MDedge Psychiatry

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

For Clayton Lively, electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, has been a lifesaver.

“ECT was like a last resort to treat mania and psychosis for bipolar disorder,” said the 31-year-old financial firm associate who lives in Silver Spring, Md. “I had tried lots of different medications.”

The first course of treatments – three times per week for several weeks – was in 2005. They helped tremendously. “I came down from my mania,” Mr. Lively said. “The hallucinations stopped. The psychosis disappeared.”

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

He reached a point where medications and psychotherapy worked again. And for a decade, his condition was under control.

But in 2017, another episode of hallucinations and mania jolted him off course. Intrusive thoughts returned. For instance, while driving, he would visualize veering off the road. The thoughts were jarring, and yet, he couldn’t stop them from recurring.

“I wasn’t sleeping, and it just kind of wreaked havoc on my life,” Mr. Lively recalled. “I ended up being hospitalized again.”

Once again, ECT came to the rescue – and yet again, in 2018. Now, he’s on an effective maintenance regimen, receiving ECT once every 4 weeks, after tapering down from more frequent sessions.

When a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy fails to control severe mental illness, there’s hope on the horizon. ECT can be a reliably safe and effective option.

For some patients, using it as maintenance therapy makes sense, said Vaughn McCall, MD, editor-in-chief of The Journal of ECT and professor and chairman of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. “I would think of it the same way as you have to treat any chronic illness,” such as blood pressure medicine to keep hypertension in check and dialysis to prevent kidney failure.

Despite a cacophony of contrarian voices – mainly from the Church of Scientology – “the number of psychiatrists who see controversy in ECT is vanishingly small,” Dr. McCall said. “Within the discipline of psychiatry itself, there really is no controversy.”

In weighing the pros and cons of ECT, he noted that “when you’re trying to decide if it’s worth doing a treatment, you’re looking at the effectiveness on one hand and the side effects on the other hand.”

The answer to that emerges from several scales measuring patients’ quality of life by posing questions such as: “After receiving ECT, are you more able or less able to take care of yourself, to work, and enjoy the company of other people?”

In the end, Dr. McCall said, “we’ve applied these scales in probably half a dozen studies or more, and they always show that the patients’ qualify of life as a group is improved.”

A recent study published in The Lancet Psychiatry provides a significant degree of reassurance that ECT – also called “electroshock” or colloquially just “shock” therapy – does not increase the risk of serious medical side effects. In fact, the study suggests a potential benefit in reducing suicide risk.

First performed in 1938, the treatment has been well documented in the medical literature. But negative portrayals in books and movies, such as the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” have contributed to casting it in an unfavorable light.

“Unfortunately, over the past decades and years, there’s a lot of stigma and fear around the treatment,” said the study’s lead author, Tyler Kaster, MD, a psychiatrist and clinical fellow in brain stimulation at the University of Toronto.

For the study, Canadian investigators reviewed the admission records of 10,000 patients hospitalized for at least 3 days because of a severe depressive episode. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were women, and the average age for the entire group approached 57 years.

While half of the patients underwent ECT, the others received medication and psychotherapy. Researchers found that the group undergoing ECT did not have a heightened risk of death over the next 30 days and were not any more likely to be hospitalized for a medical problem.

Previous ECT comparative studies were at high risk of bias because of their inability to sufficiently account for confounding variables and differences between those who received the treatment and those who did not. The current study employed “rigorous methods with careful attention to bias and confounding to overcome limitations of previous work,” the authors wrote.

They used propensity score matching, which included more than 75 variables, such as measures of cognitive impairment, depression severity, medication use, other illnesses, and use of psychiatric and various medical services, capacity to consent to treatment, and sociodemographic factors.

“This is really a landmark study in terms of showing the medical safety of ECT,” said Mark S. George, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in the study.

He added that “ECT is a life-saving treatment” for individuals with severe depression. “It’s good that we have this option for our patients.”

The authors highlight that depression is a major cause of illness and disability worldwide, with many individuals failing to achieve remission from initial therapies. Treatment-resistant depression is often described as being nonresponsive “to two or more medication trials of adequate dose and duration from different classes,” they wrote. In these instances, the authors point out, there is little evidence that psychotherapy would be helpful.

“The reason we consider ECT is someone has very severe depression that hasn’t responded to medications and talk therapy,” Dr. Kaster said. “The advantage of ECT is that it’s very effective in those circumstances.”

Of all therapies for treatment-resistant depression, ECT has the highest success rate, with 60% of patients attaining remission, according to the study, which cites prior research.

Compared with neurosurgery, the procedure is not invasive but requires general anesthesia. While the patient is asleep, Dr. Kaster said, the treating clinician places an electrical stimulus on the patient’s scalp, causing a generalized seizure inside the brain that lasts from 15 seconds to 2 minutes. 

A course of ECT usually takes a total of 8-12 treatments, delivered two to three times per week over a month to a month and a half, Dr. George said. 

Some patients need a new course of ECT if they relapse after several months. Others are unable to control their depression between courses and require repeated doses for maintenance. The time between these ECT sessions varies for each individual, Dr. George said, but is typically one session every 3-4 weeks. 

To improve the odds of staying well, patients typically need to continue taking antidepressants and engaging in psychotherapy.

“It helps improve the efficacy of ECT and also down the road helps prevent relapse,” Dr. Kaster said, noting that “depression is, unfortunately, a chronic illness. We don’t have a cure.”

Murat Altinay, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic and a mood disorders specialist, said his patients generally need to demonstrate a lack of response to at least three or four antidepressants before he considers recommending ECT.

Confusion, short-term memory impairment, and muscle aches and pains may occur after the procedure, but they are relatively mild. Patients are monitored in a recovery room before discharge from the hospital, Dr. Altinay said.

The first few treatments will affect everyday function. After that initial period, however, people can resume most of their daily activities, he said.

“Maybe they won’t be able to work full-time right away, but anecdotally, we have had patients who were able to go back to the workforce relatively quickly or while they’re getting ECT,” Dr. Altinay said.

More significant adverse events are very rare, he noted, although heart rate and blood pressure can become elevated because of the electrical stimulus.

Dr. Altinay said he is pleased that the large-scale journal article has been published to help dispel myths surrounding ECT. While psychiatrists feel that ECT is generally safe and effective, the public maintains a negative view.

“It is an underutilized treatment,” he said. “In the media, it is almost depicted as a barbaric and archaic treatment in psychiatry.”

Patients are afraid of major side effects such as personality changes. Some fear they will forget someone’s birthday or other important factual information, “but that kind of stuff obviously does not happen,” Dr. Altinay said.

Sometimes it’s not only the patients who are hesitant to try ECT; it’s the family members who express concerns, said Irving Reti, MBBS, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of the brain stimulation program at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It varies from one patient to another how agreeable or reluctant or cautious they are about their treatment if the doctor thinks it’s indicated for them,” Dr. Reti said. “Family members’ concerns may be very legitimate but may also be influenced by stigma and misunderstanding about the treatment. They may also not fully appreciate the severity of their loved one’s depression that warrants the administration of ECT.”  

Hospitalized patients who are at risk of suicide have benefited from ECT. “It’s very effective,” he said. “I think it’s still the gold standard for severe treatment-resistant depression and also particularly helpful in people who are acutely suicidal.”

Dr. George cautioned that psychiatrists and the public should beware of questionable online sources that attempt to discredit ECT. “A quick Google search will find plenty of nonmedical doctors, many funded through Scientology, who will speak poorly of ECT. But they do not use evidence-based arguments and commonly do not treat patients,” he said.

“All good practicing psychiatrists that I know are in favor of ECT, as it clearly saves lives,” Dr. George added. “We all hope that the future will provide refinements of ECT, or even disruptive technologies that are more effective and with less hassle and will make ECT as we do it now obsolete. But we are not there yet.” 

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

For Clayton Lively, electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, has been a lifesaver.

“ECT was like a last resort to treat mania and psychosis for bipolar disorder,” said the 31-year-old financial firm associate who lives in Silver Spring, Md. “I had tried lots of different medications.”

The first course of treatments – three times per week for several weeks – was in 2005. They helped tremendously. “I came down from my mania,” Mr. Lively said. “The hallucinations stopped. The psychosis disappeared.”

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

He reached a point where medications and psychotherapy worked again. And for a decade, his condition was under control.

