MDedge Pediatrics

Socioeconomic, technological, cultural, and historical conditions are contributing to a mental health crisis among college students in the United States, according to Anthony L. Rostain, MD, MA, in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

A recent National College Health Assessment published in fall of 2018 by the American College Health Association found that one in four college students had some kind of diagnosable mental illness, and 44% had symptoms of depression within the past year.

The assessment also found that college students felt overwhelmed (86%), felt sad (68%), felt very lonely (63%), had overwhelming anxiety (62%), experienced feelings of hopelessness (53%), or were depressed to the point where functioning was difficult (41%), all of which was higher than in previous years. Students also were more likely than in previous years to engage in interpersonal violence (17%), seriously consider suicide (11%), intentionally hurt themselves (7.4%), and attempt suicide (1.9%). According to the organization Active Minds, suicide is a leading cause of death in college students.

This shift in mental health for individuals in Generation Z, those born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s, can be attributed to historical events since the turn of the century, Dr. Rostain said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the financial crisis of 2007-2008, school shootings, globalization leading to economic uncertainty, the 24-hour news cycle and continuous media exposure, and the influence of the Internet have all influenced Gen Z’s identity.

“Growing up immersed in the Internet certainly has its advantages, but also maybe created some vulnerabilities in our young people,” he said.

Concerns about climate change, the burden of higher education and student debt, and the COVID-19 pandemic also have contributed to anxiety in this group. In a spring survey of students published by Active Minds about COVID-19 and its impact on mental health, 91% of students reported having stress or anxiety, 81% were disappointed or sad, 80% said they felt lonely or isolated, 56% had relocated as a result of the pandemic, and 48% reported financial setbacks tied to COVID-19.

“Anxiety seems to have become a feature of modern life,” said Dr. Rostain, who is director of education at the department of psychiatry and professor of psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“Our culture, which often has a prominent emotional tone of fear, tends to promote cognitive distortions in which everyone is perceiving danger at every turn.” The increase in anxiety pre-dated the pandemic and appears to be contributing to further mental health concerns in this group, he noted. While people should be washing their hands and staying safe through social distancing during the pandemic, “we don’t want people to stop functioning, planning the future, and really in college students’ case, studying and getting ready for their careers,” he said. Parents can hinder those goals through intensively parenting or “overparenting” their children, which can result in destructive perfectionism, anxiety and depression, abject fear of failure and risk avoidance, and a focus on the external aspects of life rather than internal feelings.

Heavier alcohol use and amphetamine use also is on the rise in college students, Dr. Rostain said. Increased stimulant use in young adults is attributed to greater access to prescription drugs prior to college, greater prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), peer pressure, and influence from marketing and media messaging, he said. Another important change is the rise of smartphones and the Internet, which might drive the need to be constantly connected and compete for attention.

“This is the first generation who had constant access to the Internet. Smartphones in particular are everywhere, and we think this is another important factor in considering what might be happening to young people,” Dr. Rostain said.

Developing problem-solving and conflict resolution skills, developing coping mechanisms, being able to regulate emotions, finding optimism toward the future, having access to mental health services, and having cultural or religious beliefs with a negative view of suicide are all protective factors that promote resiliency in young people, Dr. Rostain said. Other protective factors include the development of socio-emotional readiness skills, such as conscientiousness, self-management, interpersonal skills, self-control, task persistence, risk management, self-acceptance, and having an open mindset or seeking help when needed. However, he noted, family is one area that can be both a help or a risk to mental health.

“Family attachments and supportive relationships in the family are really critical in predicting good outcomes. By the same token, families that are conflicted, where there’s a lot of stress or there’s a lot of turmoil and/or where resources are not available, that may be a risk factor to coping in young adulthood,” he said.

Individual resilience can be developed through learning from mistakes and overcoming mindset barriers, such as feelings of not belonging, concerns about disappointing one’s parents, worries about not making it, or fears of being different.

On campus, best practices and emerging trends include wellness and resiliency programs, reducing stigma, engagement from students, training of faculty and staff, crisis management plans, telehealth counseling, substance abuse programs, postvention support after suicide, collaboration with mental health providers, and support for diverse populations.

“The best schools are the ones that promote communication and that invite families to be involved early on because parents and families can be and need to be educated about what to do to prevent adverse outcomes of young people who are really at risk,” Dr. Rostain said. “It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes the same village to bring someone from adolescence to young adulthood.”

Family-based intervention has also shown promise, he said, but clinicians should watch for signs that a family is not willing to undergo therapy, is scapegoating a college student, or there are signs of boundary violations, violence, or sexual abuse in the family – or attempts to undermine treatment.

Specific to COVID-19, campus mental health services should focus on routine, self-care, physical activity, and connections with other people while also space for grieving lost experiences, facing uncertainty, developing resilience, and finding meaning. In the family, challenges around COVID-19 can include issues of physical distancing and quarantine, anxiety about becoming infected with the virus, economic insecurity, managing conflicts, setting and enforcing boundaries in addition to providing mutual support, and finding new meaning during the pandemic.

“I think these are the challenges, but we think this whole process of people living together and handling life in a way they’ve never expected to may hold some silver linings,” Dr. Rostain said. “It may be a way of addressing many issues that were never addressed before the young person went off to college.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Rostain reported receiving royalties from Routledge/Taylor Francis Group and St. Martin’s Press, scientific advisory board honoraria from Arbor and Shire/Takeda, consulting fees from the National Football League and Tris Pharmaceuticals, and has presented CME sessions for American Psychiatric Publishing, Global Medical Education, Shire/Takeda, and the U.S. Psychiatric Congress.

Socioeconomic, technological, cultural, and historical conditions are contributing to a mental health crisis among college students in the United States, according to Anthony L. Rostain, MD, MA, in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

A recent National College Health Assessment published in fall of 2018 by the American College Health Association found that one in four college students had some kind of diagnosable mental illness, and 44% had symptoms of depression within the past year.

The assessment also found that college students felt overwhelmed (86%), felt sad (68%), felt very lonely (63%), had overwhelming anxiety (62%), experienced feelings of hopelessness (53%), or were depressed to the point where functioning was difficult (41%), all of which was higher than in previous years. Students also were more likely than in previous years to engage in interpersonal violence (17%), seriously consider suicide (11%), intentionally hurt themselves (7.4%), and attempt suicide (1.9%). According to the organization Active Minds, suicide is a leading cause of death in college students.

This shift in mental health for individuals in Generation Z, those born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s, can be attributed to historical events since the turn of the century, Dr. Rostain said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the financial crisis of 2007-2008, school shootings, globalization leading to economic uncertainty, the 24-hour news cycle and continuous media exposure, and the influence of the Internet have all influenced Gen Z’s identity.

“Growing up immersed in the Internet certainly has its advantages, but also maybe created some vulnerabilities in our young people,” he said.

Concerns about climate change, the burden of higher education and student debt, and the COVID-19 pandemic also have contributed to anxiety in this group. In a spring survey of students published by Active Minds about COVID-19 and its impact on mental health, 91% of students reported having stress or anxiety, 81% were disappointed or sad, 80% said they felt lonely or isolated, 56% had relocated as a result of the pandemic, and 48% reported financial setbacks tied to COVID-19.

“Anxiety seems to have become a feature of modern life,” said Dr. Rostain, who is director of education at the department of psychiatry and professor of psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“Our culture, which often has a prominent emotional tone of fear, tends to promote cognitive distortions in which everyone is perceiving danger at every turn.” The increase in anxiety pre-dated the pandemic and appears to be contributing to further mental health concerns in this group, he noted. While people should be washing their hands and staying safe through social distancing during the pandemic, “we don’t want people to stop functioning, planning the future, and really in college students’ case, studying and getting ready for their careers,” he said. Parents can hinder those goals through intensively parenting or “overparenting” their children, which can result in destructive perfectionism, anxiety and depression, abject fear of failure and risk avoidance, and a focus on the external aspects of life rather than internal feelings.

Heavier alcohol use and amphetamine use also is on the rise in college students, Dr. Rostain said. Increased stimulant use in young adults is attributed to greater access to prescription drugs prior to college, greater prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), peer pressure, and influence from marketing and media messaging, he said. Another important change is the rise of smartphones and the Internet, which might drive the need to be constantly connected and compete for attention.

“This is the first generation who had constant access to the Internet. Smartphones in particular are everywhere, and we think this is another important factor in considering what might be happening to young people,” Dr. Rostain said.

Developing problem-solving and conflict resolution skills, developing coping mechanisms, being able to regulate emotions, finding optimism toward the future, having access to mental health services, and having cultural or religious beliefs with a negative view of suicide are all protective factors that promote resiliency in young people, Dr. Rostain said. Other protective factors include the development of socio-emotional readiness skills, such as conscientiousness, self-management, interpersonal skills, self-control, task persistence, risk management, self-acceptance, and having an open mindset or seeking help when needed. However, he noted, family is one area that can be both a help or a risk to mental health.

“Family attachments and supportive relationships in the family are really critical in predicting good outcomes. By the same token, families that are conflicted, where there’s a lot of stress or there’s a lot of turmoil and/or where resources are not available, that may be a risk factor to coping in young adulthood,” he said.

Individual resilience can be developed through learning from mistakes and overcoming mindset barriers, such as feelings of not belonging, concerns about disappointing one’s parents, worries about not making it, or fears of being different.

On campus, best practices and emerging trends include wellness and resiliency programs, reducing stigma, engagement from students, training of faculty and staff, crisis management plans, telehealth counseling, substance abuse programs, postvention support after suicide, collaboration with mental health providers, and support for diverse populations.

“The best schools are the ones that promote communication and that invite families to be involved early on because parents and families can be and need to be educated about what to do to prevent adverse outcomes of young people who are really at risk,” Dr. Rostain said. “It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes the same village to bring someone from adolescence to young adulthood.”

Family-based intervention has also shown promise, he said, but clinicians should watch for signs that a family is not willing to undergo therapy, is scapegoating a college student, or there are signs of boundary violations, violence, or sexual abuse in the family – or attempts to undermine treatment.

Specific to COVID-19, campus mental health services should focus on routine, self-care, physical activity, and connections with other people while also space for grieving lost experiences, facing uncertainty, developing resilience, and finding meaning. In the family, challenges around COVID-19 can include issues of physical distancing and quarantine, anxiety about becoming infected with the virus, economic insecurity, managing conflicts, setting and enforcing boundaries in addition to providing mutual support, and finding new meaning during the pandemic.

