News

The American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS) have created a new registry that now accepts reports from health care providers worldwide about monkeypox cases and monkeypox vaccine reactions.

Patient data such as names and dates of birth will not be collected.

“As with our joint COVID-19 registry, we will be doing real-time data analysis during the outbreak,” dermatologist Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the AAD’s monkeypox task force, said in an interview. “We will to try to feed information back to our front line in terms of clinical characteristics of cases, morphology, and any unexpected findings.”

NIAID

According to Dr. Freeman, the principal investigator for the COVID-19 registry, this registry has allowed the quick gathering of information about dermatologic findings of COVID-19 from over 53 countries. “We have published over 15 papers, and we share data with outside investigators wishing to do their own analysis of registry-related data,” she said. “Our most-cited paper on COVID vaccine skin reactions has been cited almost 500 times since 2021. It has been used to educate the public on vaccine side effects and to combat vaccine hesitancy.”

The monkeypox registry “doesn’t belong to any one group or person,” Dr. Freeman said. “The idea with rapid data analysis is to be able to give back to the dermatologic community what is hard for us to see with any single case: Patterns and new findings that can be helpful to share with dermatologists and other physicians worldwide, all working together to stop an outbreak.”

The American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS) have created a new registry that now accepts reports from health care providers worldwide about monkeypox cases and monkeypox vaccine reactions.

Patient data such as names and dates of birth will not be collected.

“As with our joint COVID-19 registry, we will be doing real-time data analysis during the outbreak,” dermatologist Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the AAD’s monkeypox task force, said in an interview. “We will to try to feed information back to our front line in terms of clinical characteristics of cases, morphology, and any unexpected findings.”

NIAID

According to Dr. Freeman, the principal investigator for the COVID-19 registry, this registry has allowed the quick gathering of information about dermatologic findings of COVID-19 from over 53 countries. “We have published over 15 papers, and we share data with outside investigators wishing to do their own analysis of registry-related data,” she said. “Our most-cited paper on COVID vaccine skin reactions has been cited almost 500 times since 2021. It has been used to educate the public on vaccine side effects and to combat vaccine hesitancy.”

The monkeypox registry “doesn’t belong to any one group or person,” Dr. Freeman said. “The idea with rapid data analysis is to be able to give back to the dermatologic community what is hard for us to see with any single case: Patterns and new findings that can be helpful to share with dermatologists and other physicians worldwide, all working together to stop an outbreak.”

The American Academy of Dermatology and the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS) have created a new registry that now accepts reports from health care providers worldwide about monkeypox cases and monkeypox vaccine reactions.

Patient data such as names and dates of birth will not be collected.

“As with our joint COVID-19 registry, we will be doing real-time data analysis during the outbreak,” dermatologist Esther Freeman, MD, PhD, director of MGH Global Health Dermatology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and a member of the AAD’s monkeypox task force, said in an interview. “We will to try to feed information back to our front line in terms of clinical characteristics of cases, morphology, and any unexpected findings.”

NIAID

According to Dr. Freeman, the principal investigator for the COVID-19 registry, this registry has allowed the quick gathering of information about dermatologic findings of COVID-19 from over 53 countries. “We have published over 15 papers, and we share data with outside investigators wishing to do their own analysis of registry-related data,” she said. “Our most-cited paper on COVID vaccine skin reactions has been cited almost 500 times since 2021. It has been used to educate the public on vaccine side effects and to combat vaccine hesitancy.”

The monkeypox registry “doesn’t belong to any one group or person,” Dr. Freeman said. “The idea with rapid data analysis is to be able to give back to the dermatologic community what is hard for us to see with any single case: Patterns and new findings that can be helpful to share with dermatologists and other physicians worldwide, all working together to stop an outbreak.”

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

People dealing with hearing loss will be able to buy hearing aids without a doctor’s prescription as soon as mid-October.

The White House announced today that the Food and Drug Administration will move forward with plans to make hearing aids available over the counter in pharmacies, other retail locations, and online.

This major milestone aims to make hearing aids easier to buy and more affordable, potentially saving families thousands of dollars.

An estimated 28.8 million U.S. adults could benefit from using hearing aids, according to numbers from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. But only about 16% of people aged 20-69 years who could be helped by hearing aids have ever used them.

The risk for hearing loss increases with age. Among Americans ages 70 and older, only 30% who could hear better with these devices have ever used them, the institute reports.