But in 2017, another episode of hallucinations and mania jolted him off course. Intrusive thoughts returned. For instance, while driving, he would visualize veering off the road. The thoughts were jarring, and yet, he couldn’t stop them from recurring.

“I wasn’t sleeping, and it just kind of wreaked havoc on my life,” Mr. Lively recalled. “I ended up being hospitalized again.”

Once again, ECT came to the rescue – and yet again, in 2018. Now, he’s on an effective maintenance regimen, receiving ECT once every 4 weeks, after tapering down from more frequent sessions.

When a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy fails to control severe mental illness, there’s hope on the horizon. ECT can be a reliably safe and effective option.

For some patients, using it as maintenance therapy makes sense, said Vaughn McCall, MD, editor-in-chief of The Journal of ECT and professor and chairman of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. “I would think of it the same way as you have to treat any chronic illness,” such as blood pressure medicine to keep hypertension in check and dialysis to prevent kidney failure.

Despite a cacophony of contrarian voices – mainly from the Church of Scientology – “the number of psychiatrists who see controversy in ECT is vanishingly small,” Dr. McCall said. “Within the discipline of psychiatry itself, there really is no controversy.”

In weighing the pros and cons of ECT, he noted that “when you’re trying to decide if it’s worth doing a treatment, you’re looking at the effectiveness on one hand and the side effects on the other hand.”

The answer to that emerges from several scales measuring patients’ quality of life by posing questions such as: “After receiving ECT, are you more able or less able to take care of yourself, to work, and enjoy the company of other people?”

In the end, Dr. McCall said, “we’ve applied these scales in probably half a dozen studies or more, and they always show that the patients’ qualify of life as a group is improved.”

A recent study published in The Lancet Psychiatry provides a significant degree of reassurance that ECT – also called “electroshock” or colloquially just “shock” therapy – does not increase the risk of serious medical side effects. In fact, the study suggests a potential benefit in reducing suicide risk.

First performed in 1938, the treatment has been well documented in the medical literature. But negative portrayals in books and movies, such as the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” have contributed to casting it in an unfavorable light.

“Unfortunately, over the past decades and years, there’s a lot of stigma and fear around the treatment,” said the study’s lead author, Tyler Kaster, MD, a psychiatrist and clinical fellow in brain stimulation at the University of Toronto.

For the study, Canadian investigators reviewed the admission records of 10,000 patients hospitalized for at least 3 days because of a severe depressive episode. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were women, and the average age for the entire group approached 57 years.

While half of the patients underwent ECT, the others received medication and psychotherapy. Researchers found that the group undergoing ECT did not have a heightened risk of death over the next 30 days and were not any more likely to be hospitalized for a medical problem.

Previous ECT comparative studies were at high risk of bias because of their inability to sufficiently account for confounding variables and differences between those who received the treatment and those who did not. The current study employed “rigorous methods with careful attention to bias and confounding to overcome limitations of previous work,” the authors wrote.

They used propensity score matching, which included more than 75 variables, such as measures of cognitive impairment, depression severity, medication use, other illnesses, and use of psychiatric and various medical services, capacity to consent to treatment, and sociodemographic factors.

“This is really a landmark study in terms of showing the medical safety of ECT,” said Mark S. George, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in the study.

He added that “ECT is a life-saving treatment” for individuals with severe depression. “It’s good that we have this option for our patients.”

The authors highlight that depression is a major cause of illness and disability worldwide, with many individuals failing to achieve remission from initial therapies. Treatment-resistant depression is often described as being nonresponsive “to two or more medication trials of adequate dose and duration from different classes,” they wrote. In these instances, the authors point out, there is little evidence that psychotherapy would be helpful.

“The reason we consider ECT is someone has very severe depression that hasn’t responded to medications and talk therapy,” Dr. Kaster said. “The advantage of ECT is that it’s very effective in those circumstances.”

Of all therapies for treatment-resistant depression, ECT has the highest success rate, with 60% of patients attaining remission, according to the study, which cites prior research.

Compared with neurosurgery, the procedure is not invasive but requires general anesthesia. While the patient is asleep, Dr. Kaster said, the treating clinician places an electrical stimulus on the patient’s scalp, causing a generalized seizure inside the brain that lasts from 15 seconds to 2 minutes. 

A course of ECT usually takes a total of 8-12 treatments, delivered two to three times per week over a month to a month and a half, Dr. George said. 

Some patients need a new course of ECT if they relapse after several months. Others are unable to control their depression between courses and require repeated doses for maintenance. The time between these ECT sessions varies for each individual, Dr. George said, but is typically one session every 3-4 weeks. 

To improve the odds of staying well, patients typically need to continue taking antidepressants and engaging in psychotherapy.

“It helps improve the efficacy of ECT and also down the road helps prevent relapse,” Dr. Kaster said, noting that “depression is, unfortunately, a chronic illness. We don’t have a cure.”

Murat Altinay, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic and a mood disorders specialist, said his patients generally need to demonstrate a lack of response to at least three or four antidepressants before he considers recommending ECT.

Confusion, short-term memory impairment, and muscle aches and pains may occur after the procedure, but they are relatively mild. Patients are monitored in a recovery room before discharge from the hospital, Dr. Altinay said.

The first few treatments will affect everyday function. After that initial period, however, people can resume most of their daily activities, he said.

“Maybe they won’t be able to work full-time right away, but anecdotally, we have had patients who were able to go back to the workforce relatively quickly or while they’re getting ECT,” Dr. Altinay said.

More significant adverse events are very rare, he noted, although heart rate and blood pressure can become elevated because of the electrical stimulus.

Dr. Altinay said he is pleased that the large-scale journal article has been published to help dispel myths surrounding ECT. While psychiatrists feel that ECT is generally safe and effective, the public maintains a negative view.

“It is an underutilized treatment,” he said. “In the media, it is almost depicted as a barbaric and archaic treatment in psychiatry.”

Patients are afraid of major side effects such as personality changes. Some fear they will forget someone’s birthday or other important factual information, “but that kind of stuff obviously does not happen,” Dr. Altinay said.

Sometimes it’s not only the patients who are hesitant to try ECT; it’s the family members who express concerns, said Irving Reti, MBBS, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of the brain stimulation program at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It varies from one patient to another how agreeable or reluctant or cautious they are about their treatment if the doctor thinks it’s indicated for them,” Dr. Reti said. “Family members’ concerns may be very legitimate but may also be influenced by stigma and misunderstanding about the treatment. They may also not fully appreciate the severity of their loved one’s depression that warrants the administration of ECT.”  

Hospitalized patients who are at risk of suicide have benefited from ECT. “It’s very effective,” he said. “I think it’s still the gold standard for severe treatment-resistant depression and also particularly helpful in people who are acutely suicidal.”

Dr. George cautioned that psychiatrists and the public should beware of questionable online sources that attempt to discredit ECT. “A quick Google search will find plenty of nonmedical doctors, many funded through Scientology, who will speak poorly of ECT. But they do not use evidence-based arguments and commonly do not treat patients,” he said.

“All good practicing psychiatrists that I know are in favor of ECT, as it clearly saves lives,” Dr. George added. “We all hope that the future will provide refinements of ECT, or even disruptive technologies that are more effective and with less hassle and will make ECT as we do it now obsolete. But we are not there yet.” 

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

For Clayton Lively, electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT, has been a lifesaver.

“ECT was like a last resort to treat mania and psychosis for bipolar disorder,” said the 31-year-old financial firm associate who lives in Silver Spring, Md. “I had tried lots of different medications.”

The first course of treatments – three times per week for several weeks – was in 2005. They helped tremendously. “I came down from my mania,” Mr. Lively said. “The hallucinations stopped. The psychosis disappeared.”

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

He reached a point where medications and psychotherapy worked again. And for a decade, his condition was under control.

But in 2017, another episode of hallucinations and mania jolted him off course. Intrusive thoughts returned. For instance, while driving, he would visualize veering off the road. The thoughts were jarring, and yet, he couldn’t stop them from recurring.

“I wasn’t sleeping, and it just kind of wreaked havoc on my life,” Mr. Lively recalled. “I ended up being hospitalized again.”

Once again, ECT came to the rescue – and yet again, in 2018. Now, he’s on an effective maintenance regimen, receiving ECT once every 4 weeks, after tapering down from more frequent sessions.

When a combination of antidepressants and psychotherapy fails to control severe mental illness, there’s hope on the horizon. ECT can be a reliably safe and effective option.