“I think these are the challenges, but we think this whole process of people living together and handling life in a way they’ve never expected to may hold some silver linings,” Dr. Rostain said. “It may be a way of addressing many issues that were never addressed before the young person went off to college.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Rostain reported receiving royalties from Routledge/Taylor Francis Group and St. Martin’s Press, scientific advisory board honoraria from Arbor and Shire/Takeda, consulting fees from the National Football League and Tris Pharmaceuticals, and has presented CME sessions for American Psychiatric Publishing, Global Medical Education, Shire/Takeda, and the U.S. Psychiatric Congress.

Socioeconomic, technological, cultural, and historical conditions are contributing to a mental health crisis among college students in the United States, according to Anthony L. Rostain, MD, MA, in a virtual meeting presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

Ingram Publishing/Thinkstock

A recent National College Health Assessment published in fall of 2018 by the American College Health Association found that one in four college students had some kind of diagnosable mental illness, and 44% had symptoms of depression within the past year.

The assessment also found that college students felt overwhelmed (86%), felt sad (68%), felt very lonely (63%), had overwhelming anxiety (62%), experienced feelings of hopelessness (53%), or were depressed to the point where functioning was difficult (41%), all of which was higher than in previous years. Students also were more likely than in previous years to engage in interpersonal violence (17%), seriously consider suicide (11%), intentionally hurt themselves (7.4%), and attempt suicide (1.9%). According to the organization Active Minds, suicide is a leading cause of death in college students.

This shift in mental health for individuals in Generation Z, those born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s, can be attributed to historical events since the turn of the century, Dr. Rostain said at the meeting, presented by Global Academy for Medical Education. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the financial crisis of 2007-2008, school shootings, globalization leading to economic uncertainty, the 24-hour news cycle and continuous media exposure, and the influence of the Internet have all influenced Gen Z’s identity.

“Growing up immersed in the Internet certainly has its advantages, but also maybe created some vulnerabilities in our young people,” he said.

Concerns about climate change, the burden of higher education and student debt, and the COVID-19 pandemic also have contributed to anxiety in this group. In a spring survey of students published by Active Minds about COVID-19 and its impact on mental health, 91% of students reported having stress or anxiety, 81% were disappointed or sad, 80% said they felt lonely or isolated, 56% had relocated as a result of the pandemic, and 48% reported financial setbacks tied to COVID-19.

“Anxiety seems to have become a feature of modern life,” said Dr. Rostain, who is director of education at the department of psychiatry and professor of psychiatry at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

“Our culture, which often has a prominent emotional tone of fear, tends to promote cognitive distortions in which everyone is perceiving danger at every turn.” The increase in anxiety pre-dated the pandemic and appears to be contributing to further mental health concerns in this group, he noted. While people should be washing their hands and staying safe through social distancing during the pandemic, “we don’t want people to stop functioning, planning the future, and really in college students’ case, studying and getting ready for their careers,” he said. Parents can hinder those goals through intensively parenting or “overparenting” their children, which can result in destructive perfectionism, anxiety and depression, abject fear of failure and risk avoidance, and a focus on the external aspects of life rather than internal feelings.

Heavier alcohol use and amphetamine use also is on the rise in college students, Dr. Rostain said. Increased stimulant use in young adults is attributed to greater access to prescription drugs prior to college, greater prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), peer pressure, and influence from marketing and media messaging, he said. Another important change is the rise of smartphones and the Internet, which might drive the need to be constantly connected and compete for attention.

“This is the first generation who had constant access to the Internet. Smartphones in particular are everywhere, and we think this is another important factor in considering what might be happening to young people,” Dr. Rostain said.

Developing problem-solving and conflict resolution skills, developing coping mechanisms, being able to regulate emotions, finding optimism toward the future, having access to mental health services, and having cultural or religious beliefs with a negative view of suicide are all protective factors that promote resiliency in young people, Dr. Rostain said. Other protective factors include the development of socio-emotional readiness skills, such as conscientiousness, self-management, interpersonal skills, self-control, task persistence, risk management, self-acceptance, and having an open mindset or seeking help when needed. However, he noted, family is one area that can be both a help or a risk to mental health.

“Family attachments and supportive relationships in the family are really critical in predicting good outcomes. By the same token, families that are conflicted, where there’s a lot of stress or there’s a lot of turmoil and/or where resources are not available, that may be a risk factor to coping in young adulthood,” he said.

Individual resilience can be developed through learning from mistakes and overcoming mindset barriers, such as feelings of not belonging, concerns about disappointing one’s parents, worries about not making it, or fears of being different.

On campus, best practices and emerging trends include wellness and resiliency programs, reducing stigma, engagement from students, training of faculty and staff, crisis management plans, telehealth counseling, substance abuse programs, postvention support after suicide, collaboration with mental health providers, and support for diverse populations.

“The best schools are the ones that promote communication and that invite families to be involved early on because parents and families can be and need to be educated about what to do to prevent adverse outcomes of young people who are really at risk,” Dr. Rostain said. “It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes the same village to bring someone from adolescence to young adulthood.”

Family-based intervention has also shown promise, he said, but clinicians should watch for signs that a family is not willing to undergo therapy, is scapegoating a college student, or there are signs of boundary violations, violence, or sexual abuse in the family – or attempts to undermine treatment.

Specific to COVID-19, campus mental health services should focus on routine, self-care, physical activity, and connections with other people while also space for grieving lost experiences, facing uncertainty, developing resilience, and finding meaning. In the family, challenges around COVID-19 can include issues of physical distancing and quarantine, anxiety about becoming infected with the virus, economic insecurity, managing conflicts, setting and enforcing boundaries in addition to providing mutual support, and finding new meaning during the pandemic.

“I think these are the challenges, but we think this whole process of people living together and handling life in a way they’ve never expected to may hold some silver linings,” Dr. Rostain said. “It may be a way of addressing many issues that were never addressed before the young person went off to college.”

Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Rostain reported receiving royalties from Routledge/Taylor Francis Group and St. Martin’s Press, scientific advisory board honoraria from Arbor and Shire/Takeda, consulting fees from the National Football League and Tris Pharmaceuticals, and has presented CME sessions for American Psychiatric Publishing, Global Medical Education, Shire/Takeda, and the U.S. Psychiatric Congress.

ED physicians and hospitalists should consider a diagnosis of e-cigarette associated lung injury (EVALI) across a broad range of nonspecific symptoms, according to a synthesis of current information presented at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

Respiratory symptoms, including cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath are common but so are constitutive symptoms, including fever, sore throat, muscle aches, nausea and vomiting, said Yamini Kuchipudi, MD, a staff physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, during the session at the virtual meeting, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

If EVALI is not considered across this broad array of symptoms, of which respiratory complaints might not be the most prominent at the time of presentation, the diagnosis might be delayed, Dr. Kuchipudi warned during the virtual meeting.

Teenagers and young adults are the most common users of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. In these patients or in any individual suspected of having EVALI, Dr. Kuchipudi recommended posing questions about vaping relatively early in the work-up “in a confidential and nonjudgmental way.”

Eliciting a truthful history will be particularly important, because the risk of EVALI appears to be largely related to vaping with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products rather than with nicotine alone. Although the exact cause of EVALI is not yet completely clear, this condition is now strongly associated with additives to the THC, according to Issa Hanna, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

“E-liquid contains products like hydrocarbons, vitamin E acetate, and heavy metals that appear to damage the alveolar epithelium by direct cellular inflammation,” Dr. Hanna explained.

These products are not only found in THC processed for vaping but also for dabbing, a related but different form of inhalation that involves vaporization of highly concentrated THC waxes or resins. Dr. Hanna suggested that the decline in reported cases of EVALI, which has followed the peak incidence in September 2019, is likely to be related to a decline in THC additives as well as greater caution among users.

E-cigarettes were introduced in 2007, according to Dr. Hanna, but EVALI was not widely recognized until cases began accruing early in 2019. By June 2019, the growing number of case reports had attracted the attention of the media as well as public health officials, intensifying the effort to isolate the risks and causes.

Consistent with greater use of e-cigarettes and vaping among younger individuals, nearly 80% of the 2,807 patients hospitalized for EVALI in the United States by February of this year occurred in individuals aged less than 35 years, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The median age was less than 25 years. Of these hospitalizations, 68 deaths (2.5%) in 29 states and Washington, D.C., were attributed to EVALI.

Because of the nonspecific symptoms and lack of a definitive diagnostic test, EVALI is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, according to Abigail Musial, MD, who is completing a fellowship in hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s. She presented a case in which a patient suspected of EVALI went home after symptoms abated on steroids.

“Less than 24 hours later, she returned to the ED with tachypnea and hypoxemia,” Dr. Musial recounted. Although a chest x-ray at the initial evaluation showed lung opacities, a repeat chest x-ray when she returned to the ED showed bilateral worsening of these opacities and persistent elevation of inflammatory markers.

“She was started on steroids and also on antibiotics,” Dr. Musial said. “She was weaned quickly from oxygen once the steroids were started and was discharged on hospital day 3.”

For patients suspected of EVALI, COVID-19 testing should be part of the work-up, according to Dr. Kuchipudi. She also recommended an x-ray or CT scan of the lung as well as an evaluation of inflammatory markers.

Dr. Kuchipudi said that more invasive studies than lung function tests, such as bronchoalveolar lavage or lung biopsy, might be considered when severe symptoms make aggressive diagnostic studies attractive.

Steroids and antibiotics typically lead to control of acute symptoms, but patients should be clinically stable for 24-48 hours prior to hospital discharge, according to Dr. Kuchipudi. Follow-up after discharge should include lung function tests and imaging 2-4 weeks later to confirm resolution of abnormalities.

Dr. Kuchipudi stressed the opportunity that an episode of EVALI provides to induce patients to give up nicotine and vaping entirely. Such strategies, such as a nicotine patch, deserve consideration, but she also cautioned that e-cigarettes for smoking cessation should not be recommended to EVALI patients.

The speakers reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

ED physicians and hospitalists should consider a diagnosis of e-cigarette associated lung injury (EVALI) across a broad range of nonspecific symptoms, according to a synthesis of current information presented at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

Respiratory symptoms, including cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath are common but so are constitutive symptoms, including fever, sore throat, muscle aches, nausea and vomiting, said Yamini Kuchipudi, MD, a staff physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, during the session at the virtual meeting, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

If EVALI is not considered across this broad array of symptoms, of which respiratory complaints might not be the most prominent at the time of presentation, the diagnosis might be delayed, Dr. Kuchipudi warned during the virtual meeting.

