Rheumatology News

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The recommended vaccination schedule for people in the United States aged 19 years and older has been released by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Clinical Guideline on the “Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule, United States, 2022” appears online Feb. 17 in Annals of Internal Medicine and in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The document features changes to the zoster, pneumococcal, and hepatitis B vaccines. COVID-19 vaccinations are now included in the notes section of the schedule and can be co-administered with other vaccines, according to ACIP.

The 2022 schedule is particularly important because the pandemic has caused many adults to fall behind in routine vaccinations, according to lead author Neil Murthy, MD, MPH, MSJ, of the CDC’s immunization services division, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues.  

“Providers should administer all due and overdue vaccines according to the routine immunization schedule during the same visit,” the group wrote. “In addition, providers should implement strategies to catch up all patients on any overdue vaccines.”

Among other changes appearing in the 2022 recommendations:

• A new step 4 in the form of an appendix lists all the contraindications and precautions for each vaccine.
• The zoster vaccine now is recommended for use in everyone aged 19 years and older who are or will be immunodeficient or immunosuppressed through disease or therapy. The new purple color bar reflects ACIP’s new two-dose series regimen for immunocompromised adults aged 19 to 49.
• The simplified pneumococcal recommendation includes guidance on using the new PCV15 and PCV20 vaccines.
• The hepatitis B recommendation has been made more inclusive, with vaccination recommended for all adults aged 19 to 59. The Special Situations section in the Notes outlines the risk-based recommendations for the hepatitis B vaccine in adults aged 60 and older. The schedule has been harmonized with the 2022 Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule.

A welcome change

Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, a member of the ACIP Combined Immunization Work Group, said the new pneumococcal recommendation is a particularly welcome change.

“The old recommendation was complicated and confusing. The new one is much more straightforward,” Dr. Fryhofer, an internist in Atlanta, said in an interview. Now there are only two options: a two-vaccine series of PCV15 (Vaxneuvance), in combination with the already familiar PPSV23 polysaccharide vaccine (Pneumovax 23), and a single dose of the new PCV20, Prevnar 20.

“Some work group members favored a universal age-based recommendation starting at 50 instead of 65,” Fryhofer said. “This would provide more opportunities to vaccinate adults but could lead to waning immunity later in life when risk of disease is higher.”

Although none of the updates is likely to stir controversy, discussion among ACIP members was particularly lively around hepatitis B vaccination, Dr. Fryhofer said. This vaccine has historically been recommended based on risk and has had poor uptake, while age-based vaccine recommendations generally have greater uptake.

“ACIP approved hepatitis B vaccine universally for those up to age 60, but for those 60 and older, the recommendation remains risk-based with a loophole: Anyone 60 and older who wants it can get it,” she told this news organization. “Some of the risk indications for hepatitis B vaccination may be uncomfortable or embarrassing to disclose, especially for older patients. The loophole takes care of that, but patients may have to ask for the vaccine.”

As usual, the graphics have been fine-tuned for greater accuracy and readability. “You can print a color copy to have in the exam room or at your workspace or give it a bookmark and check it online,” Dr. Fryhofer said. “It’s a great resource to have at your fingertips.”

Dr. Fryhofer has made a series of videos explaining ACIP’s approval process, the use of the schedule, and changes to vaccines including influenza. These can be accessed on the American College of Physicians website.

The authors of the recommendations stress that physicians should pay careful attention to the notes section for each vaccine, as these details clarify who needs what vaccine, when, and at what dose.

Co-author Henry Bernstein, DO, reported that he is the editor of Current Opinion in Pediatrics Office Pediatrics Series and received a presentation honorarium from the Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Co-author Kevin Ault, MD, reported having received a grant from the National Cancer Institute, consulting fees from PathoVax, and payments supporting attending meetings and/or travel from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to a decrease in the proportion of patients with rheumatic diseases who stopped taking their disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), but the percentage who interrupted DMARD treatment increased later in the pandemic, according to speakers at the 2022 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

“People seem to be less anxious, but they’re interrupting their DMARD therapy more, more recently than in the pits of COVID, if you will,” said Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and director of RWCS.

RWCS 2022 screenshot

Dr. Kavanaugh and his copresenter Jack Cush, MD, were discussing the results of a recent study published in Arthritis Care & Research that evaluated 2,424 patients with rheumatic diseases who completed a baseline and at least one follow-up survey issued by patient organizations between March 2020 and May 2021, with a median of five follow-up surveys completed. The patients included in the study were aged a mean of 57 years, 86.6% were women, 90.5% were White, 41.8% had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 14.8% had antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis, and 12.4% had psoriatic arthritis. Overall, 52.6% were on biologics or a Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, 30.0% were receiving methotrexate, 21.4% were taking hydroxychloroquine, and 28.6% were receiving low-dose (24.0%) or high-dose (4.6%) glucocorticoids.

Patients’ T-scores on the anxiety short form Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey significantly decreased from a score of 58.7 in April 2020 to a score of 53.7 in May 2021 (P < .001), but there was a significant decrease in the interruption of DMARD treatment between April and December 2020 (11.2% vs. 7.5%; P < .001). This percentage rose significantly to 14.0% by May 2021 (P < .001). Patients who stopped using DMARDs were significantly associated with predicted incidence of severe flare in the next survey in adjusted models (12.9% vs. 8.0%; odds ratio, 1.71; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36).

The results tell us “that we as a discipline are not doing a good job educating our patients,” said Dr. Cush, a rheumatologist based in Dallas, Tex., and executive editor of RheumNow.com.

