kids catch up, pediatricians can provide information to parents about approaches to accelerated academic instruction, Dr. Tridas suggested. They also can monitor for depression and anxiety, and provide appropriate referrals and, if needed, medication, said Dr. Tridas, who is a member of the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.

Doctors also can collaborate with educators to establish schoolwide plans to address mental health problems, he said.

Dr. Tridas focused on vulnerable populations, including students with neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as students of color, English language learners, and Indigenous populations. But other research presented at the AAP meeting focused on challenges that college students in general encountered during the pandemic.

Nelson Chow, a research intern at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., and colleagues surveyed college students in June 2020 about academic barriers when their schools switched to virtual learning.

Nearly 80% of the 307 respondents had difficulties concentrating. Many students also agreed that responsibilities at home (57.6%), mental health issues (46.3%), family relationships (37.8%), financial hardships (31.5%), and limited Internet access (25.1%) were among the factors that posed academic barriers.

A larger proportion of Hispanic students reported that responsibilities at home were a challenge, compared with non-Hispanic students, the researchers found.

“It is especially important to have a particular awareness of the cultural and socioeconomic factors that may impact students’ outcomes,” Mr. Chow said in a news release highlighting the research.

Although studies indicate that the pandemic led to academic losses across the board in terms of students not learning as much as usual, these setbacks were more pronounced for vulnerable populations, Dr. Tridas said.

What can busy pediatricians do? “We can at least inquire about how the kids are doing educationally, and with mental health. That’s it. If we do that, we are doing an awful lot.”
 

Education

Dr. Tridas pointed meeting attendees to a report from the National Center for Learning Disabilities, “Promising Practices to Accelerate Learning for Students with Disabilities During COVID-19 and Beyond,” that he said could be a helpful resource for pediatricians, parents, and educators who want to learn more about accelerated learning approaches.

Research indicates that these strategies “may help in a situation like this,” Dr. Tridas said.

Accelerated approaches typically simplify the curriculum to focus on essential reading, writing, and math skills that most students should acquire by third grade, while capitalizing on students’ strengths and interests.

Despite vulnerable students having fallen farther behind academically, they likely are doing the same thing in school that they were doing before COVID-19, “which was not working to begin with,” he said. “That is why I try to provide parents and pediatricians with ways of ... recognizing when appropriate instruction is being provided.”

Sharing this information does not necessarily mean that schools will implement those strategies, or that schools are not applying them already. Still, making parents aware of these approaches can help, he said.
 

Emotional health

Social isolation, loss of routine and structure, more screen time, and changes in sleeping and eating patterns during the pandemic are factors that may have exacerbated mental health problems in students.

Vulnerable populations are at higher risk for these issues, and it will be important to monitor these kids for suicidal ideation and depression, especially in middle school and high school, Dr. Tridas said.

Doctors should establish alliances with mental health providers in their communities if they are not able to provide cognitive-behavioral therapy or medication management in their own practices.

And at home and at school, children should have structure and consistency, positive enforcement of appropriate conduct, and a safe environment that allows them to fail and try again, Dr. Tridas said.

Dr. Tridas and Mr. Chow had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Obesity interventions would be more effective at preventing premature mortality if they focused less on weight loss and more on increased physical activity and improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a pair of researchers concluded in a recent review.

The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”

One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.

“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.

One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)

However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.

“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
 

Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’

“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.

“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”

The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.

“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
 

No simple, single solutions

Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.

“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”

Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.

“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.

He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.

“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
 

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”

Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.

“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.

More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”

And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.

“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”

Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.

The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”

The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.

Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.

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

Obesity interventions would be more effective at preventing premature mortality if they focused less on weight loss and more on increased physical activity and improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a pair of researchers concluded in a recent review.

The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”

One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.

“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.

One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)

However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.

“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
 

Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’

“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.

“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”

The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.

“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
 

No simple, single solutions

Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.

“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”

Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.

“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.

He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.

“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
 

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”

Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.

“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.

More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”

And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.

“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”

Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.

The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”

The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.

Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.