Teenagers and young adults are the most common users of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. In these patients or in any individual suspected of having EVALI, Dr. Kuchipudi recommended posing questions about vaping relatively early in the work-up “in a confidential and nonjudgmental way.”

Eliciting a truthful history will be particularly important, because the risk of EVALI appears to be largely related to vaping with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products rather than with nicotine alone. Although the exact cause of EVALI is not yet completely clear, this condition is now strongly associated with additives to the THC, according to Issa Hanna, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

“E-liquid contains products like hydrocarbons, vitamin E acetate, and heavy metals that appear to damage the alveolar epithelium by direct cellular inflammation,” Dr. Hanna explained.

These products are not only found in THC processed for vaping but also for dabbing, a related but different form of inhalation that involves vaporization of highly concentrated THC waxes or resins. Dr. Hanna suggested that the decline in reported cases of EVALI, which has followed the peak incidence in September 2019, is likely to be related to a decline in THC additives as well as greater caution among users.

E-cigarettes were introduced in 2007, according to Dr. Hanna, but EVALI was not widely recognized until cases began accruing early in 2019. By June 2019, the growing number of case reports had attracted the attention of the media as well as public health officials, intensifying the effort to isolate the risks and causes.

Consistent with greater use of e-cigarettes and vaping among younger individuals, nearly 80% of the 2,807 patients hospitalized for EVALI in the United States by February of this year occurred in individuals aged less than 35 years, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The median age was less than 25 years. Of these hospitalizations, 68 deaths (2.5%) in 29 states and Washington, D.C., were attributed to EVALI.

Because of the nonspecific symptoms and lack of a definitive diagnostic test, EVALI is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, according to Abigail Musial, MD, who is completing a fellowship in hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s. She presented a case in which a patient suspected of EVALI went home after symptoms abated on steroids.

“Less than 24 hours later, she returned to the ED with tachypnea and hypoxemia,” Dr. Musial recounted. Although a chest x-ray at the initial evaluation showed lung opacities, a repeat chest x-ray when she returned to the ED showed bilateral worsening of these opacities and persistent elevation of inflammatory markers.

“She was started on steroids and also on antibiotics,” Dr. Musial said. “She was weaned quickly from oxygen once the steroids were started and was discharged on hospital day 3.”

For patients suspected of EVALI, COVID-19 testing should be part of the work-up, according to Dr. Kuchipudi. She also recommended an x-ray or CT scan of the lung as well as an evaluation of inflammatory markers.

Dr. Kuchipudi said that more invasive studies than lung function tests, such as bronchoalveolar lavage or lung biopsy, might be considered when severe symptoms make aggressive diagnostic studies attractive.

Steroids and antibiotics typically lead to control of acute symptoms, but patients should be clinically stable for 24-48 hours prior to hospital discharge, according to Dr. Kuchipudi. Follow-up after discharge should include lung function tests and imaging 2-4 weeks later to confirm resolution of abnormalities.

Dr. Kuchipudi stressed the opportunity that an episode of EVALI provides to induce patients to give up nicotine and vaping entirely. Such strategies, such as a nicotine patch, deserve consideration, but she also cautioned that e-cigarettes for smoking cessation should not be recommended to EVALI patients.

The speakers reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

ED physicians and hospitalists should consider a diagnosis of e-cigarette associated lung injury (EVALI) across a broad range of nonspecific symptoms, according to a synthesis of current information presented at the virtual Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

Respiratory symptoms, including cough, chest pain, and shortness of breath are common but so are constitutive symptoms, including fever, sore throat, muscle aches, nausea and vomiting, said Yamini Kuchipudi, MD, a staff physician at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, during the session at the virtual meeting, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

If EVALI is not considered across this broad array of symptoms, of which respiratory complaints might not be the most prominent at the time of presentation, the diagnosis might be delayed, Dr. Kuchipudi warned during the virtual meeting.

Teenagers and young adults are the most common users of e-cigarettes and vaping devices. In these patients or in any individual suspected of having EVALI, Dr. Kuchipudi recommended posing questions about vaping relatively early in the work-up “in a confidential and nonjudgmental way.”

Eliciting a truthful history will be particularly important, because the risk of EVALI appears to be largely related to vaping with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-containing products rather than with nicotine alone. Although the exact cause of EVALI is not yet completely clear, this condition is now strongly associated with additives to the THC, according to Issa Hanna, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Florida, Jacksonville.

“E-liquid contains products like hydrocarbons, vitamin E acetate, and heavy metals that appear to damage the alveolar epithelium by direct cellular inflammation,” Dr. Hanna explained.

These products are not only found in THC processed for vaping but also for dabbing, a related but different form of inhalation that involves vaporization of highly concentrated THC waxes or resins. Dr. Hanna suggested that the decline in reported cases of EVALI, which has followed the peak incidence in September 2019, is likely to be related to a decline in THC additives as well as greater caution among users.

E-cigarettes were introduced in 2007, according to Dr. Hanna, but EVALI was not widely recognized until cases began accruing early in 2019. By June 2019, the growing number of case reports had attracted the attention of the media as well as public health officials, intensifying the effort to isolate the risks and causes.

Consistent with greater use of e-cigarettes and vaping among younger individuals, nearly 80% of the 2,807 patients hospitalized for EVALI in the United States by February of this year occurred in individuals aged less than 35 years, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The median age was less than 25 years. Of these hospitalizations, 68 deaths (2.5%) in 29 states and Washington, D.C., were attributed to EVALI.

Because of the nonspecific symptoms and lack of a definitive diagnostic test, EVALI is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, according to Abigail Musial, MD, who is completing a fellowship in hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s. She presented a case in which a patient suspected of EVALI went home after symptoms abated on steroids.

“Less than 24 hours later, she returned to the ED with tachypnea and hypoxemia,” Dr. Musial recounted. Although a chest x-ray at the initial evaluation showed lung opacities, a repeat chest x-ray when she returned to the ED showed bilateral worsening of these opacities and persistent elevation of inflammatory markers.

“She was started on steroids and also on antibiotics,” Dr. Musial said. “She was weaned quickly from oxygen once the steroids were started and was discharged on hospital day 3.”

For patients suspected of EVALI, COVID-19 testing should be part of the work-up, according to Dr. Kuchipudi. She also recommended an x-ray or CT scan of the lung as well as an evaluation of inflammatory markers.

Dr. Kuchipudi said that more invasive studies than lung function tests, such as bronchoalveolar lavage or lung biopsy, might be considered when severe symptoms make aggressive diagnostic studies attractive.

Steroids and antibiotics typically lead to control of acute symptoms, but patients should be clinically stable for 24-48 hours prior to hospital discharge, according to Dr. Kuchipudi. Follow-up after discharge should include lung function tests and imaging 2-4 weeks later to confirm resolution of abnormalities.

Dr. Kuchipudi stressed the opportunity that an episode of EVALI provides to induce patients to give up nicotine and vaping entirely. Such strategies, such as a nicotine patch, deserve consideration, but she also cautioned that e-cigarettes for smoking cessation should not be recommended to EVALI patients.

The speakers reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Thousands of coronavirus patients risk going without treatment and support for debilitating symptoms lasting months because of a lack of awareness of ‘long COVID’, according to a group formed by clinicians with extended serious after-effects of the virus.

Many members of the 100-strong Facebook group UK doctors: COVID “Long tail” have been unable to work for weeks after failing to recover from an episode of COVID-19. They warn of the need for clinical recognition of “long COVID,” along with systems to log symptoms and manage patients in the community. Without this, there could be major consequences for return to work across all professions, as well as implications for disease prevention.
 

‘Weird symptoms’

Three of the group: Dr Amali Lokugamage, consultant obstetrician at the Whittington Hospital; Dr Sharon Taylor, child psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London, and Dr Clare Rayner, a retired occupational health physician and lecturer at the University of Manchester, have highlighted their concerns in The BMJ and on social media groups. They say colleagues are observing a range of symptoms of long COVID in their practices.

These include cardiac, gut and respiratory symptoms, skin manifestations, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, severe fatigue, and relapsing fevers, sometimes continuing for more than 16 weeks, and which they say go well beyond definitions of chronic fatigue. The authors are also aware of a pattern of symptom clusters recurring every third or fourth day, which in some cases are so severe that people are having to take extended periods of sick leave.

Writing in The BMJ the authors say: “Concerns have been raised about the lack of awareness among NHS doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals with regard to the prolonged, varied, and weird symptoms [of COVID-19].”

Speaking to Medscape News UK, Dr. Clare Rayner said: “We see a huge need that is not being met, because these cases are just not being seen in hospital. All the attention has been on the acute illness.”

She pointed to the urgent need for government planning for a surge in people requiring support to return to work following long-term COVID-19 symptoms. According to occupational health research, only 10-40% of people who take 6 weeks off work return to work, dropping to 5%-10% after an absence of 6 months.

In her own case, she is recovering after 4 months of illness, including a hospital admission with gut symptoms and dehydration, and 2 weeks of social service home support. She has experienced a range of relapsing and remitting symptoms, which she describes as ‘bizarre and coming in phases’.
 

Stimulating recovery

The recently-announced NHS portal for COVID-19 patients has been welcomed by the authors as an opportunity for long-standing symptoms to reach the medical and Government radar. But Dr Taylor believes it should have been set up from the start with input from patients with symptoms, to make sure that any support provided reflects the nature of the problems experienced.

In her case, as a previously regular gym attender with a resting heart rate in the 50s, she has now been diagnosed as having multi-organ disease affecting her heart, spleen, lung, and autonomic system. She has fluid on the lungs and heart, and suffers from continuous chest pain and oxygen desaturation when lying down. She has not been able to work since she contracted COVID-19 in March.

“COVID patients with the chronic form of the disease need to be involved in research right from the start to ensure the right questions are asked - not just those who have had acute disease,” she insists to Medscape News UK. “We need to gather evidence, to inform the development of a multi-disciplinary approach and a range of rehabilitation options depending on the organs involved.