“I wish we – and I’m really talking about myself – but myself and my practice were more proactive when COVID happened [in] sending out regular bulletins: ‘Don’t stop your therapy; these are the things you get; get the test that you need to get done,’ ” he said. “We let a lot of things go on autopilot with the patient driving throughout COVID. Even now, it’s happening. And this is a problem, and there are going to be consequences to this.”

Dr. Kavanaugh agreed with Dr. Cush’s assessment, suggesting that the pandemic came up quickly enough that it was difficult to be proactive with the situation.
 

Patients on JAK inhibitors as new COVID-19 risk group?

Another standout study on COVID-19 from 2021 was an analysis of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry that examined risk of COVID-19 severity for patients with RA taking biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), which was presented at the 2021 EULAR congress and later published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

The researchers evaluated 2,869 patients March 2020 and April 2021 who were receiving abatacept (237 patients), rituximab (364 patients), interleukin (IL)-6 inhibitors (317 patients), JAK inhibitors (563 patients), or tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors such as infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, and golimumab (1,388 patients) before developing COVID-19. Data about biologics or tsDMARDs were collected as a drug class. Patients in the study were mostly White (69.0%) women (80.8%) with a mean age of 56.7 years who lived in Europe (51.8%) or North America (35.0%). The researchers examined the severity of COVID-19 among all patients studied and calculated odds ratios based on drug class, with the TNF inhibitor group serving as a reference.

“[I]n this case, they said that the baseline use of rituximab was associated with more severity, and you see the severity being hospitalization and ICU and deaths. They found a signal for the JAK inhibitors that is not found in the other studies,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.

Overall, they found 21% of patients in the registry were hospitalized and 5.5% died, with rituximab (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.16-5.44) and JAK inhibitors (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.60-2.65) associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes. Specifically, rituximab was associated with greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 4.53; 95% CI, 3.32-6.18), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.03-4.06), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 4.05; 95% CI, 3.08-5.33), and mortality (OR, 4.57; 95% CI, 3.32-9.01), compared with TNF inhibitors. For JAK inhibitors, there was also a greater likelihood of hospitalization (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.78-3.24), hospitalization with oxygen/ventilation (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.04-2.18), need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.56-2.62), and mortality (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.58-2.65), compared with the TNF inhibitors group. Associations between COVID-19 severity and abatacept or IL-6 inhibitors were not identified.

Commenting on the study in a question-and-answer session, Roy Fleischmann, MD, said the part of the study that identified a signal for JAK inhibitors was “very interesting.” He called attention to a rapid response comment to the study, which questioned if it was the drug class itself that caused the risk for severe disease. “This is very important, because actually, the patients who stop the JAK [inhibitor], that’s what drove the illness. The patients [who] continued the JAK [inhibitor], very few of them had illness,” said Dr. Fleischmann, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and codirector of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas, Tex.
 

Confusion among patients during COVID-19

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, asked the copresenters during the Q&A session whether they had any clinical pearls for the audience on how they manage treatment of patients with rheumatic disease with potential COVID-19 risk. “I think the confusion with our patients and COVID is what the ACR has put out with their guidelines,” said Dr. Wells, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Health in Franklin, Wisc.

Dr. Cush said he has three rules he follows: lower and discontinue steroids, avoid rituximab as a starting treatment and negotiate if patients are already taking it, and don’t stop any therapy.

“I want disease control. I think being under control is what keeps you away from risk of COVID and hospitalization,” Dr. Cush said. “I think being uncontrolled and inflamed, whether it’s our [patients with] inflammatory arthritis or lupus or, worse, vasculitis [or] myositis, those are the ones at high risk of progression from being just infected to being sick and in the hospital.”

Eric Ruderman, MD, professor of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, posed the question of getting somewhat back to normal during COVID-19 with regard to recently infected patients presenting at infusion centers, whether patients are more likely to continue testing positive, and when patients are cleared to come back. Dr. Ruderman said his center has a 20-day rule for returning after having COVID-19, while Dr. Cush said his center allows patients to come in if they test negative after 7-10 days.

“One of the things we’re struggling with is our infusion center, and one of the questions that keeps coming up is when can people come back after a COVID infection?” he said. “If you’re on a drug at home, that’s up to you and the patient. But in the infusion [center], then you have other people sitting around there.”

Dr. Kavanaugh said there is no current data for how long patients with rheumatic disease shed virus, or how long a positive test can be measured. “You definitely will continue to shed, and you’ll be detectable for a while,” he said.

Dr. Cush and Dr. Kavanaugh reported having financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

On Feb. 15, Robert Califf, MD, narrowly won Senate confirmation to once again serve as the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, overcoming protest votes from lawmakers about abortion and opioid issues.

FDA photo by Michael J. Ermarth

The Senate voted 50-46 in favor of Dr. Califf’s nomination. A cardiologist long affiliated with Duke University and a noted expert on clinical trials, Dr. Califf also led the FDA from February 2016 through January 2017.

In 2016, the Senate confirmed him as FDA chief in an 89-4 vote. At that time, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, and a few other senators said they were concerned that Dr. Califf’s links to the drug industry would hamper his ability to regulate drugmakers, particularly in terms of rules on prescription painkillers.

Sen. Manchin also objected to Dr. Califf’s second nomination as FDA commissioner, as did several fellow Democrats, including Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts. In a statement issued after the Feb. 15 vote, Sen. Markey said he has “consistently raised concerns about the FDA’s egregious mishandling of opioid approvals and its role in enabling the current opioid epidemic.”