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

Obesity interventions would be more effective at preventing premature mortality if they focused less on weight loss and more on increased physical activity and improved cardiorespiratory fitness, a pair of researchers concluded in a recent review.

The authors promote a “weight-neutral approach to treating obesity-related health conditions,” which they say is “as or more effective than a weight-loss centric approach.”

One expert agrees. “The obsession with the bathroom scale as the primary determinant of treatment efficacy when managing obesity is just not right,” Robert Ross, PhD, said in an interview.

“It masks the tremendous health benefits of improved fitness regardless of obesity. If you increase fitness, you improve outcomes even when people don’t lose weight,” noted Dr. Ross, a researcher in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

However, this proposition reprises a long-standing gulf between two schools of thought on obesity intervention.

One indication of the divided sentiment came in another expert review, published just days later, that strongly calls for weight loss of at least 15% of starting body weight as the primary intervention goal for most patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes. (According to 2020 statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 60% of U.S. adults with diabetes are obese.)

However, some question whether it must be all one, or the other, when obesity management could instead combine these approaches and simultaneously promote weight loss, increased activity, and improved fitness.

“It only muddies the water to dichotomize this as either weight management or activity and physical fitness,” observed Scott Kahan, MD, an obesity specialist and director of the National Center for Weight and Wellness in Washington, D.C.
 

Weight-neutral ‘is the way to go’

“The most significant new information [in the review] is the direct comparison of the magnitude of mortality risk reduction associated with weight loss compared with increasing fitness, physical activity, or both,” said Glenn A. Gaesser, PhD, the first author of the new review and professor of exercise physiology at Arizona State University, Phoenix.

“The results are quite clear: Increasing fitness, physical activity, or both are associated with greater mortality reductions than intentional weight loss. We argue that a weight-neutral approach to treating obesity is the way to go.”

The data call “into question the widely perceived notion of ‘lose weight, live longer,’” resulting in a “paradigm shift,” Dr. Gaesser said in an interview.

“There are no downsides to exercise, but there are significant downsides to weight loss, especially when it is inevitably followed by weight regain, which gives rise to the undesirable ‘weight-loss futile cycle’,” he added.
 

No simple, single solutions

Dr. Kahan said, however, that comparison of the effects of weight loss with the effects of increased activity and fitness on mortality is inherently problematic.

“It’s hard to make definitive conclusions from observational studies,” he cautioned, noting that the data cited in the review of activity and fitness compared with weight loss are generally “estimations” that carry a “lot of cloudiness.”

Dr. Kahan also takes issue with the premise detailed in the review that targeting reduced weight and implementing healthful and evidence-based approaches to try to achieve it are bound to fail and have frequent adverse consequences.

“Managing weight in a reasonable, patient-centered, thoughtful way is a standard and central part of long-term health,” he said in an interview.

He did concede, however, that the U.S. weight-loss landscape is awash with hucksterism that takes advantage of many patients, and he cautioned against approaches that focus on weight loss at all costs and as a pathway to selling products.

“But staying focused on activity and not paying attention to healthy eating is extreme,” he said, reemphasizing that obesity management is not a simple intervention with a single solution.
 

Not the first time

This is not the first time that Dr. Gaesser, and others, have published articles promoting a pivot away from weight loss as the primary goal of obesity interventions. In 2015, Dr. Gaesser and colleagues published an evidence review that gave this recommendation for managing people with obesity: “We propose that the proxy for health improvements should not be weight loss but instead improvements in cardiometabolic parameters, functional status, and fitness.”

Dr. Gaesser’s latest review also acknowledges similar recommendations from others, including Dr. Ross, who said it’s nothing new to conclude that increased fitness and activity in the absence of weight loss is not failure.

“It’s something we’ve promoted for decades,” but “it’s not understood and acted on in clinical settings, and that’s unfortunate,” he said.

More than a decade ago, Dr. Ross and his coauthor wrote in a published review that “a monolithic focus on weight loss as the only determinant of success for strategies that aim to reduce obesity is not justified and, more importantly, eliminates opportunities to focus on lifestyle behaviors that are associated with benefit across a wide range of health outcomes.”