“The focus needs to be on stimulating recovery and preventing development of chronic problems. We still don’t know if those with chronic COVID disease are infectious, how long their prolonged cardio-respiratory and neurological complications will last, and crucially whether treatment will reduce the duration of their problems. The worry is that left unattended, these patients may develop irreversible damage leading to chronic illness.”
 

General practice

GPs have been at the forefront of management of the long-standing consequences of COVID-19. In its recent report General practice in the post-COVID world, the Royal College of General Practitioners highlights the need for urgent government planning and funding to prepare general practice services for facilitating the recovery of local communities.

The report calls on the four governments of the UK each to produce a comprehensive plan to support GPs in managing the longer-term effects of COVID-19 in the community, including costed proposals for additional funding for general practice; workforce solutions; reductions in regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’; a systematic approach for identifying patients most likely to need primary care support, and proposals for how health inequalities will be minimized to ensure all patients have access to the necessary post-COVID-19 care.

RCGP Chair Professor Martin Marshall said: “COVID-19 will leave a lingering and difficult legacy and it is GPs working with patients in their communities who will be picking up the pieces.”

One issue is the lack of a reliable estimate of the prevalence of post viral symptoms for other viruses, let alone for COVID-19. Even a 1% chance of long-term problems amongst survivors would suggest 2500 with a need for extra support, but experience with post-viral syndrome generally suggests the prevalence may be more like 3%.

The BMA has been carrying out tracker surveys of its own members at 2-week intervals since March. The most recent, involving more than 5000 doctors, indicated that around 30% of doctors who believed they’d had COVID-19 were still experiencing physical symptoms they thought were caused by the virus, 21% had taken sick leave, and a further 9% had taken annual leave to deal with ongoing symptoms.

Dr David Strain, chair of the BMA medical academic staff committee and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, has a particular interest in the after-effects of COVID-19. He said it was becoming evident that the virus was leaving a lasting legacy with a significant number of people, even younger ones.

He told Medscape News UK: “Once COVID-19 enters the nervous system, the lasting symptoms on people can range from a mild loss of sense of smell or taste, to more severe symptoms such as difficulties in concentration. A small number have also been left with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is poorly understood, and can be difficult to treat. This does not appear to be dependent on the initial severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

“Currently, it is impossible to predict the prevalence of longer-lasting effects. A full assessment of COVID-19’s impact will only be possible once people return to work on a regular basis and the effect on their physical health becomes evident. Of the doctors in the BMA survey who had experienced COVID-19, 15% took sick leave beyond their acute illness, and another 6% used annual leave allowance to extend their recovery time.

“Clearly, more research will be needed into the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the future treatments needed to deal with them.”
 

Further research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has called for applications for research to enhance understanding and management of the health and social care consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic beyond the acute phase, with a particular focus on ‘health outcomes, public health, social care and health service delivery and to mitigate the impact of subsequent phases and aftermath’.

The authors of The BMJ article stress the wide-ranging nature of  ‘long COVID’ symptoms and warn of the dangers of treating them for research purposes under the banner of chronic fatigue. They say: “These wide-ranging, unusual, and potentially very serious symptoms can be anxiety-provoking, particularly secondary to a virus that has only been known to the world for 8 months and which we have barely begun to understand. However, it is dismissive solely to attribute such symptoms to anxiety in the thousands of patients like ourselves who have attended hospital or general practice with chronic COVID-19.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thousands of coronavirus patients risk going without treatment and support for debilitating symptoms lasting months because of a lack of awareness of ‘long COVID’, according to a group formed by clinicians with extended serious after-effects of the virus.

Many members of the 100-strong Facebook group UK doctors: COVID “Long tail” have been unable to work for weeks after failing to recover from an episode of COVID-19. They warn of the need for clinical recognition of “long COVID,” along with systems to log symptoms and manage patients in the community. Without this, there could be major consequences for return to work across all professions, as well as implications for disease prevention.
 

‘Weird symptoms’

Three of the group: Dr Amali Lokugamage, consultant obstetrician at the Whittington Hospital; Dr Sharon Taylor, child psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London, and Dr Clare Rayner, a retired occupational health physician and lecturer at the University of Manchester, have highlighted their concerns in The BMJ and on social media groups. They say colleagues are observing a range of symptoms of long COVID in their practices.

These include cardiac, gut and respiratory symptoms, skin manifestations, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, severe fatigue, and relapsing fevers, sometimes continuing for more than 16 weeks, and which they say go well beyond definitions of chronic fatigue. The authors are also aware of a pattern of symptom clusters recurring every third or fourth day, which in some cases are so severe that people are having to take extended periods of sick leave.

Writing in The BMJ the authors say: “Concerns have been raised about the lack of awareness among NHS doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals with regard to the prolonged, varied, and weird symptoms [of COVID-19].”

Speaking to Medscape News UK, Dr. Clare Rayner said: “We see a huge need that is not being met, because these cases are just not being seen in hospital. All the attention has been on the acute illness.”

She pointed to the urgent need for government planning for a surge in people requiring support to return to work following long-term COVID-19 symptoms. According to occupational health research, only 10-40% of people who take 6 weeks off work return to work, dropping to 5%-10% after an absence of 6 months.

In her own case, she is recovering after 4 months of illness, including a hospital admission with gut symptoms and dehydration, and 2 weeks of social service home support. She has experienced a range of relapsing and remitting symptoms, which she describes as ‘bizarre and coming in phases’.
 

Stimulating recovery

The recently-announced NHS portal for COVID-19 patients has been welcomed by the authors as an opportunity for long-standing symptoms to reach the medical and Government radar. But Dr Taylor believes it should have been set up from the start with input from patients with symptoms, to make sure that any support provided reflects the nature of the problems experienced.

In her case, as a previously regular gym attender with a resting heart rate in the 50s, she has now been diagnosed as having multi-organ disease affecting her heart, spleen, lung, and autonomic system. She has fluid on the lungs and heart, and suffers from continuous chest pain and oxygen desaturation when lying down. She has not been able to work since she contracted COVID-19 in March.

“COVID patients with the chronic form of the disease need to be involved in research right from the start to ensure the right questions are asked - not just those who have had acute disease,” she insists to Medscape News UK. “We need to gather evidence, to inform the development of a multi-disciplinary approach and a range of rehabilitation options depending on the organs involved.

“The focus needs to be on stimulating recovery and preventing development of chronic problems. We still don’t know if those with chronic COVID disease are infectious, how long their prolonged cardio-respiratory and neurological complications will last, and crucially whether treatment will reduce the duration of their problems. The worry is that left unattended, these patients may develop irreversible damage leading to chronic illness.”
 

General practice

GPs have been at the forefront of management of the long-standing consequences of COVID-19. In its recent report General practice in the post-COVID world, the Royal College of General Practitioners highlights the need for urgent government planning and funding to prepare general practice services for facilitating the recovery of local communities.

The report calls on the four governments of the UK each to produce a comprehensive plan to support GPs in managing the longer-term effects of COVID-19 in the community, including costed proposals for additional funding for general practice; workforce solutions; reductions in regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’; a systematic approach for identifying patients most likely to need primary care support, and proposals for how health inequalities will be minimized to ensure all patients have access to the necessary post-COVID-19 care.

RCGP Chair Professor Martin Marshall said: “COVID-19 will leave a lingering and difficult legacy and it is GPs working with patients in their communities who will be picking up the pieces.”

One issue is the lack of a reliable estimate of the prevalence of post viral symptoms for other viruses, let alone for COVID-19. Even a 1% chance of long-term problems amongst survivors would suggest 2500 with a need for extra support, but experience with post-viral syndrome generally suggests the prevalence may be more like 3%.

The BMA has been carrying out tracker surveys of its own members at 2-week intervals since March. The most recent, involving more than 5000 doctors, indicated that around 30% of doctors who believed they’d had COVID-19 were still experiencing physical symptoms they thought were caused by the virus, 21% had taken sick leave, and a further 9% had taken annual leave to deal with ongoing symptoms.

Dr David Strain, chair of the BMA medical academic staff committee and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, has a particular interest in the after-effects of COVID-19. He said it was becoming evident that the virus was leaving a lasting legacy with a significant number of people, even younger ones.

He told Medscape News UK: “Once COVID-19 enters the nervous system, the lasting symptoms on people can range from a mild loss of sense of smell or taste, to more severe symptoms such as difficulties in concentration. A small number have also been left with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is poorly understood, and can be difficult to treat. This does not appear to be dependent on the initial severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

“Currently, it is impossible to predict the prevalence of longer-lasting effects. A full assessment of COVID-19’s impact will only be possible once people return to work on a regular basis and the effect on their physical health becomes evident. Of the doctors in the BMA survey who had experienced COVID-19, 15% took sick leave beyond their acute illness, and another 6% used annual leave allowance to extend their recovery time.

“Clearly, more research will be needed into the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the future treatments needed to deal with them.”
 

Further research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has called for applications for research to enhance understanding and management of the health and social care consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic beyond the acute phase, with a particular focus on ‘health outcomes, public health, social care and health service delivery and to mitigate the impact of subsequent phases and aftermath’.

The authors of The BMJ article stress the wide-ranging nature of  ‘long COVID’ symptoms and warn of the dangers of treating them for research purposes under the banner of chronic fatigue. They say: “These wide-ranging, unusual, and potentially very serious symptoms can be anxiety-provoking, particularly secondary to a virus that has only been known to the world for 8 months and which we have barely begun to understand. However, it is dismissive solely to attribute such symptoms to anxiety in the thousands of patients like ourselves who have attended hospital or general practice with chronic COVID-19.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Thousands of coronavirus patients risk going without treatment and support for debilitating symptoms lasting months because of a lack of awareness of ‘long COVID’, according to a group formed by clinicians with extended serious after-effects of the virus.

Many members of the 100-strong Facebook group UK doctors: COVID “Long tail” have been unable to work for weeks after failing to recover from an episode of COVID-19. They warn of the need for clinical recognition of “long COVID,” along with systems to log symptoms and manage patients in the community. Without this, there could be major consequences for return to work across all professions, as well as implications for disease prevention.
 

‘Weird symptoms’

Three of the group: Dr Amali Lokugamage, consultant obstetrician at the Whittington Hospital; Dr Sharon Taylor, child psychiatrist at St Mary’s Hospital London, and Dr Clare Rayner, a retired occupational health physician and lecturer at the University of Manchester, have highlighted their concerns in The BMJ and on social media groups. They say colleagues are observing a range of symptoms of long COVID in their practices.