Once the FDA final rule takes effect, Americans with mild to moderate hearing loss will be able to buy a hearing aid without a doctor’s exam, prescription, or fitting adjustment.

President Joe Biden announced in 2021 he intended to allow hearing aids to be sold over the counter without a prescription to increase competition among manufacturers. Congress also passed bipartisan legislation in 2017 requiring the FDA to create a new category for hearing aids sold directly to consumers. Some devices intended for minors or people with severe hearing loss will remain available only with a prescription.

“This action makes good on my commitment to lower costs for American families, delivering nearly $3,000 in savings to American families for a pair of hearing aids and giving people more choices to improve their health and wellbeing,” the president said in a statement announcing the news.

The new over-the-counter hearing aids will be considered medical devices. To avoid confusion, the FDA explains the differences between hearing aids and personal sound amplification products (PSAPs). For example, PSAPs are considered electronic devices designed for people with normal hearing to use in certain situations, like birdwatching or hunting.

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Fewer than 1 in 3 people infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) begin receiving treatment within a year of their diagnosis, according to a new report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although HCV infection can be cured in more than 95% of patients with safe, oral medication, many barriers prevent people from receiving the care they need, experts say. These include insurance restrictions and the need for specialist visits.

“If we are going to make an impact against hepatitis C, we need to connect more people to treatments and reduce disparities of access to diagnosis and treatment,” said Carolyn Wester, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s Division of Viral Hepatitis, during an Aug. 9 press call. “People shouldn’t have to jump over hurdles to access lifesaving treatments.”

The CDC report was published  in Vital Signs.

An estimated 2.2 million Americans are living with HCV infection. The most recent data indicate that new infections increased more than threefold from 2011 to 2019. HCV transmission usually occurs through contact with the blood of an infected person. Today, most people become infected with the virus by sharing needles, syringes, and other equipment used to inject drugs, according to the CDC.

The researchers used a nationwide administrative claims database to identify more than 47,600 adults diagnosed with HCV infection from Jan. 30, 2019 through Oct. 31, 2020. Most patients (79%) were Medicaid recipients, 7% were Medicare patients, and 14% had private insurance. CDC researchers found that just 23% of Medicaid recipients, 28% of Medicare patients, and 35% of patients with private insurance began receiving direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) within 360 days of receiving a positive HCV test result. Of those who did receive treatment, most (from 75% to 84%) began receiving treatment within 180 days of their diagnosis.

Among people on Medicaid plans, patients who lived in states with treatment restrictions were 23% less likely to receive timely treatment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.81), compared with those living in states with no restrictions. Medicaid patients who were Black or of another race other than White were also less likely than White patients to be treated for HCV within the same year as their diagnosis. The lowest rates of treatment were among adults younger than 40 years, regardless of insurance type. This age group had the highest rates of new infections.

Actual treatment percentages may be even smaller than the number captured in this study, because the study included patients with continuous insurance coverage, Dr. Wester said, “so in many ways, [these] are the individuals who are set up to have the best access to care and treatment.”

Dr. Wester mentioned several steps that could improve access to DAAs for patients with HCV infection:

• Provide treatment outside of specialist offices, such as primary care and community clinics, substance use treatment centers, and syringe services programs.
• Increase the number of primary care providers offering hepatitis C treatment.
• Provide treatment in as few visits as possible.
• Eliminate restrictions by insurance providers on treatment.

A ‘health injustice’

While DAA treatments are effective, they are also expensive. Generic medications cost around $24,000 for a 12-week course, and some brand-name drugs are estimated to cost more than three times that amount. Many insurance companies, therefore, have treatment restrictions in place, including the following:

• There must be evidence of liver fibrosis for a patient to be treated.
• The doctor prescribing treatment must be a liver specialist or an infectious disease specialist.
• The patient must meet sobriety requirements.
• Treatment requires preauthorization approval from insurance carriers.

These criteria prevent patients from getting the care that they need, said Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, director of the CDC’s National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, during the press call. “Restricting access to hepatitis C treatment turns an infectious disease into a health injustice,” he added.