For some patients, using it as maintenance therapy makes sense, said Vaughn McCall, MD, editor-in-chief of The Journal of ECT and professor and chairman of psychiatry at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. “I would think of it the same way as you have to treat any chronic illness,” such as blood pressure medicine to keep hypertension in check and dialysis to prevent kidney failure.

Despite a cacophony of contrarian voices – mainly from the Church of Scientology – “the number of psychiatrists who see controversy in ECT is vanishingly small,” Dr. McCall said. “Within the discipline of psychiatry itself, there really is no controversy.”

In weighing the pros and cons of ECT, he noted that “when you’re trying to decide if it’s worth doing a treatment, you’re looking at the effectiveness on one hand and the side effects on the other hand.”

The answer to that emerges from several scales measuring patients’ quality of life by posing questions such as: “After receiving ECT, are you more able or less able to take care of yourself, to work, and enjoy the company of other people?”

In the end, Dr. McCall said, “we’ve applied these scales in probably half a dozen studies or more, and they always show that the patients’ qualify of life as a group is improved.”

A recent study published in The Lancet Psychiatry provides a significant degree of reassurance that ECT – also called “electroshock” or colloquially just “shock” therapy – does not increase the risk of serious medical side effects. In fact, the study suggests a potential benefit in reducing suicide risk.

First performed in 1938, the treatment has been well documented in the medical literature. But negative portrayals in books and movies, such as the 1975 film “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” have contributed to casting it in an unfavorable light.

“Unfortunately, over the past decades and years, there’s a lot of stigma and fear around the treatment,” said the study’s lead author, Tyler Kaster, MD, a psychiatrist and clinical fellow in brain stimulation at the University of Toronto.

For the study, Canadian investigators reviewed the admission records of 10,000 patients hospitalized for at least 3 days because of a severe depressive episode. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were women, and the average age for the entire group approached 57 years.

While half of the patients underwent ECT, the others received medication and psychotherapy. Researchers found that the group undergoing ECT did not have a heightened risk of death over the next 30 days and were not any more likely to be hospitalized for a medical problem.

Previous ECT comparative studies were at high risk of bias because of their inability to sufficiently account for confounding variables and differences between those who received the treatment and those who did not. The current study employed “rigorous methods with careful attention to bias and confounding to overcome limitations of previous work,” the authors wrote.

They used propensity score matching, which included more than 75 variables, such as measures of cognitive impairment, depression severity, medication use, other illnesses, and use of psychiatric and various medical services, capacity to consent to treatment, and sociodemographic factors.

“This is really a landmark study in terms of showing the medical safety of ECT,” said Mark S. George, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, who was not involved in the study.

He added that “ECT is a life-saving treatment” for individuals with severe depression. “It’s good that we have this option for our patients.”

The authors highlight that depression is a major cause of illness and disability worldwide, with many individuals failing to achieve remission from initial therapies. Treatment-resistant depression is often described as being nonresponsive “to two or more medication trials of adequate dose and duration from different classes,” they wrote. In these instances, the authors point out, there is little evidence that psychotherapy would be helpful.

“The reason we consider ECT is someone has very severe depression that hasn’t responded to medications and talk therapy,” Dr. Kaster said. “The advantage of ECT is that it’s very effective in those circumstances.”

Of all therapies for treatment-resistant depression, ECT has the highest success rate, with 60% of patients attaining remission, according to the study, which cites prior research.

Compared with neurosurgery, the procedure is not invasive but requires general anesthesia. While the patient is asleep, Dr. Kaster said, the treating clinician places an electrical stimulus on the patient’s scalp, causing a generalized seizure inside the brain that lasts from 15 seconds to 2 minutes. 

A course of ECT usually takes a total of 8-12 treatments, delivered two to three times per week over a month to a month and a half, Dr. George said. 

Some patients need a new course of ECT if they relapse after several months. Others are unable to control their depression between courses and require repeated doses for maintenance. The time between these ECT sessions varies for each individual, Dr. George said, but is typically one session every 3-4 weeks. 

To improve the odds of staying well, patients typically need to continue taking antidepressants and engaging in psychotherapy.

“It helps improve the efficacy of ECT and also down the road helps prevent relapse,” Dr. Kaster said, noting that “depression is, unfortunately, a chronic illness. We don’t have a cure.”

Murat Altinay, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the Cleveland Clinic and a mood disorders specialist, said his patients generally need to demonstrate a lack of response to at least three or four antidepressants before he considers recommending ECT.

Confusion, short-term memory impairment, and muscle aches and pains may occur after the procedure, but they are relatively mild. Patients are monitored in a recovery room before discharge from the hospital, Dr. Altinay said.

The first few treatments will affect everyday function. After that initial period, however, people can resume most of their daily activities, he said.

“Maybe they won’t be able to work full-time right away, but anecdotally, we have had patients who were able to go back to the workforce relatively quickly or while they’re getting ECT,” Dr. Altinay said.

More significant adverse events are very rare, he noted, although heart rate and blood pressure can become elevated because of the electrical stimulus.

Dr. Altinay said he is pleased that the large-scale journal article has been published to help dispel myths surrounding ECT. While psychiatrists feel that ECT is generally safe and effective, the public maintains a negative view.

“It is an underutilized treatment,” he said. “In the media, it is almost depicted as a barbaric and archaic treatment in psychiatry.”

Patients are afraid of major side effects such as personality changes. Some fear they will forget someone’s birthday or other important factual information, “but that kind of stuff obviously does not happen,” Dr. Altinay said.

Sometimes it’s not only the patients who are hesitant to try ECT; it’s the family members who express concerns, said Irving Reti, MBBS, professor of psychiatry and neuroscience and director of the brain stimulation program at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

“It varies from one patient to another how agreeable or reluctant or cautious they are about their treatment if the doctor thinks it’s indicated for them,” Dr. Reti said. “Family members’ concerns may be very legitimate but may also be influenced by stigma and misunderstanding about the treatment. They may also not fully appreciate the severity of their loved one’s depression that warrants the administration of ECT.”  

Hospitalized patients who are at risk of suicide have benefited from ECT. “It’s very effective,” he said. “I think it’s still the gold standard for severe treatment-resistant depression and also particularly helpful in people who are acutely suicidal.”

Dr. George cautioned that psychiatrists and the public should beware of questionable online sources that attempt to discredit ECT. “A quick Google search will find plenty of nonmedical doctors, many funded through Scientology, who will speak poorly of ECT. But they do not use evidence-based arguments and commonly do not treat patients,” he said.

“All good practicing psychiatrists that I know are in favor of ECT, as it clearly saves lives,” Dr. George added. “We all hope that the future will provide refinements of ECT, or even disruptive technologies that are more effective and with less hassle and will make ECT as we do it now obsolete. But we are not there yet.” 

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

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Medicare intends to limit coverage of the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) via a special program intended to help assess how well this exorbitantly expensive medication works, federal officials announced Jan. 11.

On Dec. 20, 2021, Biogen announced a plan to reduce the annual U.S. cost of the drug by 50% – from $56,000 to $28,200 – as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials were deciding on Medicare’s coverage policy for the medication.

In making its proposed coverage decision, the CMS announced it will pay for aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, under its coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) mechanism. In making its decision, the CMS approached aducanumab as the first of a potential new class of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs in this class would be covered for those with Medicare only if they are enrolled in qualifying clinical trials, the CMS said. The agency will accept public comments on this decision for 30 days.  

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “committed to providing the American public with a clear, trusted, evidence-based decision that is made only after a thorough analysis of public feedback on the benefits and risks of coverage for Medicare patients.”

As previously reported, the FDA approved aducanumab on June 7, 2021, via an accelerated approval process. The approval, which set off a firestorm of controversy that included resignations of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee panel members, was granted based on the medication’s ability to reduce beta-amyloid plaque.

Under the accelerated approval mechanism, Biogen still must deliver solid scientific proof that aducanumab has clinically significant disease-modifying effects. However, the final evidence won’t be in any time soon. In its approval letter, the FDA set a 2030 deadline for a final report on this research.

 

‘Unusual but appropriate’ step

The Medicare decision marks something of a shift in the agency’s approach to paying for medications. On a call with reporters, Tamara Syrek Jensen, JD, director of CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group, admitted that the agency had taken an “unusual but appropriate” step in trying to set a national policy regarding payment for a drug.