These include cardiac, gut and respiratory symptoms, skin manifestations, neurological and psychiatric symptoms, severe fatigue, and relapsing fevers, sometimes continuing for more than 16 weeks, and which they say go well beyond definitions of chronic fatigue. The authors are also aware of a pattern of symptom clusters recurring every third or fourth day, which in some cases are so severe that people are having to take extended periods of sick leave.

Writing in The BMJ the authors say: “Concerns have been raised about the lack of awareness among NHS doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other healthcare professionals with regard to the prolonged, varied, and weird symptoms [of COVID-19].”

Speaking to Medscape News UK, Dr. Clare Rayner said: “We see a huge need that is not being met, because these cases are just not being seen in hospital. All the attention has been on the acute illness.”

She pointed to the urgent need for government planning for a surge in people requiring support to return to work following long-term COVID-19 symptoms. According to occupational health research, only 10-40% of people who take 6 weeks off work return to work, dropping to 5%-10% after an absence of 6 months.

In her own case, she is recovering after 4 months of illness, including a hospital admission with gut symptoms and dehydration, and 2 weeks of social service home support. She has experienced a range of relapsing and remitting symptoms, which she describes as ‘bizarre and coming in phases’.
 

Stimulating recovery

The recently-announced NHS portal for COVID-19 patients has been welcomed by the authors as an opportunity for long-standing symptoms to reach the medical and Government radar. But Dr Taylor believes it should have been set up from the start with input from patients with symptoms, to make sure that any support provided reflects the nature of the problems experienced.

In her case, as a previously regular gym attender with a resting heart rate in the 50s, she has now been diagnosed as having multi-organ disease affecting her heart, spleen, lung, and autonomic system. She has fluid on the lungs and heart, and suffers from continuous chest pain and oxygen desaturation when lying down. She has not been able to work since she contracted COVID-19 in March.

“COVID patients with the chronic form of the disease need to be involved in research right from the start to ensure the right questions are asked - not just those who have had acute disease,” she insists to Medscape News UK. “We need to gather evidence, to inform the development of a multi-disciplinary approach and a range of rehabilitation options depending on the organs involved.

“The focus needs to be on stimulating recovery and preventing development of chronic problems. We still don’t know if those with chronic COVID disease are infectious, how long their prolonged cardio-respiratory and neurological complications will last, and crucially whether treatment will reduce the duration of their problems. The worry is that left unattended, these patients may develop irreversible damage leading to chronic illness.”
 

General practice

GPs have been at the forefront of management of the long-standing consequences of COVID-19. In its recent report General practice in the post-COVID world, the Royal College of General Practitioners highlights the need for urgent government planning and funding to prepare general practice services for facilitating the recovery of local communities.

The report calls on the four governments of the UK each to produce a comprehensive plan to support GPs in managing the longer-term effects of COVID-19 in the community, including costed proposals for additional funding for general practice; workforce solutions; reductions in regulatory burdens and ‘red tape’; a systematic approach for identifying patients most likely to need primary care support, and proposals for how health inequalities will be minimized to ensure all patients have access to the necessary post-COVID-19 care.

RCGP Chair Professor Martin Marshall said: “COVID-19 will leave a lingering and difficult legacy and it is GPs working with patients in their communities who will be picking up the pieces.”

One issue is the lack of a reliable estimate of the prevalence of post viral symptoms for other viruses, let alone for COVID-19. Even a 1% chance of long-term problems amongst survivors would suggest 2500 with a need for extra support, but experience with post-viral syndrome generally suggests the prevalence may be more like 3%.

The BMA has been carrying out tracker surveys of its own members at 2-week intervals since March. The most recent, involving more than 5000 doctors, indicated that around 30% of doctors who believed they’d had COVID-19 were still experiencing physical symptoms they thought were caused by the virus, 21% had taken sick leave, and a further 9% had taken annual leave to deal with ongoing symptoms.

Dr David Strain, chair of the BMA medical academic staff committee and clinical senior lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, has a particular interest in the after-effects of COVID-19. He said it was becoming evident that the virus was leaving a lasting legacy with a significant number of people, even younger ones.

He told Medscape News UK: “Once COVID-19 enters the nervous system, the lasting symptoms on people can range from a mild loss of sense of smell or taste, to more severe symptoms such as difficulties in concentration. A small number have also been left with chronic fatigue syndrome, which is poorly understood, and can be difficult to treat. This does not appear to be dependent on the initial severity of COVID-19 symptoms.

“Currently, it is impossible to predict the prevalence of longer-lasting effects. A full assessment of COVID-19’s impact will only be possible once people return to work on a regular basis and the effect on their physical health becomes evident. Of the doctors in the BMA survey who had experienced COVID-19, 15% took sick leave beyond their acute illness, and another 6% used annual leave allowance to extend their recovery time.

“Clearly, more research will be needed into the long-term consequences of COVID-19 and the future treatments needed to deal with them.”
 

Further research

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has called for applications for research to enhance understanding and management of the health and social care consequences of the global COVID-19 pandemic beyond the acute phase, with a particular focus on ‘health outcomes, public health, social care and health service delivery and to mitigate the impact of subsequent phases and aftermath’.

The authors of The BMJ article stress the wide-ranging nature of  ‘long COVID’ symptoms and warn of the dangers of treating them for research purposes under the banner of chronic fatigue. They say: “These wide-ranging, unusual, and potentially very serious symptoms can be anxiety-provoking, particularly secondary to a virus that has only been known to the world for 8 months and which we have barely begun to understand. However, it is dismissive solely to attribute such symptoms to anxiety in the thousands of patients like ourselves who have attended hospital or general practice with chronic COVID-19.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

Work-life balance was the top concern for female physicians who responded to a new Medscape survey, far outpacing concerns about pay.

A psychiatrist who responded to the survey commented, “I’ve been trying to use all my vacation to spend time with my spouse. I’m always apologizing for being late, not being able to go to an event due to my work schedule, and missing out on life with my husband.”

Nearly two thirds (64%) said the balance was their top concern whereas 43% put pay at the top.

Medscape surveyed more than 3,000 women physicians about how they deal with parenthood, work pressures, and relationships in Women Physicians 2020: The Issues They Care About.
 

Almost all are making personal trade-offs

An overwhelming percentage (94%) said they have had to make personal trade-offs for work obligations.

“Women are more likely to make work compromises to benefit their families,” a cardiologist responded. “I won’t/can’t take a position that would disrupt my husband’s community ties, my children’s schooling, and relationships with family.”

More than one-third of women (36%) said that being a woman had a negative or very negative impact on their compensation. Only 4% said their gender had a positive or very positive impact on pay and 59% said gender had no effect.

The Medscape Physician Compensation Report 2020 showed male specialists made 31% more than their female counterparts and male primary care physicians earned 25% more.

Some factors may help explain some of the difference, but others remain unclear.

Poor negotiating skills have long been cited as a reason women get paid less; in this survey 39% said they were unskilled or very unskilled in salary negotiations, compared with 28% who said they were skilled or very skilled in those talks.

Katie Donovan, founder of Equal Pay Negotiations, reports that only 30% of women negotiate pay at all, compared with 46% of men.

Additionally, women tend to gravitate in specialties that don’t pay as well.

They are poorly represented in some of the highest-paying specialties: orthopedics (9%), urology (12%), and cardiology (14%).

“Society’s view of women as caretaker is powerful,” a radiologist commented. “Women feel like they need to choose specialties where they can work part-time or flexible time in order to be the primary caretaker at home.”
 

Confidence high in leadership abilities

The survey asked women about their confidence in taking a leadership role, and 90% answered that they were confident about taking such a role. However, only half said they had a leadership or supervisory role.

According to the American Medical Association, women make up 3% of healthcare chief medical officers, 6% of department chairs, and 9% of division leaders.

Asked whether women have experienced gender inequity in the workplace, respondents were almost evenly split, but hospital-based physicians at 61% were more likely to report inequity than were 42% of office-based physicians.

A family physician responded, “I have experienced gender inequality more from administrators than from my male colleagues. I think it’s coming from corporate more than from medical professionals.”

In this survey, 3% said their male colleagues were unsupportive of gender equality in the workplace.

The survey responses indicate most women physicians who have children are also conflicted as parents regarding their careers. Almost two-thirds (64%) said they were always or often conflicted with these dueling priorities; only 8% said they sometimes or rarely are.

Those conflicts start even before having children. More than half in this survey (52%) said their career influenced the number of children they have.

A family physician said, “I delayed starting a family because of my career. That affected my fertility and made it hard to complete [in-vitro fertilization].”
 

Family responsibilities meet stigma

Half of the respondents said women physicians are stigmatized for taking a full maternity leave (6 weeks or longer). An even higher percentage (65%) said women are stigmatized for taking more flexible or fewer hours to accommodate family responsibilities.

A 2019 survey of 844 physician mothers found that physicians who took maternity leave received lower peer evaluation scores, lost potential income, and reported experiencing discrimination. One-quarter of the participants (25.8%) reported experiencing discrimination related to breastfeeding or breast milk pumping upon their return to work.

Burnout at work puts stress on primary relationships, 63% of respondents said, although 24% said it did not strain those relationships. Thirteen percent of women gave the response “not applicable.”

“I try to be present when I’m home, but to be honest, I don’t deal with it very well,” a family physician commented.

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

“The sewer is the conscience of the city. Everything there converges and confronts everything else. In that livid spot there are shades, but there are no longer any secrets.” Victor Hugo – “Les Miserables”

To get a sense of the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community you need to test hundreds to thousands of people. This is difficult, resource intensive, and requires cooperation for testing among people both with and without symptoms. It turns out that Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM), a technology that has been in development for over a decade, is now being developed to track COVID-19.

In various locations from China to medieval London, there have been attempts to utilize human excrement for the betterment of mankind, from employing it as fertilizer to processing it to make gunpowder. Such attempts did not always work as planned. The use of sewage for fertilizer in Europe and the United States in the 1840s and 1850s led to the spread of waterborne diseases, including cholera and typhoid. As the importance of sanitary elimination of human waste became ever clearer, ideas and technology for our modern system of sewage management evolved. We have since advanced a great deal, so that all industrialized nations now have a well-developed system for clean water entry, as well as sewage treatment and disposal. Nonetheless, there remains a nagging question of whether human waste could be used for something productive.¹

In the early 2000s, SCIM was developed as a technique to assess population-level human health and disease. In SCIM, untreated sewage is tested for a chemical of interest which reflects a health parameter for a community. Chemicals of interest and usage rates can be calculated for substances as varied as opioids, tobacco, pesticides, and even nonnutritive sweeteners. For instance, relative opioid use can be calculated over time for a given “sewershed” or sewage catchment area. The calculation of community-wide exposure to substances as a means of getting real-time data on shifts of usage without having to collect and collate data from thousands of individuals has been termed wastewater-based epidemiology.