Oluwaseun Falade-Nwulia, MBBS, MPH, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, emphasized the importance of removing barriers to HCV treatment and expanding HCV care out of specialist offices. She noted that treatment for HCV infection should begin immediately after a patient’s diagnosis. Previously, guidelines recommended waiting 6 months from the time a patient was diagnosed with HCV to begin treatment to see whether the patient’s body could clear the infection on its own. Now, guidelines recommend that after a diagnosis of acute HCV, “HCV treatment should be initiated without awaiting spontaneous resolution.” But some insurance companies still ask for evidence that a patient has been infected for at least 6 months before approving therapy, Dr. Falade-Nwulia noted.

“We have a system that has so many structural barriers for patients who we know already have so many social determinants of health working against them to access any health care,” she said. “I think it’s doubly devastating that patients that can actually get to a provider and get a prescription may still not have access to [the medication] because of structural barriers, such as restrictions based on a need to prove chronicity.”

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

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Two very different sets of clinical evidence have offered new twists on how nonadherence to cardiovascular medicines not only leads to suboptimal outcomes, but also complicates the data from clinical studies.

One study, a subanalysis of a major trial, outlined how taking more than the assigned therapy – that is, nonadherence by taking too much rather than too little – skewed results. The other was a trial demonstrating that early use of an invasive procedure is not a strategy to compensate for nonadherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“Both studies provide a fresh reminder that nonadherence is a significant problem in cardiology overall, but also in the trial setting when we are trying to interpret study results,” explained Usam Baber, MD, director of interventional cardiology, University of Oklahoma Health, Oklahoma City, coauthor of an editorial accompanying the two published studies.

Dr. Baber was the first author of a unifying editorial that addressed the issues raised by each. In an interview, Dr. Baber said the studies had unique take-home messages but together highlight important issues of nonadherence.
 

MASTER DAPT: Too much medicine

The subanalysis was performed on data generated by MASTER DAPT, a study evaluating whether a relatively short course of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients at high risk of bleeding could preserve protection against major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) while reducing risk of adverse events. The problem was that nonadherence muddied the primary message.

In MASTER DAPT, 1 month of DAPT was compared with a standard therapy of at least 2 additional months of DAPT following revascularization and placement of a biodegradable polymer stent. Enrollment in the study was restricted to those with a high risk of bleeding, the report of the primary results showed.

The major message of MASTER DAPT was that the abbreviated course of DAPT was noninferior for preventing MACE but resulted in lower rates of clinically relevant bleeding in those patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In the subgroup with an indication for OAC, there was no bleeding benefit.

However, when the results were reexamined in the context of adherence, the benefit of the shorter course was found to be underestimated. Relative to 9.4% in the standard-therapy arm, the nonadherence rate in the experimental arm was 20.2%, most of whom did not stop therapy at 1 month. They instead remained on the antiplatelet therapy, failing to adhere to the study protocol.

This form of nonadherence, taking more DAPT than assigned, was particularly common in the group with an indication for oral anticoagulation (OAC). In this group, nearly 25% assigned to an abbreviated course remained on DAPT for more than 6 months.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for MACE whether or not patients had an indication for OAC. In other words, the new analysis showed a reduced risk of bleeding among all patients, whether taking OAC or not after controlling for nonadherence.

In addition, this MASTER DAPT analysis found that a high proportion of patients taking OAC did not discontinue their single-antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after 6 months as specified.

When correcting for this failure to adhere to the MASTER DAPT protocol in a patient population at high bleeding risk, the new analysis “suggests for the first time that discontinuation of SAPT at 6 months after percutaneous intervention is associated with less bleeding without an increase in ischemic events,” Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, director of clinical research, Inselspital University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The findings “reinforce the importance of accounting and correcting for nonadherence” in order to reduce bias in the assessment of treatment effects, according to Dr. Valgimigli, principal investigator of MASTER DAPT and this substudy.

“The first interesting message from this study is that clinicians are reluctant to stop SAPT in these patients even in the setting of a randomized controlled trial,” Dr. Valgimigli said in an interview.

In addition, this substudy, which was prespecified in the MASTER DAPT protocol and employed “a very sophisticated methodology” to control for the effect of adherence, extends the value of a conservative approach to those who are candidates for OAC.

“The main clinical message is that SAPT needs to be discontinued after 6 months in OAC patients, and clinicians need to stop being reluctant to do so,” Dr. Valgimigli said. The data show “prolongation of SAPT increases bleeding risk without decreasing ischemic risk.”

In evaluating trial relevance, regulators prefer ITT analyses, but Dr. Baber pointed out that these can obscure the evidence of risk or benefit of a per-protocol analysis when patients take their medicine as prescribed.