On the same call, Lee Fleisher, MD, CMS’ chief medical officer, addressed the challenges presented by aducanumab, given the serious need for treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. “As a practicing physician, I cannot overemphasize the need to understand the risks and benefits of a given treatment in order to better inform patients and their families,” Dr. Fleisher said. “We do know based on some of the evidence that there may be potential promise with this treatment. That’s why it is critical for us to pursue additional scientific evidence.”

The coverage-with-evidence program will allow Medicare to aid in gathering data, while protecting patients, Dr. Fleisher noted.

“CMS is using its authority provided by Congress to determine if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary, meaning that the benefits of improvement of cognition outweigh the harms in the Medicare population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
 

Biogen disappointed

Cambridge, Mass.–based Biogen urged the CMS to reconsider its approach to payment for aducanumab. In a statement, the company said Medicare should cover “the class of amyloid-directed therapies with the populations studied in the respective clinical trials and guided by expert recommendations for appropriate use.

“We believe Alzheimer’s patients should have access consistent with other therapies with FDA accelerated approval,” Biogen said in the release.

In the company’s view, the CED approach will “significantly limit patient access to an FDA-approved treatment, especially for underserved patients as evidenced in other CED determinations.

“CEDs can take months to years to initiate, and hundreds of Alzheimer’s patients – the majority of whom are Medicare beneficiaries – are progressing each day from mild to moderate disease stages, where treatment may no longer be an option,” Biogen said.

Drug makers had been worried about CMS opting for CED even before the draft decision was unveiled.
 

Others weigh in

BIO, the trade group for biotechnology companies, urged the CMS to provide access to aducanumab without excess restrictions.

There already are concerns among drug makers about CMS efforts “to impose new coverage barriers – and, in particular, coverage with evidence development,” Crystal Kuntz, vice president of policy and research at BIO, and Andy Cosgrove, the organization’s senior director for policy and research, noted in a July 2021 comment about the aducanumab review.

Medicare should instead continue to provide access to medicines for indications that the FDA has approved, with additional flexibility for off-label indications of cancer drugs, they noted. “We believe this should continue to be the case, to ensure that vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries have necessary access to life-altering and lifesaving medications,” the BIO officials wrote.

However, the CMS also received many pleas from physicians asking the agency to limit use of aducanumab at least until there is evidence that it produces a significant clinical benefit.

In a press release, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, applauded the decision, describing it as “the right call.

“This decision supports conducting additional clinical trials, which are needed to obtain further insights into the clinical efficacy and safety profile of this drug in real-world populations. This decision has implications for other drugs in this class in late-stage development. If these trials show more clear and robust clinical efficacy, then it is possible the FDA will give these amyloid monoclonal antibodies full approval, and Medicare would be likely to provide full payment,” he added.

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

Medicare intends to limit coverage of the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) via a special program intended to help assess how well this exorbitantly expensive medication works, federal officials announced Jan. 11.

On Dec. 20, 2021, Biogen announced a plan to reduce the annual U.S. cost of the drug by 50% – from $56,000 to $28,200 – as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials were deciding on Medicare’s coverage policy for the medication.

In making its proposed coverage decision, the CMS announced it will pay for aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, under its coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) mechanism. In making its decision, the CMS approached aducanumab as the first of a potential new class of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs in this class would be covered for those with Medicare only if they are enrolled in qualifying clinical trials, the CMS said. The agency will accept public comments on this decision for 30 days.  

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “committed to providing the American public with a clear, trusted, evidence-based decision that is made only after a thorough analysis of public feedback on the benefits and risks of coverage for Medicare patients.”

As previously reported, the FDA approved aducanumab on June 7, 2021, via an accelerated approval process. The approval, which set off a firestorm of controversy that included resignations of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee panel members, was granted based on the medication’s ability to reduce beta-amyloid plaque.

Under the accelerated approval mechanism, Biogen still must deliver solid scientific proof that aducanumab has clinically significant disease-modifying effects. However, the final evidence won’t be in any time soon. In its approval letter, the FDA set a 2030 deadline for a final report on this research.

 

‘Unusual but appropriate’ step

The Medicare decision marks something of a shift in the agency’s approach to paying for medications. On a call with reporters, Tamara Syrek Jensen, JD, director of CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group, admitted that the agency had taken an “unusual but appropriate” step in trying to set a national policy regarding payment for a drug.

On the same call, Lee Fleisher, MD, CMS’ chief medical officer, addressed the challenges presented by aducanumab, given the serious need for treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. “As a practicing physician, I cannot overemphasize the need to understand the risks and benefits of a given treatment in order to better inform patients and their families,” Dr. Fleisher said. “We do know based on some of the evidence that there may be potential promise with this treatment. That’s why it is critical for us to pursue additional scientific evidence.”

The coverage-with-evidence program will allow Medicare to aid in gathering data, while protecting patients, Dr. Fleisher noted.

“CMS is using its authority provided by Congress to determine if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary, meaning that the benefits of improvement of cognition outweigh the harms in the Medicare population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
 

Biogen disappointed

Cambridge, Mass.–based Biogen urged the CMS to reconsider its approach to payment for aducanumab. In a statement, the company said Medicare should cover “the class of amyloid-directed therapies with the populations studied in the respective clinical trials and guided by expert recommendations for appropriate use.

“We believe Alzheimer’s patients should have access consistent with other therapies with FDA accelerated approval,” Biogen said in the release.

In the company’s view, the CED approach will “significantly limit patient access to an FDA-approved treatment, especially for underserved patients as evidenced in other CED determinations.

“CEDs can take months to years to initiate, and hundreds of Alzheimer’s patients – the majority of whom are Medicare beneficiaries – are progressing each day from mild to moderate disease stages, where treatment may no longer be an option,” Biogen said.

Drug makers had been worried about CMS opting for CED even before the draft decision was unveiled.
 

Others weigh in

BIO, the trade group for biotechnology companies, urged the CMS to provide access to aducanumab without excess restrictions.

There already are concerns among drug makers about CMS efforts “to impose new coverage barriers – and, in particular, coverage with evidence development,” Crystal Kuntz, vice president of policy and research at BIO, and Andy Cosgrove, the organization’s senior director for policy and research, noted in a July 2021 comment about the aducanumab review.

Medicare should instead continue to provide access to medicines for indications that the FDA has approved, with additional flexibility for off-label indications of cancer drugs, they noted. “We believe this should continue to be the case, to ensure that vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries have necessary access to life-altering and lifesaving medications,” the BIO officials wrote.

However, the CMS also received many pleas from physicians asking the agency to limit use of aducanumab at least until there is evidence that it produces a significant clinical benefit.

In a press release, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, applauded the decision, describing it as “the right call.

“This decision supports conducting additional clinical trials, which are needed to obtain further insights into the clinical efficacy and safety profile of this drug in real-world populations. This decision has implications for other drugs in this class in late-stage development. If these trials show more clear and robust clinical efficacy, then it is possible the FDA will give these amyloid monoclonal antibodies full approval, and Medicare would be likely to provide full payment,” he added.

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

Medicare intends to limit coverage of the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) via a special program intended to help assess how well this exorbitantly expensive medication works, federal officials announced Jan. 11.

On Dec. 20, 2021, Biogen announced a plan to reduce the annual U.S. cost of the drug by 50% – from $56,000 to $28,200 – as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials were deciding on Medicare’s coverage policy for the medication.

In making its proposed coverage decision, the CMS announced it will pay for aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, under its coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) mechanism. In making its decision, the CMS approached aducanumab as the first of a potential new class of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs in this class would be covered for those with Medicare only if they are enrolled in qualifying clinical trials, the CMS said. The agency will accept public comments on this decision for 30 days.  

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “committed to providing the American public with a clear, trusted, evidence-based decision that is made only after a thorough analysis of public feedback on the benefits and risks of coverage for Medicare patients.”

As previously reported, the FDA approved aducanumab on June 7, 2021, via an accelerated approval process. The approval, which set off a firestorm of controversy that included resignations of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee panel members, was granted based on the medication’s ability to reduce beta-amyloid plaque.

Under the accelerated approval mechanism, Biogen still must deliver solid scientific proof that aducanumab has clinically significant disease-modifying effects. However, the final evidence won’t be in any time soon. In its approval letter, the FDA set a 2030 deadline for a final report on this research.