We use urine and stool testing in so many other areas, such as urinalysis, urine drug testing, urine Legionella antigen testing, and stool testing for common pathogens. What a rich source of information is present in the combination of urine and stool that collectively make up sewage! With the average volume of urine per adult being approximately 1 liter daily (and with urine calculated to be approximately 1% of wastewater), accurate analytic techniques can estimate per capita exposure to different substances. Applications of wastewater-based epidemiology have included tracking community prevalence of enteric viral infections, opioid and tobacco use, and many other indicators of health and disease.²

Given the enormous work in the field over the last 2 decades and that SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in feces of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, it was only a short conceptual step for those familiar with sewage epidemiology to consider adapting it to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community.

An elegant study collected untreated sewage from southeast Queensland, Australia. The sewage was processed, concentrated, and then tested with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of RNA copies was then entered into an equation that included the population served by the sewage encatchment area, as well as the measured liters of wastewater and grams of feces per day. This provided an estimate of the number of persons infected in the community, and the researchers were able to show reasonable agreement between the numbers estimated by sewage analysis and that found in traditional clinical testing.^3,4

The promise of wastewater-based epidemiology is large. Early research indicates that quantification of viral particles in sewage can be accurately assessed and correlated with the prevalence of the infection in the community. Such levels can then be used to track infection rates of COVID-19 over time, as well as to compare the relative rates in different communities.

Our sewage may hold the answer to accurately and easily tracking COVID-19, and ultimately help us gain a better hold on this disease.
 

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

References

1. History of water supply and sanitation. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation.

2. Daughton C. Monitoring wastewater for assessing community health: Sewage Chemical-Information Mining (SCIM). Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.102.

3. Ahmed W et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764.

4. Daughton C. The international imperative to rapidly and inexpensively monitor community-wide COVID-19 infection status and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138149.

“The sewer is the conscience of the city. Everything there converges and confronts everything else. In that livid spot there are shades, but there are no longer any secrets.” Victor Hugo – “Les Miserables”

To get a sense of the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community you need to test hundreds to thousands of people. This is difficult, resource intensive, and requires cooperation for testing among people both with and without symptoms. It turns out that Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM), a technology that has been in development for over a decade, is now being developed to track COVID-19.

In various locations from China to medieval London, there have been attempts to utilize human excrement for the betterment of mankind, from employing it as fertilizer to processing it to make gunpowder. Such attempts did not always work as planned. The use of sewage for fertilizer in Europe and the United States in the 1840s and 1850s led to the spread of waterborne diseases, including cholera and typhoid. As the importance of sanitary elimination of human waste became ever clearer, ideas and technology for our modern system of sewage management evolved. We have since advanced a great deal, so that all industrialized nations now have a well-developed system for clean water entry, as well as sewage treatment and disposal. Nonetheless, there remains a nagging question of whether human waste could be used for something productive.¹

In the early 2000s, SCIM was developed as a technique to assess population-level human health and disease. In SCIM, untreated sewage is tested for a chemical of interest which reflects a health parameter for a community. Chemicals of interest and usage rates can be calculated for substances as varied as opioids, tobacco, pesticides, and even nonnutritive sweeteners. For instance, relative opioid use can be calculated over time for a given “sewershed” or sewage catchment area. The calculation of community-wide exposure to substances as a means of getting real-time data on shifts of usage without having to collect and collate data from thousands of individuals has been termed wastewater-based epidemiology.

We use urine and stool testing in so many other areas, such as urinalysis, urine drug testing, urine Legionella antigen testing, and stool testing for common pathogens. What a rich source of information is present in the combination of urine and stool that collectively make up sewage! With the average volume of urine per adult being approximately 1 liter daily (and with urine calculated to be approximately 1% of wastewater), accurate analytic techniques can estimate per capita exposure to different substances. Applications of wastewater-based epidemiology have included tracking community prevalence of enteric viral infections, opioid and tobacco use, and many other indicators of health and disease.²

Given the enormous work in the field over the last 2 decades and that SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in feces of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, it was only a short conceptual step for those familiar with sewage epidemiology to consider adapting it to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community.

An elegant study collected untreated sewage from southeast Queensland, Australia. The sewage was processed, concentrated, and then tested with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of RNA copies was then entered into an equation that included the population served by the sewage encatchment area, as well as the measured liters of wastewater and grams of feces per day. This provided an estimate of the number of persons infected in the community, and the researchers were able to show reasonable agreement between the numbers estimated by sewage analysis and that found in traditional clinical testing.^3,4

The promise of wastewater-based epidemiology is large. Early research indicates that quantification of viral particles in sewage can be accurately assessed and correlated with the prevalence of the infection in the community. Such levels can then be used to track infection rates of COVID-19 over time, as well as to compare the relative rates in different communities.

Our sewage may hold the answer to accurately and easily tracking COVID-19, and ultimately help us gain a better hold on this disease.
 

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

References

1. History of water supply and sanitation. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation.

2. Daughton C. Monitoring wastewater for assessing community health: Sewage Chemical-Information Mining (SCIM). Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.102.

3. Ahmed W et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764.

4. Daughton C. The international imperative to rapidly and inexpensively monitor community-wide COVID-19 infection status and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138149.

“The sewer is the conscience of the city. Everything there converges and confronts everything else. In that livid spot there are shades, but there are no longer any secrets.” Victor Hugo – “Les Miserables”

To get a sense of the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community you need to test hundreds to thousands of people. This is difficult, resource intensive, and requires cooperation for testing among people both with and without symptoms. It turns out that Sewage Chemical Information Mining (SCIM), a technology that has been in development for over a decade, is now being developed to track COVID-19.

In various locations from China to medieval London, there have been attempts to utilize human excrement for the betterment of mankind, from employing it as fertilizer to processing it to make gunpowder. Such attempts did not always work as planned. The use of sewage for fertilizer in Europe and the United States in the 1840s and 1850s led to the spread of waterborne diseases, including cholera and typhoid. As the importance of sanitary elimination of human waste became ever clearer, ideas and technology for our modern system of sewage management evolved. We have since advanced a great deal, so that all industrialized nations now have a well-developed system for clean water entry, as well as sewage treatment and disposal. Nonetheless, there remains a nagging question of whether human waste could be used for something productive.¹

In the early 2000s, SCIM was developed as a technique to assess population-level human health and disease. In SCIM, untreated sewage is tested for a chemical of interest which reflects a health parameter for a community. Chemicals of interest and usage rates can be calculated for substances as varied as opioids, tobacco, pesticides, and even nonnutritive sweeteners. For instance, relative opioid use can be calculated over time for a given “sewershed” or sewage catchment area. The calculation of community-wide exposure to substances as a means of getting real-time data on shifts of usage without having to collect and collate data from thousands of individuals has been termed wastewater-based epidemiology.

We use urine and stool testing in so many other areas, such as urinalysis, urine drug testing, urine Legionella antigen testing, and stool testing for common pathogens. What a rich source of information is present in the combination of urine and stool that collectively make up sewage! With the average volume of urine per adult being approximately 1 liter daily (and with urine calculated to be approximately 1% of wastewater), accurate analytic techniques can estimate per capita exposure to different substances. Applications of wastewater-based epidemiology have included tracking community prevalence of enteric viral infections, opioid and tobacco use, and many other indicators of health and disease.²

Given the enormous work in the field over the last 2 decades and that SARS-CoV-2 RNA has been detected in feces of both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, it was only a short conceptual step for those familiar with sewage epidemiology to consider adapting it to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in a community.

An elegant study collected untreated sewage from southeast Queensland, Australia. The sewage was processed, concentrated, and then tested with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction analysis for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. The number of RNA copies was then entered into an equation that included the population served by the sewage encatchment area, as well as the measured liters of wastewater and grams of feces per day. This provided an estimate of the number of persons infected in the community, and the researchers were able to show reasonable agreement between the numbers estimated by sewage analysis and that found in traditional clinical testing.^3,4

The promise of wastewater-based epidemiology is large. Early research indicates that quantification of viral particles in sewage can be accurately assessed and correlated with the prevalence of the infection in the community. Such levels can then be used to track infection rates of COVID-19 over time, as well as to compare the relative rates in different communities.

Our sewage may hold the answer to accurately and easily tracking COVID-19, and ultimately help us gain a better hold on this disease.
 

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

References

1. History of water supply and sanitation. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_water_supply_and_sanitation.

2. Daughton C. Monitoring wastewater for assessing community health: Sewage Chemical-Information Mining (SCIM). Sci Total Environ. 2017 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.102.

3. Ahmed W et al. First confirmed detection of SARS-CoV-2 in untreated wastewater in Australia: A proof of concept for the wastewater surveillance of COVID-19 in the community. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Apr 18. doi: doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138764.

4. Daughton C. The international imperative to rapidly and inexpensively monitor community-wide COVID-19 infection status and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2020 Mar 23. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138149.

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Bicycling has always been part of who I am because it offered me the freedom to explore as a preteen. As an adult I have always been a bicycle commuter and a very visible part of the community as I pedal around town to do my errands. But, I didn’t always wear a helmet ... because well, I just didn’t. I saw the helmet as a nuisance with very little benefit to myself. Eventually, when bike races required helmets I bought one just for the competitions. Until one day about 30 years ago when the mother of a child I was seeing in the office said, “Dr. Wilkoff, you know as an influential member of this community, particularly its children, you should be wearing a helmet.” My wife had been badgering me for years but this woman’s courage to speak up embarrassed me into changing my ways.

For some, maybe many, people, wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic is a nuisance and an assault on their independence just as I viewed a bicycle helmet. Initially there was some information being circulated that any mask less robust than a N-95 had very little if any effect, either as protection or as way to decrease spread. I certainly had my doubts about the value of mask other than as a statement of solidarity. However, we are now learning that masks can serve an important role along with social distancing in a comprehensive community effort to minimize contagion.