“The technical message is that, when we are trying to apply results of a clinical trial to daily practice, we must understand nonadherence,” Dr. Baber said.

Dr. Baber pointed out that the lack of adherence in the case of MASTER DAPT appears to relate more to clinicians managing the patients than to the patients themselves, but it still speaks to the importance of understanding the effects of treatment in the context of the medicine rather than adherence to the medicine.

ISCHEMIA: Reconsidering adherence

In the ISCHEMIA trial, the goal was to evaluate whether an early invasive intervention might compensate to at least some degree for the persistent problem of nonadherence.

“If you are managing a patient that you know is at high risk of noncompliance, many clinicians are tempted to perform early revascularization. This was my bias. The thinking is that by offering an invasive therapy we are at least doing something to control their disease,” John A. Spertus, MD, clinical director of outcomes research, St. Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., explained in an interview.

The study did not support the hypothesis. Patients with chronic coronary disease were randomized to a strategy of angiography and, if indicated, revascularization, or to receive GDMT alone. The health status was followed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ-7).

At 12 months, patients who were adherent to GDMT had better SAQ-7 scores than those who were nonadherent, regardless of the arm to which they were randomized. Conversely, there was no difference in SAQ-7 scores between the two groups when the nonadherent subgroups in each arm were compared.

“I think these data suggest that an interventional therapy does not absolve clinicians from the responsibility of educating patients about the importance of adhering to GDMT,” Dr. Spertus said.

In ISCHEMIA, 4,480 patients were randomized. At baseline assessment 27.8% were nonadherent to GDMT. The baselines SAQ-7 scores were worse in these patients relative to those who were adherent. At 12 months, nonadherence still correlated with worse SAQ-7 scores.

“These data dispel the belief that we might be benefiting nonadherent patients by moving more quickly to invasive procedures,” Dr. Spertus said.

In cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, adherence to GDMT has been associated numerous times with improved quality of life, according to Dr. Baber. However, he said, the ability of invasive procedures to modify the adverse impact of poor adherence to GDMT has not been well studied. This ISCHEMIA subanalysis only reinforces the message that GDMT adherence is a meaningful predictor of improved quality of life.

However, urging clinicians to work with patients to improve adherence is not a novel idea, according to Dr. Baber. The unmet need is effective and reliable strategies.

“There are so many different reasons that patients are nonadherent, so there are limited gains by focusing on just one of the issues,” Dr. Baber said. “I think the answer is a patient-centric approach in which clinicians deal with the specific issues facing the patient in front of them. I think there are data go suggest this yields better results.”

These two very different studies also show that poor adherence is an insidious issue. While the MASTER DAPT data reveal how nonadherence confuse trial data, the ISCHEMIA trial shows that some assumptions about circumventing the effects of nonadherence might not be accurate.

According to Dr. Baber, effective strategies to reduce nonadherence are available, but the problem deserves to be addressed more proactively in clinical trials and in patient care.

Dr. Baber reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca and Amgen. Dr. Spertus has financial relationships with Abbott, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Corvia, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has financial relationships with more than 15 pharmaceutical companies, including Terumo, which provided funding for the MASTER DAPT trial.
 

Polio virus has been discovered in New York City’s sewers, suggesting that the virus is circulating in the city, New York’s health authorities said Aug. 12.

The detection of polio in NYC is alarming but not surprising, said New York State Health Commissioner Mary Bassett, MD, MPH.

“For every one case of paralytic polio identified, hundreds more may be undetected,” Dr. Bassett said. “The best way to keep adults and children polio-free is through safe and effective immunization.”

Polio can cause permanent paralysis of limbs and even death in some cases. Before this outbreak, the last case of polio in the United States was in 2013.

The announcement came after a man in Rockland County, New York, north of the city, was stricken with polio at the end of July and paralyzed.

Now, health officials fear that the detection of polio in NYC wastewater could bring other cases of paralytic polio.

“It is not surprising, since this is something already seen with Rockland County,” Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, told this news organization. “This is solely the result of under-vaccination in the area. I think it’s likely that we will see a few paralytic cases but not a high number.”
 

Vaccinations declined in pandemic

Among the worries is that vaccination rates across New York City dipped during the pandemic because pediatrician visits were postponed.