 

‘Unusual but appropriate’ step

The Medicare decision marks something of a shift in the agency’s approach to paying for medications. On a call with reporters, Tamara Syrek Jensen, JD, director of CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group, admitted that the agency had taken an “unusual but appropriate” step in trying to set a national policy regarding payment for a drug.

On the same call, Lee Fleisher, MD, CMS’ chief medical officer, addressed the challenges presented by aducanumab, given the serious need for treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. “As a practicing physician, I cannot overemphasize the need to understand the risks and benefits of a given treatment in order to better inform patients and their families,” Dr. Fleisher said. “We do know based on some of the evidence that there may be potential promise with this treatment. That’s why it is critical for us to pursue additional scientific evidence.”

The coverage-with-evidence program will allow Medicare to aid in gathering data, while protecting patients, Dr. Fleisher noted.

“CMS is using its authority provided by Congress to determine if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary, meaning that the benefits of improvement of cognition outweigh the harms in the Medicare population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
 

Biogen disappointed

Cambridge, Mass.–based Biogen urged the CMS to reconsider its approach to payment for aducanumab. In a statement, the company said Medicare should cover “the class of amyloid-directed therapies with the populations studied in the respective clinical trials and guided by expert recommendations for appropriate use.

“We believe Alzheimer’s patients should have access consistent with other therapies with FDA accelerated approval,” Biogen said in the release.

In the company’s view, the CED approach will “significantly limit patient access to an FDA-approved treatment, especially for underserved patients as evidenced in other CED determinations.

“CEDs can take months to years to initiate, and hundreds of Alzheimer’s patients – the majority of whom are Medicare beneficiaries – are progressing each day from mild to moderate disease stages, where treatment may no longer be an option,” Biogen said.

Drug makers had been worried about CMS opting for CED even before the draft decision was unveiled.
 

Others weigh in

BIO, the trade group for biotechnology companies, urged the CMS to provide access to aducanumab without excess restrictions.

There already are concerns among drug makers about CMS efforts “to impose new coverage barriers – and, in particular, coverage with evidence development,” Crystal Kuntz, vice president of policy and research at BIO, and Andy Cosgrove, the organization’s senior director for policy and research, noted in a July 2021 comment about the aducanumab review.

Medicare should instead continue to provide access to medicines for indications that the FDA has approved, with additional flexibility for off-label indications of cancer drugs, they noted. “We believe this should continue to be the case, to ensure that vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries have necessary access to life-altering and lifesaving medications,” the BIO officials wrote.

However, the CMS also received many pleas from physicians asking the agency to limit use of aducanumab at least until there is evidence that it produces a significant clinical benefit.

In a press release, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, applauded the decision, describing it as “the right call.

“This decision supports conducting additional clinical trials, which are needed to obtain further insights into the clinical efficacy and safety profile of this drug in real-world populations. This decision has implications for other drugs in this class in late-stage development. If these trials show more clear and robust clinical efficacy, then it is possible the FDA will give these amyloid monoclonal antibodies full approval, and Medicare would be likely to provide full payment,” he added.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

Having specific health issues, including depressive symptoms and cardiovascular disease, as a middle-aged woman was associated with experiencing clinically important declines in health later in life, a new study finds.

The most predictive parameters of poorer health at age 65 were cardiovascular disease, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Osteoarthritis, lower education level, and higher body mass index (BMI) also were associated with poorer health status 10 years on, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH and colleagues wrote in their observational study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Determining a patient’s score on a health-related quality of life measure based on these variables might be useful in clinical practice to recognize midlife patients at increased risk for later health deterioration, Dr. Solomon, of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a statement. This measure is called the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the researchers specifically focused on the physical component summary score (PCS) of this measure. The SF-36 is similar to the Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction score, according to Dr. Solomon, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

Based on their risk scores, women could preemptively target modifiable risk factors before they enter old age, the investigators wrote.

“Age 55-65 may be a critical decade. A person’s health and factors during this period may set them on a path for their later adult years,” Dr. Solomon said in a statement. “The good news is that a large proportion of women at midlife are very stable and will not go on to experience declines. But being able to identify women at higher risk could help lead to interventions targeted to them.”
 

Study details

The study included a cohort of 1,091 women drawn from the 3,302-participant Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a racially and ethnically diverse group enrolled from six U.S. sites at or immediately before transition to menopause and followed for 10 years from age 55 to 65. The study sample, consisting of 24.6% Black, 24% Japanese or Chinese, and 51.9% White, had a median baseline age of 54.8 years and median BMI of 27 kg/m² at entry. The median baseline PCS score was 53.1 (interquartile range, 46.8-56.7).

Over 10 years, 206 (18.9%) of the women in the study experienced clinically important declines of at least 8 points in baseline characteristics at around age 55. The following were significantly associated with these declines:

• Having a higher BMI.
• Having osteoarthritis.
• Having a lower educational level.
• Being a current smoker.
• Having clinically significant depressive symptoms.
• Having cardiovascular disease.
• Having better (or higher) physical health and function score on the PCS.

The association between a higher PCS score and a greater decline might seem like an anomaly, Dr. Solomon said in an interview, but one interpretation of this finding is that women with higher or better scores at baseline have further to fall once other risk factors take effect.

With data analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021, the median 10-year change in PCS was –1.02 points, but 206 women experienced declines of 8 points or more.

Those with health declines were more likely to be Black and less likely to be Japanese. They were also more likely to have other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and to report less physical activity.
 

Scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation, outside expert said

Commenting on the findings, Margaret J. Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Langone Health, cautioned that a generalized scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation of women at midlife.

“I assess women around age 55 on a daily basis for health risk factors going forward. And while a number such as BMI can be helpful, I worry that reliance on a score could miss treating the individual,” Dr. Nachtigall said an interview. For instance, one woman might have a high BMI owing to greater muscle mass, which is heavy, while another may have a lower BMI but more fat-related weight, as well as exacerbating conditions such as hypertension that would elevate her risk. “You have to make the calculation for each person.”

Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved in the SWAN analysis, noted, however, that a big-data scoring system might be a useful adjunct to individual patient evaluation in that “it would make physicians look at all these many risk factors to identify those prone to decline.”
 

Study includes racially diverse population

According to the authors, while other studies have identified similar and other risk factors such as poor sleep, most have not included such a racially diverse population and have focused on women already in their senior years when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

“As a clinician and epidemiologist, I often think about the window of opportunity at midlife, when people are vital, engaged, and resilient,” said Dr. Solomon in the statement. “If we can identify risk factors and determine who is at risk, we may be able to find interventions that can stave off health declines and help put people on a better health trajectory.”

Eric M. Ascher, DO, who practices family medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and was not involved in the SWAN research, agreed with Dr. Solomon.

“Doctors who treat chronic conditions often meet patients when they are already suffering from a medical problem,” he said in an interview. “It is key to decrease your risk factors before it is too late.”

Dr. Ascher added that many primary care providers already rely heavily on scoring systems when determining level of risk and type of intervention. “Any additional risk factor-scoring systems that are easy to implement and will prevent chronic diseases would be something providers would want to use with their patients.”

Detailed analyses of larger at-risk populations are needed to validate these risk factors and identify others, the authors said.

SWAN is supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institutes of Heath’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Solomon reported financial ties to Amgen, AbbVie and Moderna, UpToDate, and Arthritis & Rheumatology; as well as serving on the board of directors for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration outside of this work. Dr. Nachtigall and Dr. Ascher disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Having specific health issues, including depressive symptoms and cardiovascular disease, as a middle-aged woman was associated with experiencing clinically important declines in health later in life, a new study finds.

The most predictive parameters of poorer health at age 65 were cardiovascular disease, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Osteoarthritis, lower education level, and higher body mass index (BMI) also were associated with poorer health status 10 years on, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH and colleagues wrote in their observational study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Determining a patient’s score on a health-related quality of life measure based on these variables might be useful in clinical practice to recognize midlife patients at increased risk for later health deterioration, Dr. Solomon, of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a statement. This measure is called the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the researchers specifically focused on the physical component summary score (PCS) of this measure. The SF-36 is similar to the Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction score, according to Dr. Solomon, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

Based on their risk scores, women could preemptively target modifiable risk factors before they enter old age, the investigators wrote.