In light of this new information, why are there are still people who won’t wear a mask? It may be that they are receiving their news filtered through a lens that discredits science. But, it is more likely the result of the same mindset that permeates the anti-vaccine faction that the common good is less important than personal freedom to follow their beliefs.

Do we have any tools at our disposal to increase the number of folks wearing masks? Based on our experience with attempts to convince those who are anti-vaccine, education will be ineffective in shifting the focus from personal freedom to a commitment to the welfare of the community at large. Shaming might be effective, but it runs the risk of igniting conflicts and further widening the gaps in our society. Some establishments have been effective in simply saying “no mask, no entry,” but this runs the same risk of creating friction depending on the community and the situation.

The ship may have already sailed on our best opportunity to achieve community compliance when the leaders of our national government have chosen to ignore their obligation to set an example by refusing to wear masks. I fear that the wedge has already been set and the widening of the gap between those who see their responsibility to the community at large and those who do not will continue to grow.

I am fortunate to live in a town whose residents look out for each other and have relied on local leaders to set an example in the absence of leadership on a national level.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

Starting breast cancer screening in young adulthood has the potential to sharply reduce deaths from the disease among women who have received chest radiation for childhood cancer, a modeling study suggests.

Two strategies – annual mammography with MRI and annual MRI alone – at least halved breast cancer mortality when started at the ages of 25 or 30 years.

Jennifer M. Yeh, PhD, of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues reported these results in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

When cost was also considered, 30 years emerged as the preferred starting age, dropping the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) below the generally accepted threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

“Our findings underscore the importance of making sure that young women previously treated with chest radiation are informed about their elevated breast cancer risk and the benefits of routine screening. Both primary care providers and oncologists who care for survivors should discuss breast cancer screening with these patients,” Dr. Yeh and colleagues wrote.

“Screening guidelines should emphasize the importance of MRI screening (with or without mammography) among survivors,” the authors recommended. “Our findings also highlight the importance of ensuring that survivors have access to health insurance coverage for MRI screening.”
 

Implications for awareness, coverage

“My hope is that, by showing the significantly decreased risk of death associated with early breast cancer screening, with harm-benefit ratios considerably lower than benchmarks for average-risk women, this study will help health insurance companies see the benefit in covering early screening for at-risk survivors,” commented Karen E. Effinger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, and the Aflac Cancer & Blood Disorders Center at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta.

“In many survivors, the cost of current screening [as recommended by] guidelines is prohibitive,” added Dr. Effinger, who was not involved in the current study.

The main concern regarding the study’s findings is generalizability to the contemporary era, given the use of a cohort diagnosed and treated decades ago and changes in radiation techniques and dosing since then, she noted in an interview. This limitation was addressed in a sensitivity analysis that halved the women’s base-case lifetime risk of breast cancer and still netted similar results.

“However, it will take many years to determine the true risk reduction of our current treatment strategies,” Dr. Effinger acknowledged.

“It is crucial that we improve our education of both survivors and our colleagues who care for these survivors, especially in regard to risk of subsequent malignancies and the benefits of screening,” Dr. Effinger maintained. “While many people are aware of the risk of breast cancer associated with BRCA mutations, the increased risk in survivors of childhood cancer is not as recognized by nononcologists. This study reinforces that increasing this awareness can save lives.”

In educating their patients about preventive care, health care providers must strike “a fine balance between discussing the risks and benefits of screening without provoking significant anxiety,” she concluded. “It is important for survivors to establish care with a primary care provider in order to develop trust and receive the guidance they need to decrease the risk of early mortality.”
 

Study details

Dr. Yeh and colleagues developed models to compare outcomes with various screening strategies among women aged 20 years who had received chest radiotherapy for childhood cancer during 1970-1986. The women had been diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma (55%), Wilms tumor (12%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (8%), and other cancers.

The investigators conducted their analysis using data from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study and other published sources, a lifetime time horizon, and a payer perspective.

The team assessed three strategies: no screening; digital mammography with MRI screening starting at 25 years of age (the current Children’s Oncology Group recommendation), 30 years, or 35 years and continuing to 74 years of age; and MRI only starting at age 25, 30, or 35 years and continuing to age 74 years.

The main study results showed that, without screening, women who had received chest radiation for childhood cancer had a 10%-11% lifetime risk of breast cancer mortality across models.

Relative to no screening, starting at age 25 years, the largest share of deaths was averted with the strategy of annual mammography with MRI – 56.3%-71.2% – or with the strategy of annual MRI alone – 55.7%-62.0%.

These two strategies also yielded the most screening tests, as well as the most false-positive test results and benign biopsy results.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 4,188-4,879 false-positive test results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 3,283-3,764 false-positive results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

For women who started screening at age 25, there were 1,340-1,561 benign biopsy results per 1,000 women for mammography plus MRI and 1,248-1,430 benign results per 1,000 women for MRI alone.

After cost was factored in, beginning screening at age 30 emerged as the preferred strategy to achieve an ICER threshold of less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

When started at 30 years of age, annual mammography with MRI averted 54.7%-68.8% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $25,400-$113,200 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Annual MRI alone averted 54.0%-60.0% of breast cancer deaths, with an ICER of $21,800-$50,580 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. The authors disclosed relationships with GE Healthcare and Biovector. Dr. Effinger disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yeh JM et al. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jul 7. doi: 10.7326/M19-3481.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A phase 1/2 trial of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 being developed by the University of Oxford has found that the vaccine is safe, causes few side effects, and induces strong immune responses.

The early stage results, published in The Lancet, found that the candidate vaccine, known as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, provoked a T-cell response peaking 14 days after vaccination, and an antibody response within 28 days.

Andrew Pollard, chief investigator on the study, and professor of pediatric infection and immunity at Oxford University, described the results as “encouraging”. He told a briefing convened by the Science Media Centre on Monday that it was “a really important milestone on the path to the development of the vaccine”.

In the Commons, the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, hailed the results for taking us “one step closer to finding a vaccine that can potentially save lives, all around the world”.

The trial, which has so far involved 1,077 healthy adults, caused minor side effects when compared with a control group given a meningitis vaccine. Fatigue and headache were the most commonly reported reactions.

However, there were no serious adverse events from the vaccine, the researchers said.
 

‘Still a long way to go’

Sarah Gilbert, lead researcher of the vaccine development program, and professor of vaccinology at Oxford, cautioned that there was still a long way to go before the team could confirm that the vaccine could protect against developing COVID-19.

“The difficulty that we have, and that all vaccine developers have in trying to make a vaccine against this particular virus, is that we don’t know how strong that immune response needs to be,” she said.

“So, we can’t say just by looking at immune responses whether this is going to protect people or not. And the only way we’re going to find out is by doing the large phase 3 trials and wait for people to be infected as part of that trial before we know if the vaccine can work.”

The authors noted some limitations to their findings. They said more research was needed to confirm their results in different groups of people – including older age groups, those with other health conditions, and in ethnically and geographically diverse populations.

A notable result of the trial was that participants given a second dose of the vaccine appeared to display a stronger immune response, a finding that had influenced plans to “look at two dose regimes as well as one dose regimes in the phase 3 trial”, Prof Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute, confirmed.

ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 is made from a weakened version of an adenovirus that causes infections in chimpanzees. The virus has been genetically modified so that it cannot grow in humans.

On Monday, the government announced that it had struck a deal with AstraZeneca for access to 100 million doses of the Oxford vaccine, in addition to millions of doses of other promising candidate vaccines.
 

Expert reaction to the findings

The Medical Research Council helped to fund the trial. Executive Chair Professor Fiona Watt commented: “It is truly remarkable how fast this vaccine has progressed, with our support, through early clinical trials, and it is very encouraging that it shows no safety concerns and evokes strong immune responses.

“There is a lot that we don’t yet know about immunity to the virus that causes COVID-19. However, it seems that both antibody and T cell immunity are important, and this vaccine triggers both responses. The much anticipated next milestone will be the results of the larger trials that are happening now to find out if the vaccine will protect people from the virus.”

Jonathan Ball, professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, told the SMC: “The results of the Oxford chimp adenovirus vaccine candidate show that the vaccine is able to generate antibodies and T cells in humans and these persisted for several weeks. Whilst encouraging there is still a long way to go before we can herald the arrival of a successful coronavirus vaccine.

“It is unclear whether the levels of immunity can protect against infection – that’s what the larger ongoing phase III trials are designed to test. Nor do we know if this vaccine can protect those most vulnerable to severe COVID-19 disease.”

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, commented: “For the vaccine to be really useful, we not only need the larger studies conducted where COVID-19 is still occurring at a high rate, but we need to be reasonably sure that the protection lasts for a considerable time.”

He said it was also vital that people older than 55 were included in later trials.

Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: “Developing a vaccine is an incredibly difficult challenge; the fact that there are multiple candidates in development is hopefully a sign that the hard work will ultimately pay off.

“But we must be patient. Proving that a vaccine is safe and effective is a long process and we could still be many months away.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For adolescent patients, routinely take a sexual history, discuss the use of barrier methods, and perform relevant examinations, screenings, and vaccinations, according to a new policy statement on barrier protection use from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence.

The policy statement has been expanded to cover multiple types of sexual activity and methods of barrier protection. These include not only traditional condoms, but also internal condoms (available in the United States only by prescription) and dental dams (for use during oral sex) or a latex sheet. “Pediatricians and other clinicians are encouraged to provide barrier methods within their offices and support availability within their communities,” said Laura K. Grubb, MD, MPH, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who authored both the policy statement and the technical report.

Counsel adolescents that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the best way to prevent genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV infection, and unplanned pregnancy. Also encourage and support consistent, correct barrier method use – in addition to other reliable contraception, if patients are sexually active or are thinking about becoming sexually active – the policy statement notes. Emphasize that all partners share responsibility to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies. “Adolescents with intellectual and physical disabilities are an overlooked group when it comes to sexual behavior, but they have similar rates of sexual behaviors when compared with their peers without disabilities,” Dr. Grubb and colleagues emphasized in the policy statement.

This is key because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 data showed that in the United States, “456,000 adolescent and young women younger than 20 years became pregnant; 448,000 of those pregnancies were among 15- to 19-year-olds, and 7,400 were among those 14 years of age and younger,” according to the technical report accompanying the policy statement. Also, “new cases of STIs increased 31% in the United States from 2013 to 2017, with half of the 2.3 million new STIs reported each year among young people 15 to 24 years of age.”