“To date, the FDA still has not implemented many of the reforms necessary to ensure that it is fulfilling its role as our nation’s top pharmaceutical cop on the beat,” Sen. Markey said. “I have not received any real commitment from Dr. Califf to truly reform the FDA or to learn from the failures that fueled this public health crisis.”

This time, Dr. Califf lost support among Republican senators due to objections raised by groups seeking to end women’s access to abortion. Susan B. Anthony List and National Right to Life asked senators in a January letter to oppose Dr. Califf’s nomination, citing their objections to how the FDA handled reporting of adverse events from abortions by medication during Dr. Califf’s Tenure.

But some Republicans supported Califf in the Tuesday vote. Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania all voted in his favor.

On Feb. 14, Sen. Patty Murray, D-WA, chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, urged her colleagues to vote for Dr. Califf to give the FDA strong leadership to tackle urgent health needs such as the opioid crisis, youth tobacco use, antimicrobial resistance, and inequities in health care.

“At this critical moment, we need a trusted hand to lead the FDA,” she said in a floor speech. Dr. Califf’s previous service at the FDA and his years spent as a research scientist “give him the experience to take on this challenge.”

Separately, three former FDA commissioners on Feb. 15 published an opinion article that appeared in The Hill. Republican presidents nominated two of these former FDA chiefs: Scott Gottlieb, MD, and Mark McClellan, MD. The third, Margaret Hamburg, MD, was nominated by President Barack Obama, as was Dr. Califf for his first time as FDA chief.

There’s an urgent need for a confirmed leader at the FDA as the United States seeks to move beyond the pandemic, the former FDA chiefs wrote. The work ahead includes continued efforts with vaccines as well as efforts to bolster medical supply chains, they said.

Dr. Califf “knows how to advance the safe development and use of medical products and to bring a sound, science-based foundation to the FDA’s regulatory actions. Because of this, he has earned the confidence of FDA’s professional career staff, as well as a broad base of patient groups, academic experts, medical professionals, and public health organizations,” Dr. Gottlieb, Dr. Hamburg, and Dr. McClellan wrote.

The article also was signed by former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Andy Slavitt, who served in the Obama administration.
 

Support of medical community

The American Heart Association issued a statement on Feb.15, congratulating Dr. Califf on his second confirmation after the Senate vote.

“With a distinguished career in public service and a long-time volunteer leader at the American Heart Association, Dr. Califf has honed his ability to communicate and build trust with diverse constituencies,” CEO Nancy Brown said in the statement. “He will use his experience as a cardiologist to safeguard the health and well-being of people throughout the country, and his background in research to prioritize science and evidence-based policymaking.”

Dr. Califf was also backed by the Association of American Medical Colleges, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians when he was nominated for the role last year by President Joe Biden.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

About four in 10 COVID patients have some sort of taste loss, according to a new study.

Many COVID-19 patients report losing their sense of taste as well as their sense of smell, but scientists have been skeptical because the two senses are closely related and it was relatively rare for people to lose their taste sense before the COVID pandemic, says the Monell Chemical Senses Center, a nonprofit research institute in Philadelphia.

But a new Monell Center analysis found that 37% – or about four in every 10 -- of COVID-19 patients actually did lose their sense of taste and that “reports of taste loss are in fact genuine and distinguishable from smell loss.”

Taste dysfunction can be total taste loss, partial taste loss, and taste distortion. It’s an “underrated” symptom that could help doctors better treat COVID patients, the Monell Center said in a news release.

“It is time to turn to the tongue” to learn why taste is affected and to start on how to reverse or repair the loss, said Mackenzie Hannum, PhD, an author of the report and a postdoctoral fellow in the lab of Danielle Reed, PhD.

Researchers looked at data regarding 138,785 COVID patients from 241 studies that assessed taste loss and were published between May 15, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Of those patients, 32,918 said they had some form of taste loss. Further, female patients were more likely than males to lose their sense of taste, and people 36-50 years old had the highest rate of taste loss.

The information came from self-reports and direct reports.

“Self-reports are more subjective and can be in the form of questionnaires, interviews, health records, for example,” Dr. Hannum said. “On the other hand, direct measures of taste are more objective. They are conducted using testing kits that contain various sweet, salty, and sometimes bitter and sour solutions given to participants via drops, strips, or sprays.”

Though self-reports were subjective, they proved just as good as direct reports at detecting taste loss, the study said.

“Here self-reports are backed up by direct measures, proving that loss of taste is a real, distinct symptom of COVID-19 that is not to be confused with smell loss,” said study co-author Vicente Ramirez, a visiting scientist at Monell and a doctoral student at the University of California, Merced.

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

The vitamin D story exudes teaching points: It offers a master class in critical appraisal, connecting the concepts of biologic plausibility, flawed surrogate markers, confounded observational studies, and slews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing no benefits on health outcomes.

Yet despite the utter lack of benefit seen in trials, the hype continues. And the pandemic has only enhanced this hype as an onslaught of papers have reported the association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 disease.

My questions are simple: Why doesn’t the evidence persuade people? How many nonsignificant trials do we need before researchers stop studying vitamin D, doctors stop (routinely) measuring levels, and patients stop wasting money on the unhelpful supplement? What are the implications for this lack of persuasion?

Before exploring these questions, I want to set out that symptomatic vitamin deficiencies of any sort ought to be corrected. 
 