In New York City, the overall rate of polio vaccination among children aged 5 years or younger is 86%. Still, in some city ZIP codes, fewer than two-thirds of children in that age group have received the full dosage, which worries health officials.

However, most adults were vaccinated against polio as children.

Across New York state, nearly 80% of people have been vaccinated, according to data from the state public health department. Those who are unvaccinated are at risk, but the polio vaccine is nearly 100% effective in people who are fully immunized.

New York health authorities are calling on those who are unvaccinated to get their shots immediately.

“The risk to New Yorkers is real, but the defense is so simple – get vaccinated against polio,” New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “Polio is entirely preventable, and its reappearance should be a call for all of us.”

Though many of those who are infected have no symptoms, about 4% will get viral meningitis “and about 1 in 200 will become paralyzed,” according to a news release.
 

Symptoms can be flu-like

Symptoms can include those similar to the flu, such as sore throat, fever, fatigue, nausea, and stomach ache. There is no cure for the disease. 

The city’s health department has given no details about where exactly polio had been found in NYC’s wastewater nor did they give dates the virus was detected.

Health authorities urged parents of children who are not yet fully vaccinated to bring them to their pediatricians.

In 1916, polio killed 6,000 people in the United States and left at least another 21,000 – most of them children – permanently disabled.

An outbreak in 1952 caused paralysis in more than 20,000 people and left many children on iron lungs. The first effective vaccine emerged just a few years later and the virus began to wane.

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

Polio virus has been discovered in New York City’s sewers, suggesting that the virus is circulating in the city, New York’s health authorities said Aug. 12.

The detection of polio in NYC is alarming but not surprising, said New York State Health Commissioner Mary Bassett, MD, MPH.

“For every one case of paralytic polio identified, hundreds more may be undetected,” Dr. Bassett said. “The best way to keep adults and children polio-free is through safe and effective immunization.”

Polio can cause permanent paralysis of limbs and even death in some cases. Before this outbreak, the last case of polio in the United States was in 2013.

The announcement came after a man in Rockland County, New York, north of the city, was stricken with polio at the end of July and paralyzed.

Now, health officials fear that the detection of polio in NYC wastewater could bring other cases of paralytic polio.

“It is not surprising, since this is something already seen with Rockland County,” Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, told this news organization. “This is solely the result of under-vaccination in the area. I think it’s likely that we will see a few paralytic cases but not a high number.”
 

Vaccinations declined in pandemic

Among the worries is that vaccination rates across New York City dipped during the pandemic because pediatrician visits were postponed.

In New York City, the overall rate of polio vaccination among children aged 5 years or younger is 86%. Still, in some city ZIP codes, fewer than two-thirds of children in that age group have received the full dosage, which worries health officials.

However, most adults were vaccinated against polio as children.

Across New York state, nearly 80% of people have been vaccinated, according to data from the state public health department. Those who are unvaccinated are at risk, but the polio vaccine is nearly 100% effective in people who are fully immunized.

New York health authorities are calling on those who are unvaccinated to get their shots immediately.

“The risk to New Yorkers is real, but the defense is so simple – get vaccinated against polio,” New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “Polio is entirely preventable, and its reappearance should be a call for all of us.”

Though many of those who are infected have no symptoms, about 4% will get viral meningitis “and about 1 in 200 will become paralyzed,” according to a news release.
 

Symptoms can be flu-like

Symptoms can include those similar to the flu, such as sore throat, fever, fatigue, nausea, and stomach ache. There is no cure for the disease. 

The city’s health department has given no details about where exactly polio had been found in NYC’s wastewater nor did they give dates the virus was detected.

Health authorities urged parents of children who are not yet fully vaccinated to bring them to their pediatricians.

In 1916, polio killed 6,000 people in the United States and left at least another 21,000 – most of them children – permanently disabled.

An outbreak in 1952 caused paralysis in more than 20,000 people and left many children on iron lungs. The first effective vaccine emerged just a few years later and the virus began to wane.

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

Polio virus has been discovered in New York City’s sewers, suggesting that the virus is circulating in the city, New York’s health authorities said Aug. 12.

The detection of polio in NYC is alarming but not surprising, said New York State Health Commissioner Mary Bassett, MD, MPH.

“For every one case of paralytic polio identified, hundreds more may be undetected,” Dr. Bassett said. “The best way to keep adults and children polio-free is through safe and effective immunization.”