Parents may need support and encouragement to talk with their children about sex, sexuality, and the use of barrier methods to prevent STIs. Dr. Grubb and colleagues recommend via the policy statement: “Actively communicate to parents and communities that making barrier methods available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, and that use of barrier methods can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.”

Use Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Fourth Edition, for guidance on supporting parents and adolescents in promoting healthy sexual development and sexuality, including discussions of barrier methods.

Some groups of adolescents may use barrier methods less consistently because they perceive themselves to be lower risk. These include adolescents who use preexposure prophylaxis or nonbarrier contraception, who identify as bisexual or lesbian, or who are in established relationships. Monitor these patients to assess their risk and need for additional counseling. In the technical report, studies are cited finding that barrier methods are used less consistently during oral sex and that condom use is lower among cisgender and transgender females, and among adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared with other groups.

In the policy statement, Dr. Grubb and colleagues call on pediatricians to advocate for more research and better access to barrier methods, especially for higher-risk adolescents and those living in underserved areas. In particular, school education programs on barrier methods can reach large adolescent groups and provide a “comprehensive array of educational and health care resources.”

Katie Brigham, MD, a pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston, affirmed the recommendations in the new policy statement (which she did not help write or research). “Even though the pregnancy rate is dropping in the United States, STI rates are increasing, so it is vital that pediatricians and other providers of adolescents and young adults counsel all their patients, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, of the importance of barrier methods when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Brigham praised the technical report, adding that she found no major weaknesses in its methodology. “For future research, it would be interesting to see if there are different rates of pregnancy and STIs in pediatric practices that provide condoms and other barrier methods free to their patients, compared to those that do not.”

No external funding sources were reported. Dr. Grubb and Dr. Brigham reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Grubb LK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007237.

For adolescent patients, routinely take a sexual history, discuss the use of barrier methods, and perform relevant examinations, screenings, and vaccinations, according to a new policy statement on barrier protection use from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence.

The policy statement has been expanded to cover multiple types of sexual activity and methods of barrier protection. These include not only traditional condoms, but also internal condoms (available in the United States only by prescription) and dental dams (for use during oral sex) or a latex sheet. “Pediatricians and other clinicians are encouraged to provide barrier methods within their offices and support availability within their communities,” said Laura K. Grubb, MD, MPH, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who authored both the policy statement and the technical report.

Counsel adolescents that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the best way to prevent genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV infection, and unplanned pregnancy. Also encourage and support consistent, correct barrier method use – in addition to other reliable contraception, if patients are sexually active or are thinking about becoming sexually active – the policy statement notes. Emphasize that all partners share responsibility to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies. “Adolescents with intellectual and physical disabilities are an overlooked group when it comes to sexual behavior, but they have similar rates of sexual behaviors when compared with their peers without disabilities,” Dr. Grubb and colleagues emphasized in the policy statement.

This is key because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 data showed that in the United States, “456,000 adolescent and young women younger than 20 years became pregnant; 448,000 of those pregnancies were among 15- to 19-year-olds, and 7,400 were among those 14 years of age and younger,” according to the technical report accompanying the policy statement. Also, “new cases of STIs increased 31% in the United States from 2013 to 2017, with half of the 2.3 million new STIs reported each year among young people 15 to 24 years of age.”

Parents may need support and encouragement to talk with their children about sex, sexuality, and the use of barrier methods to prevent STIs. Dr. Grubb and colleagues recommend via the policy statement: “Actively communicate to parents and communities that making barrier methods available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, and that use of barrier methods can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.”

Use Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Fourth Edition, for guidance on supporting parents and adolescents in promoting healthy sexual development and sexuality, including discussions of barrier methods.

Some groups of adolescents may use barrier methods less consistently because they perceive themselves to be lower risk. These include adolescents who use preexposure prophylaxis or nonbarrier contraception, who identify as bisexual or lesbian, or who are in established relationships. Monitor these patients to assess their risk and need for additional counseling. In the technical report, studies are cited finding that barrier methods are used less consistently during oral sex and that condom use is lower among cisgender and transgender females, and among adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared with other groups.

In the policy statement, Dr. Grubb and colleagues call on pediatricians to advocate for more research and better access to barrier methods, especially for higher-risk adolescents and those living in underserved areas. In particular, school education programs on barrier methods can reach large adolescent groups and provide a “comprehensive array of educational and health care resources.”

Katie Brigham, MD, a pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston, affirmed the recommendations in the new policy statement (which she did not help write or research). “Even though the pregnancy rate is dropping in the United States, STI rates are increasing, so it is vital that pediatricians and other providers of adolescents and young adults counsel all their patients, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, of the importance of barrier methods when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Brigham praised the technical report, adding that she found no major weaknesses in its methodology. “For future research, it would be interesting to see if there are different rates of pregnancy and STIs in pediatric practices that provide condoms and other barrier methods free to their patients, compared to those that do not.”

No external funding sources were reported. Dr. Grubb and Dr. Brigham reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Grubb LK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007237.

For adolescent patients, routinely take a sexual history, discuss the use of barrier methods, and perform relevant examinations, screenings, and vaccinations, according to a new policy statement on barrier protection use from the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Adolescence.

The policy statement has been expanded to cover multiple types of sexual activity and methods of barrier protection. These include not only traditional condoms, but also internal condoms (available in the United States only by prescription) and dental dams (for use during oral sex) or a latex sheet. “Pediatricians and other clinicians are encouraged to provide barrier methods within their offices and support availability within their communities,” said Laura K. Grubb, MD, MPH, of Tufts Medical Center in Boston, who authored both the policy statement and the technical report.

Counsel adolescents that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the best way to prevent genital sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV infection, and unplanned pregnancy. Also encourage and support consistent, correct barrier method use – in addition to other reliable contraception, if patients are sexually active or are thinking about becoming sexually active – the policy statement notes. Emphasize that all partners share responsibility to prevent STIs and unplanned pregnancies. “Adolescents with intellectual and physical disabilities are an overlooked group when it comes to sexual behavior, but they have similar rates of sexual behaviors when compared with their peers without disabilities,” Dr. Grubb and colleagues emphasized in the policy statement.

This is key because Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2017 data showed that in the United States, “456,000 adolescent and young women younger than 20 years became pregnant; 448,000 of those pregnancies were among 15- to 19-year-olds, and 7,400 were among those 14 years of age and younger,” according to the technical report accompanying the policy statement. Also, “new cases of STIs increased 31% in the United States from 2013 to 2017, with half of the 2.3 million new STIs reported each year among young people 15 to 24 years of age.”

Parents may need support and encouragement to talk with their children about sex, sexuality, and the use of barrier methods to prevent STIs. Dr. Grubb and colleagues recommend via the policy statement: “Actively communicate to parents and communities that making barrier methods available to adolescents does not increase the onset or frequency of adolescent sexual activity, and that use of barrier methods can help decrease rates of unintended pregnancy and acquisition of STIs.”

Use Bright Futures: Guidelines for Health Supervision of Infants, Children, and Adolescents, Fourth Edition, for guidance on supporting parents and adolescents in promoting healthy sexual development and sexuality, including discussions of barrier methods.

Some groups of adolescents may use barrier methods less consistently because they perceive themselves to be lower risk. These include adolescents who use preexposure prophylaxis or nonbarrier contraception, who identify as bisexual or lesbian, or who are in established relationships. Monitor these patients to assess their risk and need for additional counseling. In the technical report, studies are cited finding that barrier methods are used less consistently during oral sex and that condom use is lower among cisgender and transgender females, and among adolescents who self-identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared with other groups.

In the policy statement, Dr. Grubb and colleagues call on pediatricians to advocate for more research and better access to barrier methods, especially for higher-risk adolescents and those living in underserved areas. In particular, school education programs on barrier methods can reach large adolescent groups and provide a “comprehensive array of educational and health care resources.”

Katie Brigham, MD, a pediatrician at MassGeneral Hospital for Children in Boston, affirmed the recommendations in the new policy statement (which she did not help write or research). “Even though the pregnancy rate is dropping in the United States, STI rates are increasing, so it is vital that pediatricians and other providers of adolescents and young adults counsel all their patients, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, of the importance of barrier methods when having oral, vaginal, or anal sex,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Brigham praised the technical report, adding that she found no major weaknesses in its methodology. “For future research, it would be interesting to see if there are different rates of pregnancy and STIs in pediatric practices that provide condoms and other barrier methods free to their patients, compared to those that do not.”

No external funding sources were reported. Dr. Grubb and Dr. Brigham reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Grubb LK et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Jul 20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-007237.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Every person who received Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, mRNA-1273, developed an immune response to the virus that causes it, the company says in a news release.

Researchers also reported some side effects in the 45 people in the phase I study, but no significant safety issues, the news release says.

The vaccine is among hundreds being tested worldwide in an effort to halt the pandemic that has killed nearly 600,000 worldwide.

A researcher testing the vaccine called the results encouraging but cautioned more study is needed. “Importantly, the vaccine resulted in a robust immune response,” Evan Anderson, MD, principal investigator for the trial at Emory University, says in a news release. Emory and Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute were the two sites for the study.

The company is already testing the vaccine in a larger group of people, known as a phase II trial. It plans to begin phase III trials in late July. Phase III trials involve testing the vaccine on an even larger group and are the final step before FDA approval.

The study results are published in The New England Journal of Medicine. The study was led by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Moderna’s vaccine uses messenger RNA, also called mRNA. It carries the instruction for making the spike protein, a key protein on the surface of the virus that allows it to enter cells when a person is infected. After it’s injected, it goes to the immune cells and instructs them to make copies of the spike protein, acting as if the cells have been infected with the actual coronavirus. This allows other immune cells to develop immunity.

In the study, participants were divided into three groups of 15 people each. All groups received two vaccinations 28 days apart. Each group received a different strength of the vaccine – either 25, 100, or 250 micrograms.

Every person in the study developed antibodies that can block the infection. Most commonly reported side effects after the second vaccination in the 100-microgram group were fatigue, chills, headache, and muscle pains, ranging from mild to moderately severe.

The phase II study has 300 heathy adults ages 18-55, along with another 300 ages 55 and older

Moderna says it hopes to include about 30,000 participants at the 100-microgram dose level in the U.S. for the phase III trial. The estimated start date is July 27.

This article first appeared on WebMD.com.