Biologic plausibility and the pull of observational studies

It has long been known that vitamin D is crucial for bone health and that it can be produced in the skin with sun exposure. In the last decade, however, experts note that nearly every tissue and cell in our body has a vitamin D receptor. It then follows that if this many cells in the body can activate vitamin D, it must be vital for cardiovascular health, immune function, cancer prevention: basically, everything health related.

Oodles of observational studies have found that low serum levels of vitamin D correlate with higher mortality from all causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and now even COVID-19. Yet no matter the amount of statistical adjustment in these studies, we cannot know whether these associations are due to true causality.

The major issue is confounding: That is, people with low vitamin D levels have other conditions or diseases that lead to higher rates of ill health. Consider a patient with obesity, arthritis, and cognitive decline; this person is unlikely to do much exercise in the sun and may have low vitamin D levels. The low vitamin D level is simply a marker of overall poor health.
 

The randomized controlled trials tell a clear story

There are hundreds of vitamin D RCTs. The results simplify into one sentence: Vitamin D supplements do not improve health outcomes.

Here is a short summary of some recent studies.

VITAL, a massive (N > 25,000) RCT with 5 years of follow-up, compared vitamin D supplements to placebo and found no differences in the primary endpoints of cancer or cardiac events. Rates of death from any cause were nearly identical. Crucially, in subgroup analyses, the effects did not vary according to vitamin D levels at baseline.

The D-Health investigators randomly assigned more than 21,000 adults to vitamin D or placebo and after 5.7 years of follow-up reported no differences in the primary endpoint of overall mortality. There also were no differences in cardiovascular disease mortality.

Then you have the Mendelian randomized studies, which some have called nature’s RCT. These studies take advantage of the fact that some people are born with gene variations that predispose to low vitamin D levels. More than 60 Mendelian randomization studies have evaluated the consequences of lifelong genetically lowered vitamin D levels on various outcomes; most of these have found null effects.

Then there are the meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I loved the conclusion of this review of systematic reviews from the BMJ (emphasis mine):

“Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.”

 

The failure to persuade

My original plan was to emphasize the power of the RCT. Despite strong associations of low vitamin D levels with poor outcomes, the trials show no benefit to treatment. This strongly suggests (or nearly proves) that low vitamin D levels are akin to premature ventricular complexes after myocardial infarction: a marker for risk but not a target for therapy.

But I now see the more important issue as why scientists, funders, clinicians, and patients are not persuaded by clear evidence. Every day in clinic I see patients on vitamin D supplements; the journals keep publishing vitamin D studies. The proponents of vitamin D remain positive. And lately there is outsized attention and hope that vitamin D will mitigate SARS-CoV2 infection – based only on observational data.

You might argue against this point by saying vitamin D is natural and relatively innocuous, so who cares?

I offer three rebuttals to that point: Opportunity costs, distraction, and the insidious danger of poor critical appraisal skills. If you are burning money on vitamin D research, there is less available to study other important issues. If a patient is distracted by low vitamin D levels, she may pay less attention to her high body mass index or hypertension. And on the matter of critical appraisal, trust in medicine requires clinicians to be competent in critical appraisal. And these days, what could be more important than trust in medical professionals?

One major reason for the failure of persuasion of evidence is spin – or language that distracts from the primary endpoint. Here are two (of many) examples:

A meta-analysis of 50 vitamin D trials set out to study mortality. The authors found no significant difference in that primary endpoint. But the second sentence in their conclusion was that vitamin D supplements reduced the risk for cancer deaths by 15%. That’s a secondary endpoint in a study with nonsignificance in the primary endpoint. That is spin. This meta-analysis was completed before the Australian D-Health trial found that cancer deaths were 15% higher in the vitamin D arm, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

The following example is worse: The authors of the VITAL trial, which found that vitamin D supplements had no effect on the primary endpoint of invasive cancer or cardiovascular disease, published a secondary analysis of the trial looking at a different endpoint: A composite incidence of metastatic and fatal invasive total cancer. They reported a 0.4% lower rate for the vitamin D group, a difference that barely made statistical significance at a P value of .04. 

But everyone knows the dangers of reanalyzing data with a new endpoint after you have seen the data. What’s more, even if this were a reasonable post hoc analysis, the results are neither clinically meaningful nor statistically robust.  Yet the fatally flawed paper has been viewed 60,000 times and picked up by 48 news outlets.

Another way to distract from nonsignificant primary outcomes is to nitpick the trials. The vitamin D dose wasn’t high enough, for instance. This might persuade me if there were one or two vitamin D trials, but there are hundreds of trials and meta-analyses, and their results are consistently null.
 

Conclusion: No, it is not hopeless

A nihilist would argue that fighting spin is futile. They would say you can’t fight incentives and business models. The incentive structure to publish is strong, and the journals and media know vitamin D studies garner attention – which is their currency.

I am not a nihilist and believe strongly that we must continue to teach critical appraisal and numerical literacy.

In fact, I would speculate that decades of poor critical appraisal by the medical profession have fostered outsized hope and created erroneous norms.

Imagine a counter-factual world in which clinicians have taught society that the human body is unlike an engine that can be repaired by fixing one part (i.e., the vitamin D level), that magic bullets (insulin) are rare, that most treatments fail, or that you can’t rely on association studies to prove efficacy.

In this world, people would be immune from spin and hype.