“Age 55-65 may be a critical decade. A person’s health and factors during this period may set them on a path for their later adult years,” Dr. Solomon said in a statement. “The good news is that a large proportion of women at midlife are very stable and will not go on to experience declines. But being able to identify women at higher risk could help lead to interventions targeted to them.”
 

Study details

The study included a cohort of 1,091 women drawn from the 3,302-participant Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a racially and ethnically diverse group enrolled from six U.S. sites at or immediately before transition to menopause and followed for 10 years from age 55 to 65. The study sample, consisting of 24.6% Black, 24% Japanese or Chinese, and 51.9% White, had a median baseline age of 54.8 years and median BMI of 27 kg/m² at entry. The median baseline PCS score was 53.1 (interquartile range, 46.8-56.7).

Over 10 years, 206 (18.9%) of the women in the study experienced clinically important declines of at least 8 points in baseline characteristics at around age 55. The following were significantly associated with these declines:

• Having a higher BMI.
• Having osteoarthritis.
• Having a lower educational level.
• Being a current smoker.
• Having clinically significant depressive symptoms.
• Having cardiovascular disease.
• Having better (or higher) physical health and function score on the PCS.

The association between a higher PCS score and a greater decline might seem like an anomaly, Dr. Solomon said in an interview, but one interpretation of this finding is that women with higher or better scores at baseline have further to fall once other risk factors take effect.

With data analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021, the median 10-year change in PCS was –1.02 points, but 206 women experienced declines of 8 points or more.

Those with health declines were more likely to be Black and less likely to be Japanese. They were also more likely to have other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and to report less physical activity.
 

Scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation, outside expert said

Commenting on the findings, Margaret J. Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Langone Health, cautioned that a generalized scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation of women at midlife.

“I assess women around age 55 on a daily basis for health risk factors going forward. And while a number such as BMI can be helpful, I worry that reliance on a score could miss treating the individual,” Dr. Nachtigall said an interview. For instance, one woman might have a high BMI owing to greater muscle mass, which is heavy, while another may have a lower BMI but more fat-related weight, as well as exacerbating conditions such as hypertension that would elevate her risk. “You have to make the calculation for each person.”

Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved in the SWAN analysis, noted, however, that a big-data scoring system might be a useful adjunct to individual patient evaluation in that “it would make physicians look at all these many risk factors to identify those prone to decline.”
 

Study includes racially diverse population

According to the authors, while other studies have identified similar and other risk factors such as poor sleep, most have not included such a racially diverse population and have focused on women already in their senior years when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

“As a clinician and epidemiologist, I often think about the window of opportunity at midlife, when people are vital, engaged, and resilient,” said Dr. Solomon in the statement. “If we can identify risk factors and determine who is at risk, we may be able to find interventions that can stave off health declines and help put people on a better health trajectory.”

Eric M. Ascher, DO, who practices family medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and was not involved in the SWAN research, agreed with Dr. Solomon.

“Doctors who treat chronic conditions often meet patients when they are already suffering from a medical problem,” he said in an interview. “It is key to decrease your risk factors before it is too late.”

Dr. Ascher added that many primary care providers already rely heavily on scoring systems when determining level of risk and type of intervention. “Any additional risk factor-scoring systems that are easy to implement and will prevent chronic diseases would be something providers would want to use with their patients.”

Detailed analyses of larger at-risk populations are needed to validate these risk factors and identify others, the authors said.

SWAN is supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institutes of Heath’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Solomon reported financial ties to Amgen, AbbVie and Moderna, UpToDate, and Arthritis & Rheumatology; as well as serving on the board of directors for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration outside of this work. Dr. Nachtigall and Dr. Ascher disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

Having specific health issues, including depressive symptoms and cardiovascular disease, as a middle-aged woman was associated with experiencing clinically important declines in health later in life, a new study finds.

The most predictive parameters of poorer health at age 65 were cardiovascular disease, clinically significant depressive symptoms, and current smoking. Osteoarthritis, lower education level, and higher body mass index (BMI) also were associated with poorer health status 10 years on, Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH and colleagues wrote in their observational study, which was published in JAMA Network Open.

Determining a patient’s score on a health-related quality of life measure based on these variables might be useful in clinical practice to recognize midlife patients at increased risk for later health deterioration, Dr. Solomon, of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in a statement. This measure is called the Short Form 36 (SF-36), and the researchers specifically focused on the physical component summary score (PCS) of this measure. The SF-36 is similar to the Framingham 10-year coronary heart disease risk prediction score, according to Dr. Solomon, who is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.

Based on their risk scores, women could preemptively target modifiable risk factors before they enter old age, the investigators wrote.

“Age 55-65 may be a critical decade. A person’s health and factors during this period may set them on a path for their later adult years,” Dr. Solomon said in a statement. “The good news is that a large proportion of women at midlife are very stable and will not go on to experience declines. But being able to identify women at higher risk could help lead to interventions targeted to them.”
 

Study details

The study included a cohort of 1,091 women drawn from the 3,302-participant Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN), a racially and ethnically diverse group enrolled from six U.S. sites at or immediately before transition to menopause and followed for 10 years from age 55 to 65. The study sample, consisting of 24.6% Black, 24% Japanese or Chinese, and 51.9% White, had a median baseline age of 54.8 years and median BMI of 27 kg/m² at entry. The median baseline PCS score was 53.1 (interquartile range, 46.8-56.7).

Over 10 years, 206 (18.9%) of the women in the study experienced clinically important declines of at least 8 points in baseline characteristics at around age 55. The following were significantly associated with these declines:

• Having a higher BMI.
• Having osteoarthritis.
• Having a lower educational level.
• Being a current smoker.
• Having clinically significant depressive symptoms.
• Having cardiovascular disease.
• Having better (or higher) physical health and function score on the PCS.

The association between a higher PCS score and a greater decline might seem like an anomaly, Dr. Solomon said in an interview, but one interpretation of this finding is that women with higher or better scores at baseline have further to fall once other risk factors take effect.

With data analyzed from October 2020 to March 2021, the median 10-year change in PCS was –1.02 points, but 206 women experienced declines of 8 points or more.

Those with health declines were more likely to be Black and less likely to be Japanese. They were also more likely to have other comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, and osteoporosis, and to report less physical activity.
 

Scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation, outside expert said

Commenting on the findings, Margaret J. Nachtigall, MD, a clinical associate professor in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University Langone Health, cautioned that a generalized scoring system should not replace individualized evaluation of women at midlife.

“I assess women around age 55 on a daily basis for health risk factors going forward. And while a number such as BMI can be helpful, I worry that reliance on a score could miss treating the individual,” Dr. Nachtigall said an interview. For instance, one woman might have a high BMI owing to greater muscle mass, which is heavy, while another may have a lower BMI but more fat-related weight, as well as exacerbating conditions such as hypertension that would elevate her risk. “You have to make the calculation for each person.”

Dr. Nachtigall, who was not involved in the SWAN analysis, noted, however, that a big-data scoring system might be a useful adjunct to individual patient evaluation in that “it would make physicians look at all these many risk factors to identify those prone to decline.”
 

Study includes racially diverse population

According to the authors, while other studies have identified similar and other risk factors such as poor sleep, most have not included such a racially diverse population and have focused on women already in their senior years when the window of opportunity may already have closed.

“As a clinician and epidemiologist, I often think about the window of opportunity at midlife, when people are vital, engaged, and resilient,” said Dr. Solomon in the statement. “If we can identify risk factors and determine who is at risk, we may be able to find interventions that can stave off health declines and help put people on a better health trajectory.”

Eric M. Ascher, DO, who practices family medicine at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and was not involved in the SWAN research, agreed with Dr. Solomon.

“Doctors who treat chronic conditions often meet patients when they are already suffering from a medical problem,” he said in an interview. “It is key to decrease your risk factors before it is too late.”

Dr. Ascher added that many primary care providers already rely heavily on scoring systems when determining level of risk and type of intervention. “Any additional risk factor-scoring systems that are easy to implement and will prevent chronic diseases would be something providers would want to use with their patients.”

Detailed analyses of larger at-risk populations are needed to validate these risk factors and identify others, the authors said.

SWAN is supported by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the National Institutes of Heath’s Office of Research on Women’s Health. Dr. Solomon reported financial ties to Amgen, AbbVie and Moderna, UpToDate, and Arthritis & Rheumatology; as well as serving on the board of directors for the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance and an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration outside of this work. Dr. Nachtigall and Dr. Ascher disclosed no conflicts of interest with regard to their comments.