And an effective intervention that focuses on activity and fitness means that, at the least, patients should not gain weight, and they may lose weight as a side benefit, he stressed.

“We always advocate a balanced diet, so that people do not gain more weight.”

Dr. Ross also highlighted the usefulness of measuring fitness as an alternative to recording weight to track the response by patients with obesity to various interventions. Dr. Ross recommends nonexercise prediction equations for routine practice to easily estimate cardiorespiratory fitness, an approach detailed in a 2016 statement from the American Heart Association by a writing panel chaired by Dr. Ross.

The AHA statement notes that “not including cardiorespiratory fitness measurement in routine clinical practice fails to provide an optimal approach for stratifying patients according to risk.”

The AHA also advises that “routine estimation of cardiorespiratory fitness in clinical practice is no more difficult than measuring blood pressure,” and details ways of incorporating this into routine clinical assessment.

Dr. Gaesser and Dr. Kahan have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ross has been an advisor to the Canadian Sugar Institute.

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.

The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.

“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.

She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.

Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.

They are:

• Anyone over age 65.
• Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
• Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.

These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.

There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
 

Questions, concerns

Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.

“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.

“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.

The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.

But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.

On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.

Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.

The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.

Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.

The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.

These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
 

“Real world” recommendations

In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.

“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.

Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.

The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.

Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.

Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.

Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.

The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.

In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.

Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.

“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
 

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

As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.

Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene; we can characterize “meme” with the word “gene” insofar as both self-replicate and are translated from person to person.

I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.

Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”

Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).

The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.

In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).

Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.

Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.

Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.

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

As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.

Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene; we can characterize “meme” with the word “gene” insofar as both self-replicate and are translated from person to person.

I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.

Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”

Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).

The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.

In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).

Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.

Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.

Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.

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

As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.

Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene; we can characterize “meme” with the word “gene” insofar as both self-replicate and are translated from person to person.

I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.

Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”

Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).

The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.

In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).

Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.

Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.

Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.

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

The new breakfast of champions

We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.

PxHere

Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.

The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.

There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.

Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
 

COVID-19 resisters, please step forward

Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.

ktsimage/Thinkstock

Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.

The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.

The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.

Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
 

Better living through parasitization

How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?

pxfuel

Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.

If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.

In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.

They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.

Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
 

Laughing the pandemic stress away

Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.

The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.

The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.

“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”

So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
 

Giving the gift of stress reduction

It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.

Sadanduseless.com

We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!

The new breakfast of champions

We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.

PxHere

Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.

The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.

There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.

Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
 

COVID-19 resisters, please step forward

Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.

ktsimage/Thinkstock

Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.

The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.

The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.

Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
 

Better living through parasitization

How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?

pxfuel

Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.

If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.

In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.

They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.

Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
 

Laughing the pandemic stress away

Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.

The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.

The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.

“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”

So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
 

Giving the gift of stress reduction

It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.

Sadanduseless.com

We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!

The new breakfast of champions

We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.

PxHere

Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.

The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.

There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.

Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
 

COVID-19 resisters, please step forward

Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.

ktsimage/Thinkstock

Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.

“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.

The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.

The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.

Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
 

Better living through parasitization

How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?

pxfuel

Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.

If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.

In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.

They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.

Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
 

Laughing the pandemic stress away

Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.

littlehenrabi/Getty Images

A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.

The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.

The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.

“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”

So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
 

Giving the gift of stress reduction

It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.

Sadanduseless.com

We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized booster doses for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, while also allowing boosters to be given interchangeably with any of the other vaccines, in people who are eligible to get them.

The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.

The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.

People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:

• 65 years of age or older
• 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
• 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare

People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.

“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.

“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized booster doses for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, while also allowing boosters to be given interchangeably with any of the other vaccines, in people who are eligible to get them.

The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.

The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.

People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:

• 65 years of age or older
• 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
• 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare

People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.

“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.

“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized booster doses for the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, while also allowing boosters to be given interchangeably with any of the other vaccines, in people who are eligible to get them.

The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.

The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.

People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:

• 65 years of age or older
• 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
• 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare

People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.

“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.

“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”

A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.