The norm would be that pills, supplements, and procedures are not what delivers good health. What delivers health is an amalgam of good luck, healthy habits, and lots of time spent outside playing in the sun.
 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vitamin D story exudes teaching points: It offers a master class in critical appraisal, connecting the concepts of biologic plausibility, flawed surrogate markers, confounded observational studies, and slews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing no benefits on health outcomes.

Yet despite the utter lack of benefit seen in trials, the hype continues. And the pandemic has only enhanced this hype as an onslaught of papers have reported the association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 disease.

My questions are simple: Why doesn’t the evidence persuade people? How many nonsignificant trials do we need before researchers stop studying vitamin D, doctors stop (routinely) measuring levels, and patients stop wasting money on the unhelpful supplement? What are the implications for this lack of persuasion?

Before exploring these questions, I want to set out that symptomatic vitamin deficiencies of any sort ought to be corrected. 
 

Biologic plausibility and the pull of observational studies

It has long been known that vitamin D is crucial for bone health and that it can be produced in the skin with sun exposure. In the last decade, however, experts note that nearly every tissue and cell in our body has a vitamin D receptor. It then follows that if this many cells in the body can activate vitamin D, it must be vital for cardiovascular health, immune function, cancer prevention: basically, everything health related.

Oodles of observational studies have found that low serum levels of vitamin D correlate with higher mortality from all causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and now even COVID-19. Yet no matter the amount of statistical adjustment in these studies, we cannot know whether these associations are due to true causality.

The major issue is confounding: That is, people with low vitamin D levels have other conditions or diseases that lead to higher rates of ill health. Consider a patient with obesity, arthritis, and cognitive decline; this person is unlikely to do much exercise in the sun and may have low vitamin D levels. The low vitamin D level is simply a marker of overall poor health.
 

The randomized controlled trials tell a clear story

There are hundreds of vitamin D RCTs. The results simplify into one sentence: Vitamin D supplements do not improve health outcomes.

Here is a short summary of some recent studies.

VITAL, a massive (N > 25,000) RCT with 5 years of follow-up, compared vitamin D supplements to placebo and found no differences in the primary endpoints of cancer or cardiac events. Rates of death from any cause were nearly identical. Crucially, in subgroup analyses, the effects did not vary according to vitamin D levels at baseline.

The D-Health investigators randomly assigned more than 21,000 adults to vitamin D or placebo and after 5.7 years of follow-up reported no differences in the primary endpoint of overall mortality. There also were no differences in cardiovascular disease mortality.

Then you have the Mendelian randomized studies, which some have called nature’s RCT. These studies take advantage of the fact that some people are born with gene variations that predispose to low vitamin D levels. More than 60 Mendelian randomization studies have evaluated the consequences of lifelong genetically lowered vitamin D levels on various outcomes; most of these have found null effects.

Then there are the meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I loved the conclusion of this review of systematic reviews from the BMJ (emphasis mine):

“Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.”

 

The failure to persuade

My original plan was to emphasize the power of the RCT. Despite strong associations of low vitamin D levels with poor outcomes, the trials show no benefit to treatment. This strongly suggests (or nearly proves) that low vitamin D levels are akin to premature ventricular complexes after myocardial infarction: a marker for risk but not a target for therapy.

But I now see the more important issue as why scientists, funders, clinicians, and patients are not persuaded by clear evidence. Every day in clinic I see patients on vitamin D supplements; the journals keep publishing vitamin D studies. The proponents of vitamin D remain positive. And lately there is outsized attention and hope that vitamin D will mitigate SARS-CoV2 infection – based only on observational data.

You might argue against this point by saying vitamin D is natural and relatively innocuous, so who cares?

I offer three rebuttals to that point: Opportunity costs, distraction, and the insidious danger of poor critical appraisal skills. If you are burning money on vitamin D research, there is less available to study other important issues. If a patient is distracted by low vitamin D levels, she may pay less attention to her high body mass index or hypertension. And on the matter of critical appraisal, trust in medicine requires clinicians to be competent in critical appraisal. And these days, what could be more important than trust in medical professionals?

One major reason for the failure of persuasion of evidence is spin – or language that distracts from the primary endpoint. Here are two (of many) examples:

A meta-analysis of 50 vitamin D trials set out to study mortality. The authors found no significant difference in that primary endpoint. But the second sentence in their conclusion was that vitamin D supplements reduced the risk for cancer deaths by 15%. That’s a secondary endpoint in a study with nonsignificance in the primary endpoint. That is spin. This meta-analysis was completed before the Australian D-Health trial found that cancer deaths were 15% higher in the vitamin D arm, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

The following example is worse: The authors of the VITAL trial, which found that vitamin D supplements had no effect on the primary endpoint of invasive cancer or cardiovascular disease, published a secondary analysis of the trial looking at a different endpoint: A composite incidence of metastatic and fatal invasive total cancer. They reported a 0.4% lower rate for the vitamin D group, a difference that barely made statistical significance at a P value of .04. 

But everyone knows the dangers of reanalyzing data with a new endpoint after you have seen the data. What’s more, even if this were a reasonable post hoc analysis, the results are neither clinically meaningful nor statistically robust.  Yet the fatally flawed paper has been viewed 60,000 times and picked up by 48 news outlets.

Another way to distract from nonsignificant primary outcomes is to nitpick the trials. The vitamin D dose wasn’t high enough, for instance. This might persuade me if there were one or two vitamin D trials, but there are hundreds of trials and meta-analyses, and their results are consistently null.
 

Conclusion: No, it is not hopeless

A nihilist would argue that fighting spin is futile. They would say you can’t fight incentives and business models. The incentive structure to publish is strong, and the journals and media know vitamin D studies garner attention – which is their currency.