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Pediatric suicide was an emerging public health crisis prior to COVID-19, and recent data indicate that pediatric suicide attempts continued to increase during the pandemic.¹ In October 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association declared a national state of emergency for pediatric mental health because of a surge in youth suicide attempts.² Isolation mediated by the degradation of community and exacerbated by the pandemic, has been identified as a contributor to increasing pediatric suicidality.

It is impossible to understand this current public health crisis and to seek solutions without recognizing the ways in which the degradation of community and consequent social isolation play a central role. While the degradation of community and the isolation epidemic that preceded COVID-19 have been mediated by multiple factors, one factor associated with mental health problems in youth is electronic media use.³ During COVID-19, when physical distancing and virtual learning have been necessary to curb the spread, electronic media use has increased exponentially in the pediatric demographic. Some of this increase in screen time has been attributable to virtual schooling, but electronic devices also have become the only means by which kids can stay in contact with one another. While electronic communication has been viewed as an antidote to isolation, disturbing consequences associated with electronic media use have also been noted in our pediatric population.

In the health care system where I (P.L.L.) work as a pediatrician and a child and adolescent psychiatrist, electronic media use has been implicated in more than 90% of our inpatient admissions for suicidal ideation. Use of electronic devices has contributed to suicidal thoughts and attempts in most patients admitted to our acute crisis stabilization unit over the past year. Even more concerning, removal of cell phone privileges has also contributed to suicidal thoughts and attempts in many of our patients. During the pandemic, and in the absence of meaningful interpersonal interactions, many in our pediatric population have become even more dependent on electronic devices to cope with isolation. This has created an often-devastating irony, where the very devices already associated with mental health problems in youth are now being endorsed as “necessary” by mental health professionals.

So how does electronic media use relate to isolation and the continued degradation of community, and why might electronic media use be exacerbating pediatric suicide? One way we have coped with the deterioration of our communities has been the creation of the synthetic community-substitutes found on electronic devices. Unfortunately, our electronic devices create only an illusion of community, where interpersonal interaction occurs by way of inanimate objects, and by electronic text and ideograms. These become substitutes for genuine intimacy, personal contact, and reciprocity. Instead of engaging with one another, our youth are spending hours daily in isolation engaging with a piece of plastic. The mirage generated by pixels on a plastic screen creates an illusion of connectivity, but in reality, this only increases the isolation of our youth.
 

Human evolution and connection

Intimate social connectivity, woven together in our communities, was a fundamental mechanism for human survival. Historically, for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the community provided access to our fundamental needs, such as safety from predators and access to substantive nutrition.⁴ Community allowed our ancestors to survive and procreate, and facilitated their triumph over predation and disease.⁵ Our distinction as the dominant species on Earth has been afforded by our social connectivity. Unfortunately, in the virtual worlds of our electronic devices the intimate social connectivity of community is absent. Our children wander in isolation, left to navigate age-old evolutionary pressures in the absence of the fundamental advantage for our survival as a species.

Unlike the living, breathing bears and wolves that threatened our ancestors, in the virtual world of the electronic device children are stalked by invisible predators seeking sexual or monetary exploitation. Children are being consumed by digital advertising and social media platforms that perpetually reinforce the requirement of perfection, and they fall prey to cyberbullies who mercilessly disparage their imperfections. In their virtual worlds, where their value is predicated upon anonymous others’ opinions, they succumb to the idea that they will never be enough.⁶ Their fundamental needs of competence and relatedness go unmet, and they lose their sense of purpose, belonging, and often their will to live. More importantly, absent from their children’s virtual worlds, and preoccupied within their own, parents cannot protect their children from online predators, deflect the vicious attacks of cyberbullies, or reframe their children’s imperfections as distinctive or empowering. They are unable to provide their children with the substantive interpersonal contact necessary for resilience and that bolsters their self-worth.

Human beings are inherently social creatures, who regardless of era require community to meet their fundamental needs. As the duration of daily screen time steadily increases, our youth are spending more and more of their waking hours living in isolation in an electronic world. Without the protective social connectivity of community, they are hunted by online predators, and they are consumed by the predatory culture of perfectionism that is contradictory to the reciprocal caretaking necessary to support their healthy development. Evolutionary biology informs us that, when children are isolated, they are susceptible to predation and disease. And in the socialized isolation of their electronic worlds, they are succumbing to predation and to the depressive diseases that are exacerbating the pediatric mental health crisis.

Creating and building community amid a pandemic has been challenging at best. However, now that we have better tools to fight COVID, it is important to encourage our young patients to reduce their nonacademic screen time, and to get outside and engage with others. Their mental health depends on it.

Dr. Loper is a pediatrician and child and adolescent psychiatrist at Prisma Health–Midlands in Columbia, S.C. He is an assistant professor in the department of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Dr. Loper has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaminstein is an adjunct assistant professor at the graduate school of education and affiliated faculty in the organizational dynamics program, School of Arts and Sciences, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is a social psychologist who has been studying groups and organizations for more than 40 years. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. MMWR. 2021 Jun 18;70(24):888-94.

2. Ray G. “Pediatricians, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists and Children’s Hospitals Declare National Emergency in Children’s Mental Health.” Childrenshospitals.org. 2021 Oct 19.

3. JAMA Netw Open. 2020(8):e2011381.

4. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2018 April:165(4):777-800.

5. The influence of predation on primate and early human evolution: Impetus for cooperation, in “Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects.” (Basingstoke, England: Springer Nature, 2011, pp. 19-40).

6. Media Psychology. 2020;23(1):52-78.

Pediatric suicide was an emerging public health crisis prior to COVID-19, and recent data indicate that pediatric suicide attempts continued to increase during the pandemic.¹ In October 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association declared a national state of emergency for pediatric mental health because of a surge in youth suicide attempts.² Isolation mediated by the degradation of community and exacerbated by the pandemic, has been identified as a contributor to increasing pediatric suicidality.

It is impossible to understand this current public health crisis and to seek solutions without recognizing the ways in which the degradation of community and consequent social isolation play a central role. While the degradation of community and the isolation epidemic that preceded COVID-19 have been mediated by multiple factors, one factor associated with mental health problems in youth is electronic media use.³ During COVID-19, when physical distancing and virtual learning have been necessary to curb the spread, electronic media use has increased exponentially in the pediatric demographic. Some of this increase in screen time has been attributable to virtual schooling, but electronic devices also have become the only means by which kids can stay in contact with one another. While electronic communication has been viewed as an antidote to isolation, disturbing consequences associated with electronic media use have also been noted in our pediatric population.

In the health care system where I (P.L.L.) work as a pediatrician and a child and adolescent psychiatrist, electronic media use has been implicated in more than 90% of our inpatient admissions for suicidal ideation. Use of electronic devices has contributed to suicidal thoughts and attempts in most patients admitted to our acute crisis stabilization unit over the past year. Even more concerning, removal of cell phone privileges has also contributed to suicidal thoughts and attempts in many of our patients. During the pandemic, and in the absence of meaningful interpersonal interactions, many in our pediatric population have become even more dependent on electronic devices to cope with isolation. This has created an often-devastating irony, where the very devices already associated with mental health problems in youth are now being endorsed as “necessary” by mental health professionals.

So how does electronic media use relate to isolation and the continued degradation of community, and why might electronic media use be exacerbating pediatric suicide? One way we have coped with the deterioration of our communities has been the creation of the synthetic community-substitutes found on electronic devices. Unfortunately, our electronic devices create only an illusion of community, where interpersonal interaction occurs by way of inanimate objects, and by electronic text and ideograms. These become substitutes for genuine intimacy, personal contact, and reciprocity. Instead of engaging with one another, our youth are spending hours daily in isolation engaging with a piece of plastic. The mirage generated by pixels on a plastic screen creates an illusion of connectivity, but in reality, this only increases the isolation of our youth.
 

Human evolution and connection

Intimate social connectivity, woven together in our communities, was a fundamental mechanism for human survival. Historically, for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the community provided access to our fundamental needs, such as safety from predators and access to substantive nutrition.⁴ Community allowed our ancestors to survive and procreate, and facilitated their triumph over predation and disease.⁵ Our distinction as the dominant species on Earth has been afforded by our social connectivity. Unfortunately, in the virtual worlds of our electronic devices the intimate social connectivity of community is absent. Our children wander in isolation, left to navigate age-old evolutionary pressures in the absence of the fundamental advantage for our survival as a species.