I am not a nihilist and believe strongly that we must continue to teach critical appraisal and numerical literacy.

In fact, I would speculate that decades of poor critical appraisal by the medical profession have fostered outsized hope and created erroneous norms.

Imagine a counter-factual world in which clinicians have taught society that the human body is unlike an engine that can be repaired by fixing one part (i.e., the vitamin D level), that magic bullets (insulin) are rare, that most treatments fail, or that you can’t rely on association studies to prove efficacy.

In this world, people would be immune from spin and hype.

The norm would be that pills, supplements, and procedures are not what delivers good health. What delivers health is an amalgam of good luck, healthy habits, and lots of time spent outside playing in the sun.
 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The vitamin D story exudes teaching points: It offers a master class in critical appraisal, connecting the concepts of biologic plausibility, flawed surrogate markers, confounded observational studies, and slews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing no benefits on health outcomes.

Yet despite the utter lack of benefit seen in trials, the hype continues. And the pandemic has only enhanced this hype as an onslaught of papers have reported the association of low vitamin D levels and COVID-19 disease.

My questions are simple: Why doesn’t the evidence persuade people? How many nonsignificant trials do we need before researchers stop studying vitamin D, doctors stop (routinely) measuring levels, and patients stop wasting money on the unhelpful supplement? What are the implications for this lack of persuasion?

Before exploring these questions, I want to set out that symptomatic vitamin deficiencies of any sort ought to be corrected. 
 

Biologic plausibility and the pull of observational studies

It has long been known that vitamin D is crucial for bone health and that it can be produced in the skin with sun exposure. In the last decade, however, experts note that nearly every tissue and cell in our body has a vitamin D receptor. It then follows that if this many cells in the body can activate vitamin D, it must be vital for cardiovascular health, immune function, cancer prevention: basically, everything health related.

Oodles of observational studies have found that low serum levels of vitamin D correlate with higher mortality from all causes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and now even COVID-19. Yet no matter the amount of statistical adjustment in these studies, we cannot know whether these associations are due to true causality.

The major issue is confounding: That is, people with low vitamin D levels have other conditions or diseases that lead to higher rates of ill health. Consider a patient with obesity, arthritis, and cognitive decline; this person is unlikely to do much exercise in the sun and may have low vitamin D levels. The low vitamin D level is simply a marker of overall poor health.
 

The randomized controlled trials tell a clear story

There are hundreds of vitamin D RCTs. The results simplify into one sentence: Vitamin D supplements do not improve health outcomes.

Here is a short summary of some recent studies.

VITAL, a massive (N > 25,000) RCT with 5 years of follow-up, compared vitamin D supplements to placebo and found no differences in the primary endpoints of cancer or cardiac events. Rates of death from any cause were nearly identical. Crucially, in subgroup analyses, the effects did not vary according to vitamin D levels at baseline.

The D-Health investigators randomly assigned more than 21,000 adults to vitamin D or placebo and after 5.7 years of follow-up reported no differences in the primary endpoint of overall mortality. There also were no differences in cardiovascular disease mortality.

Then you have the Mendelian randomized studies, which some have called nature’s RCT. These studies take advantage of the fact that some people are born with gene variations that predispose to low vitamin D levels. More than 60 Mendelian randomization studies have evaluated the consequences of lifelong genetically lowered vitamin D levels on various outcomes; most of these have found null effects.

Then there are the meta-analyses and systematic reviews. I loved the conclusion of this review of systematic reviews from the BMJ (emphasis mine):

“Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.”

 

The failure to persuade

My original plan was to emphasize the power of the RCT. Despite strong associations of low vitamin D levels with poor outcomes, the trials show no benefit to treatment. This strongly suggests (or nearly proves) that low vitamin D levels are akin to premature ventricular complexes after myocardial infarction: a marker for risk but not a target for therapy.

But I now see the more important issue as why scientists, funders, clinicians, and patients are not persuaded by clear evidence. Every day in clinic I see patients on vitamin D supplements; the journals keep publishing vitamin D studies. The proponents of vitamin D remain positive. And lately there is outsized attention and hope that vitamin D will mitigate SARS-CoV2 infection – based only on observational data.

You might argue against this point by saying vitamin D is natural and relatively innocuous, so who cares?

I offer three rebuttals to that point: Opportunity costs, distraction, and the insidious danger of poor critical appraisal skills. If you are burning money on vitamin D research, there is less available to study other important issues. If a patient is distracted by low vitamin D levels, she may pay less attention to her high body mass index or hypertension. And on the matter of critical appraisal, trust in medicine requires clinicians to be competent in critical appraisal. And these days, what could be more important than trust in medical professionals?

One major reason for the failure of persuasion of evidence is spin – or language that distracts from the primary endpoint. Here are two (of many) examples:

A meta-analysis of 50 vitamin D trials set out to study mortality. The authors found no significant difference in that primary endpoint. But the second sentence in their conclusion was that vitamin D supplements reduced the risk for cancer deaths by 15%. That’s a secondary endpoint in a study with nonsignificance in the primary endpoint. That is spin. This meta-analysis was completed before the Australian D-Health trial found that cancer deaths were 15% higher in the vitamin D arm, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

The following example is worse: The authors of the VITAL trial, which found that vitamin D supplements had no effect on the primary endpoint of invasive cancer or cardiovascular disease, published a secondary analysis of the trial looking at a different endpoint: A composite incidence of metastatic and fatal invasive total cancer. They reported a 0.4% lower rate for the vitamin D group, a difference that barely made statistical significance at a P value of .04. 

But everyone knows the dangers of reanalyzing data with a new endpoint after you have seen the data. What’s more, even if this were a reasonable post hoc analysis, the results are neither clinically meaningful nor statistically robust.  Yet the fatally flawed paper has been viewed 60,000 times and picked up by 48 news outlets.

Another way to distract from nonsignificant primary outcomes is to nitpick the trials. The vitamin D dose wasn’t high enough, for instance. This might persuade me if there were one or two vitamin D trials, but there are hundreds of trials and meta-analyses, and their results are consistently null.
 

Conclusion: No, it is not hopeless

A nihilist would argue that fighting spin is futile. They would say you can’t fight incentives and business models. The incentive structure to publish is strong, and the journals and media know vitamin D studies garner attention – which is their currency.

I am not a nihilist and believe strongly that we must continue to teach critical appraisal and numerical literacy.

In fact, I would speculate that decades of poor critical appraisal by the medical profession have fostered outsized hope and created erroneous norms.

Imagine a counter-factual world in which clinicians have taught society that the human body is unlike an engine that can be repaired by fixing one part (i.e., the vitamin D level), that magic bullets (insulin) are rare, that most treatments fail, or that you can’t rely on association studies to prove efficacy.

In this world, people would be immune from spin and hype.

The norm would be that pills, supplements, and procedures are not what delivers good health. What delivers health is an amalgam of good luck, healthy habits, and lots of time spent outside playing in the sun.
 

Dr. Mandrola practices cardiac electrophysiology in Louisville, Ky., and is a writer and podcaster for Medscape. He espouses a conservative approach to medical practice. He participates in clinical research and writes often about the state of medical evidence. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The CDC will soon update its COVID-19 guidance – including masking recommendations – as cases continue to drop, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.

“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”

She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”

Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.

“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”

Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.

“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
 

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

The CDC will soon update its COVID-19 guidance – including masking recommendations – as cases continue to drop, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.

“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”

She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”

Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.

“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”

Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.

“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
 

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

The CDC will soon update its COVID-19 guidance – including masking recommendations – as cases continue to drop, CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, said on Feb. 16.

“As we consider future metrics, which will be updated soon, we recognize the importance of not just cases … but critically, medically severe disease that leads to hospitalizations,” Dr. Walensky said at a White House news briefing. “We must consider hospital capacity as an additional important barometer.”

She later added, “We are looking at an overview of much of our guidance, and masking in all settings will be a part of that.”

Coronavirus cases continue to drop nationwide. This week’s 7-day daily average of cases is 147,000, a decrease of 40%. Hospitalizations have dropped 28% to 9,500, and daily deaths are 2,200, a decrease of 9%.

“Omicron cases are declining, and we are all cautiously optimistic about the trajectory we’re on,” Dr. Walensky said. “Things are moving in the right direction, but we want to remain vigilant to do all we can so this trajectory continues.”

Dr. Walensky said public masking remains especially important if someone is symptomatic or not feeling well, or if there has been a COVID-19 exposure. Those who are within 10 days of being diagnosed with the virus should also remain masked in public.

“We all share the same goal: to get to a point where COVID-19 is no longer disrupting our daily lives. A time when it won’t be a constant crisis,” Dr. Walensky said. “Moving from this pandemic will be a process led by science and epidemiological trends, and one that relies on the powerful tools we already have.”
 

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

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Junk (germs) in the trunk

It’s been a long drive, and you’ve got a long way to go. You pull into a rest stop to use the bathroom and get some food. Quick, which order do you do those things in?

If you’re not a crazy person, you’d use the bathroom and then get your food. Who would bring food into a dirty bathroom? That’s kind of gross. Most people would take care of business, grab food, then get back in the car, eating along the way. Unfortunately, if you’re searching for a sanitary eating environment, your car may not actually be much better than that bathroom, according to new research from Aston University in Birmingham, England.

Robert Couse-Baker/PxHere

Let’s start off with the good news. The steering wheels of the five used cars that were swabbed for bacteria were pretty clean. Definitely cleaner than either of the toilet seats analyzed, likely thanks to increased usage of sanitizer, courtesy of the current pandemic. It’s easy to wipe down the steering wheel. Things break down, though, once we look elsewhere. The interiors of the five cars all contained just as much, if not more, bacteria than the toilet seats, with fecal matter commonly appearing on the driver’s seat.

The car interiors were less than sanitary, but they paled in comparison with the real winner here: the trunk. In each of the five cars, bacteria levels there far exceeded those in the toilets, and included everyone’s favorites – Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

So, snacking on a bag of chips as you drive along is probably okay, but the food that popped out of its bag and spent the last 5 minutes rolling around the back? Perhaps less okay. You may want to wash it. Or burn it. Or torch the entire car for good measure like we’re about to do. Next time we’ll buy a car without poop in it.
 

Shut the lid when you flush

Maybe you’ve never thought about this, but it’s actually extremely important to shut the toilet lid when you flush. Just think of all those germs flying around from the force of the flush. Is your toothbrush anywhere near the toilet? Ew. Those pesky little bacteria and viruses are everywhere, and we know we can’t really escape them, but we should really do our best once we’re made aware of where to find them.

Marco Verch/ccnull.de/CC by 2.0

It seems like a no-brainer these days since we’ve all been really focused on cleanliness during the pandemic, but according to a poll in the United Kingdom, 55% of the 2,000 participants said they don’t put the lid down while flushing.