Unlike the living, breathing bears and wolves that threatened our ancestors, in the virtual world of the electronic device children are stalked by invisible predators seeking sexual or monetary exploitation. Children are being consumed by digital advertising and social media platforms that perpetually reinforce the requirement of perfection, and they fall prey to cyberbullies who mercilessly disparage their imperfections. In their virtual worlds, where their value is predicated upon anonymous others’ opinions, they succumb to the idea that they will never be enough.⁶ Their fundamental needs of competence and relatedness go unmet, and they lose their sense of purpose, belonging, and often their will to live. More importantly, absent from their children’s virtual worlds, and preoccupied within their own, parents cannot protect their children from online predators, deflect the vicious attacks of cyberbullies, or reframe their children’s imperfections as distinctive or empowering. They are unable to provide their children with the substantive interpersonal contact necessary for resilience and that bolsters their self-worth.

Human beings are inherently social creatures, who regardless of era require community to meet their fundamental needs. As the duration of daily screen time steadily increases, our youth are spending more and more of their waking hours living in isolation in an electronic world. Without the protective social connectivity of community, they are hunted by online predators, and they are consumed by the predatory culture of perfectionism that is contradictory to the reciprocal caretaking necessary to support their healthy development. Evolutionary biology informs us that, when children are isolated, they are susceptible to predation and disease. And in the socialized isolation of their electronic worlds, they are succumbing to predation and to the depressive diseases that are exacerbating the pediatric mental health crisis.

Creating and building community amid a pandemic has been challenging at best. However, now that we have better tools to fight COVID, it is important to encourage our young patients to reduce their nonacademic screen time, and to get outside and engage with others. Their mental health depends on it.

Dr. Loper is a pediatrician and child and adolescent psychiatrist at Prisma Health–Midlands in Columbia, S.C. He is an assistant professor in the department of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Dr. Loper has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaminstein is an adjunct assistant professor at the graduate school of education and affiliated faculty in the organizational dynamics program, School of Arts and Sciences, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is a social psychologist who has been studying groups and organizations for more than 40 years. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. MMWR. 2021 Jun 18;70(24):888-94.

2. Ray G. “Pediatricians, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists and Children’s Hospitals Declare National Emergency in Children’s Mental Health.” Childrenshospitals.org. 2021 Oct 19.

3. JAMA Netw Open. 2020(8):e2011381.

4. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2018 April:165(4):777-800.

5. The influence of predation on primate and early human evolution: Impetus for cooperation, in “Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects.” (Basingstoke, England: Springer Nature, 2011, pp. 19-40).

6. Media Psychology. 2020;23(1):52-78.

Pediatric suicide was an emerging public health crisis prior to COVID-19, and recent data indicate that pediatric suicide attempts continued to increase during the pandemic.¹ In October 2021, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Children’s Hospital Association declared a national state of emergency for pediatric mental health because of a surge in youth suicide attempts.² Isolation mediated by the degradation of community and exacerbated by the pandemic, has been identified as a contributor to increasing pediatric suicidality.

It is impossible to understand this current public health crisis and to seek solutions without recognizing the ways in which the degradation of community and consequent social isolation play a central role. While the degradation of community and the isolation epidemic that preceded COVID-19 have been mediated by multiple factors, one factor associated with mental health problems in youth is electronic media use.³ During COVID-19, when physical distancing and virtual learning have been necessary to curb the spread, electronic media use has increased exponentially in the pediatric demographic. Some of this increase in screen time has been attributable to virtual schooling, but electronic devices also have become the only means by which kids can stay in contact with one another. While electronic communication has been viewed as an antidote to isolation, disturbing consequences associated with electronic media use have also been noted in our pediatric population.

In the health care system where I (P.L.L.) work as a pediatrician and a child and adolescent psychiatrist, electronic media use has been implicated in more than 90% of our inpatient admissions for suicidal ideation. Use of electronic devices has contributed to suicidal thoughts and attempts in most patients admitted to our acute crisis stabilization unit over the past year. Even more concerning, removal of cell phone privileges has also contributed to suicidal thoughts and attempts in many of our patients. During the pandemic, and in the absence of meaningful interpersonal interactions, many in our pediatric population have become even more dependent on electronic devices to cope with isolation. This has created an often-devastating irony, where the very devices already associated with mental health problems in youth are now being endorsed as “necessary” by mental health professionals.

So how does electronic media use relate to isolation and the continued degradation of community, and why might electronic media use be exacerbating pediatric suicide? One way we have coped with the deterioration of our communities has been the creation of the synthetic community-substitutes found on electronic devices. Unfortunately, our electronic devices create only an illusion of community, where interpersonal interaction occurs by way of inanimate objects, and by electronic text and ideograms. These become substitutes for genuine intimacy, personal contact, and reciprocity. Instead of engaging with one another, our youth are spending hours daily in isolation engaging with a piece of plastic. The mirage generated by pixels on a plastic screen creates an illusion of connectivity, but in reality, this only increases the isolation of our youth.
 

Human evolution and connection

Intimate social connectivity, woven together in our communities, was a fundamental mechanism for human survival. Historically, for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, the community provided access to our fundamental needs, such as safety from predators and access to substantive nutrition.⁴ Community allowed our ancestors to survive and procreate, and facilitated their triumph over predation and disease.⁵ Our distinction as the dominant species on Earth has been afforded by our social connectivity. Unfortunately, in the virtual worlds of our electronic devices the intimate social connectivity of community is absent. Our children wander in isolation, left to navigate age-old evolutionary pressures in the absence of the fundamental advantage for our survival as a species.

Unlike the living, breathing bears and wolves that threatened our ancestors, in the virtual world of the electronic device children are stalked by invisible predators seeking sexual or monetary exploitation. Children are being consumed by digital advertising and social media platforms that perpetually reinforce the requirement of perfection, and they fall prey to cyberbullies who mercilessly disparage their imperfections. In their virtual worlds, where their value is predicated upon anonymous others’ opinions, they succumb to the idea that they will never be enough.⁶ Their fundamental needs of competence and relatedness go unmet, and they lose their sense of purpose, belonging, and often their will to live. More importantly, absent from their children’s virtual worlds, and preoccupied within their own, parents cannot protect their children from online predators, deflect the vicious attacks of cyberbullies, or reframe their children’s imperfections as distinctive or empowering. They are unable to provide their children with the substantive interpersonal contact necessary for resilience and that bolsters their self-worth.

Human beings are inherently social creatures, who regardless of era require community to meet their fundamental needs. As the duration of daily screen time steadily increases, our youth are spending more and more of their waking hours living in isolation in an electronic world. Without the protective social connectivity of community, they are hunted by online predators, and they are consumed by the predatory culture of perfectionism that is contradictory to the reciprocal caretaking necessary to support their healthy development. Evolutionary biology informs us that, when children are isolated, they are susceptible to predation and disease. And in the socialized isolation of their electronic worlds, they are succumbing to predation and to the depressive diseases that are exacerbating the pediatric mental health crisis.

Creating and building community amid a pandemic has been challenging at best. However, now that we have better tools to fight COVID, it is important to encourage our young patients to reduce their nonacademic screen time, and to get outside and engage with others. Their mental health depends on it.

Dr. Loper is a pediatrician and child and adolescent psychiatrist at Prisma Health–Midlands in Columbia, S.C. He is an assistant professor in the department of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina, Columbia. Dr. Loper has no conflicts of interest. Dr. Kaminstein is an adjunct assistant professor at the graduate school of education and affiliated faculty in the organizational dynamics program, School of Arts and Sciences, at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He is a social psychologist who has been studying groups and organizations for more than 40 years. He has no conflicts of interest.

References

1. MMWR. 2021 Jun 18;70(24):888-94.

2. Ray G. “Pediatricians, Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists and Children’s Hospitals Declare National Emergency in Children’s Mental Health.” Childrenshospitals.org. 2021 Oct 19.

3. JAMA Netw Open. 2020(8):e2011381.

4. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2018 April:165(4):777-800.

5. The influence of predation on primate and early human evolution: Impetus for cooperation, in “Origins of Altruism and Cooperation. Developments in Primatology: Progress and Prospects.” (Basingstoke, England: Springer Nature, 2011, pp. 19-40).

6. Media Psychology. 2020;23(1):52-78.