The OnePoll survey commissioned by Harpic, a company that makes toilet-cleaning products, also advised that toilet water isn’t even completely clean after flushed several times and can still be contaminated with many germs. Company researchers took specialized pictures of flushing toilets and they looked like tiny little Fourth of July fireworks shows, minus the sparklers. The pictures proved that droplets can go all over the place, including on bathroom users.

“There has never been a more important time to take extra care around our homes, although the risks associated with germ spread in unhygienic bathrooms are high, the solution to keeping them clean is simple,” a Harpic researcher said. Since other studies have shown that coronavirus can be found in feces, it’s become increasingly important to keep ourselves and others safe. Fireworks are pretty, but not when they come out of your toilet.
 

The latest in MRI fashion

Do you see that photo just below? Looks like something you could buy at the Lego store, right? Well, it’s not. Nor is it the proverbial thinking cap come to life.

(Did someone just say “come to life”? That reminds us of our favorite scene from Frosty the Snowman.)

Cydney Scott/Boston University

Anywaaay, about the photo. That funny-looking chapeau is what we in the science business call a metamaterial.

Nope, metamaterials have nothing to do with Facebook parent company Meta. We checked. According to a statement from Boston University, they are engineered structures “created from small unit cells that might be unspectacular alone, but when grouped together in a precise way, get new superpowers not found in nature.”

Superpowers, eh? Who doesn’t want superpowers? Even if they come with a funny hat.

The unit cells, known as resonators, are just plastic tubes wrapped in copper wiring, but when they are grouped in an array and precisely arranged into a helmet, they can channel the magnetic field of the MRI machine during a scan. In theory, that would create “crisper images that can be captured at twice the normal speed,” Xin Zhang, PhD, and her team at BU’s Photonics Center explained in the university statement.

In the future, the metamaterial device could “be used in conjunction with cheaper low-field MRI machines to make the technology more widely available, particularly in the developing world,” they suggested. Or, like so many other superpowers, it could fall into the wrong hands. Like those of Lex Luthor. Or Mark Zuckerberg. Or Frosty the Snowman.
 

The highway of the mind

How fast can you think on your feet? Well, according to a recently published study, it could be a legitimate measure of intelligence. Here’s the science.

Epifantsev/Thinkstock

Researchers from the University of Würzburg in Germany and Indiana University have suggested that a person’s intelligence score measures the ability, based on certain neuronal networks and their communication structures, to switch between resting state and different task states.

The investigators set up a study to observe almost 800 people while they completed seven tasks. By monitoring brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging, the teams found that subjects who had higher intelligence scores required “less adjustment when switching between different cognitive states,” they said in a separate statement.

It comes down to the network architecture of their brains.

Kirsten Hilger, PhD, head of the German group, described it in terms of highways. The resting state of the brain is normal traffic. It’s always moving. Holiday traffic is the task. The ability to handle the increased flow of commuters is a function of the highway infrastructure. The better the infrastructure, the higher the intelligence.

So the next time you’re stuck in traffic, think how efficient your brain would be with such a task. The quicker, the better.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation. This story is part of a partnership that includes Nashville Public Radio, NPR, and KHN.

Tennessee’s Board of Medical Examiners unanimously adopted in September 2021 a statement that said doctors spreading COVID misinformation – such as suggesting that vaccines contain microchips – could jeopardize their license to practice.

“I’m very glad that we’re taking this step,” Dr. Stephen Loyd, MD, the panel’s vice president, said at the time. “If you’re spreading this willful misinformation, for me it’s going to be really hard to do anything other than put you on probation or take your license for a year. There has to be a message sent for this. It’s not okay.”

The board’s statement was posted on a government website.

But before any physicians could be reprimanded for spreading falsehoods about COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, Republican lawmakers threatened to disband the medical board.

The growing tension in Tennessee between conservative lawmakers and the state’s medical board may be the most prominent example in the country. But the Federation of State Medical Boards, which created the language adopted by at least 15 state boards, is tracking legislation introduced by Republicans in at least 14 states that would restrict a medical board’s authority to discipline doctors for their advice on COVID.

Humayun Chaudhry, DO, the federation’s CEO, called it “an unwelcome trend.” The nonprofit association, based in Euless, Tex., said the statement is merely a COVID-specific restatement of an existing rule: that doctors who engage in behavior that puts patients at risk could face disciplinary action.

Although doctors have leeway to decide which treatments to provide, the medical boards that oversee them have broad authority over licensing. Often, doctors are investigated for violating guidelines on prescribing high-powered drugs. But physicians are sometimes punished for other “unprofessional conduct.” In 2013, Tennessee’s board fined U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais for separately having sexual relations with two female patients more than a decade earlier.

Still, stopping doctors from sharing unsound medical advice has proved challenging. Even defining misinformation has been difficult. And during the pandemic, resistance from some state legislatures is complicating the effort.

A relatively small group of physicians peddle COVID misinformation, but many of them associate with America’s Frontline Doctors. Its founder, Simone Gold, MD, has claimed patients are dying from COVID treatments, not the virus itself. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, said in a legislative hearing in Ohio that the COVID vaccine could magnetize patients. Stella Immanuel, MD, has pushed hydroxychloroquine as a COVID cure in Texas, although clinical trials showed that it had no benefit. None of them agreed to requests for comment.

The Texas Medical Board fined Dr. Immanuel $500 for not informing a patient of the risks associated with using hydroxychloroquine as an off-label COVID treatment.