Polio can cause permanent paralysis of limbs and even death in some cases. Before this outbreak, the last case of polio in the United States was in 2013.

The announcement came after a man in Rockland County, New York, north of the city, was stricken with polio at the end of July and paralyzed.

Now, health officials fear that the detection of polio in NYC wastewater could bring other cases of paralytic polio.

“It is not surprising, since this is something already seen with Rockland County,” Amesh Adalja, MD, senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, told this news organization. “This is solely the result of under-vaccination in the area. I think it’s likely that we will see a few paralytic cases but not a high number.”
 

Vaccinations declined in pandemic

Among the worries is that vaccination rates across New York City dipped during the pandemic because pediatrician visits were postponed.

In New York City, the overall rate of polio vaccination among children aged 5 years or younger is 86%. Still, in some city ZIP codes, fewer than two-thirds of children in that age group have received the full dosage, which worries health officials.

However, most adults were vaccinated against polio as children.

Across New York state, nearly 80% of people have been vaccinated, according to data from the state public health department. Those who are unvaccinated are at risk, but the polio vaccine is nearly 100% effective in people who are fully immunized.

New York health authorities are calling on those who are unvaccinated to get their shots immediately.

“The risk to New Yorkers is real, but the defense is so simple – get vaccinated against polio,” New York City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan, MD, PhD, said in a statement. “Polio is entirely preventable, and its reappearance should be a call for all of us.”

Though many of those who are infected have no symptoms, about 4% will get viral meningitis “and about 1 in 200 will become paralyzed,” according to a news release.
 

Symptoms can be flu-like

Symptoms can include those similar to the flu, such as sore throat, fever, fatigue, nausea, and stomach ache. There is no cure for the disease. 

The city’s health department has given no details about where exactly polio had been found in NYC’s wastewater nor did they give dates the virus was detected.

Health authorities urged parents of children who are not yet fully vaccinated to bring them to their pediatricians.

In 1916, polio killed 6,000 people in the United States and left at least another 21,000 – most of them children – permanently disabled.

An outbreak in 1952 caused paralysis in more than 20,000 people and left many children on iron lungs. The first effective vaccine emerged just a few years later and the virus began to wane.

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

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

The connection between red meat and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease has been well established, but newly reported findings indicate that metabolites in the gut microbiome may explain that relationship more than cholesterol and blood pressure.

“Eating more meat, especially red meat and processed meats, is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, even later in life,” co–lead study author Meng Wang, PhD, said in an interview.

The study, from a large community-based cohort of older people, included 3,931 U.S. participants aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). It found that gut microbiota–generated metabolites of dietary L-carnitine, including trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), have a role in the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD.

“TMAO-related metabolites produced by our gut microbes as well as blood-glucose and insulin homeostasis and systematic inflammation appeared to explain much of the association, more so than blood cholesterol or blood pressure,” added Dr. Wang, of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, Boston.

Dr. Wang said this study was unique because it focused specifically on older adults; the average participant age was 72.9 years. “Older adults are at the highest risk of CVD, and for them adequate intake of protein may help to offset aging-related loss of muscle mass and strength,” she said. However, the study population was largely white (88%), so, she said, the results may not be generalizable to populations that are younger or of different nationalities and races.

The researchers performed a multivariable analysis that showed that participants who had higher intakes of unprocessed red meat, total meat, and total animal source foods (ASF) had higher hazard ratios of ASCVD risk. The study had a median follow-up of 12.5 years. It divided the study population into five quintiles based on how much unprocessed red met they consumed at baseline and analyzed dietary exposure in the differences between the midpoints of the first and fifth quintiles.

Earlier studies of meat intake and CVD risk focused mostly on saturated fat and blood cholesterol, Dr. Wang added. “But our findings suggest that other components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron, might play a more important role than saturated fat,” she said.

camij/thinkstockphotos.com

Higher intake of unprocessed red meat was linked to a 15% higher incidence of ASCVD per interquintile range (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.30; P = .031). Total meat intake, defined as unprocessed plus processed red meat, was tied to a 22% higher incidence of ASCVD (HR, 1.22; CI, 1.07-1.39; P = .004).

The study found no significant association between fish, poultry, or egg intake and incident ASCVD, but found total ASF intake had an 18% higher risk (HR, 1.18; CI, 1.03–1.34; P = .016).
 

Explaining the red meat–CVD connection

“The more novel part of our study is about the mediation analysis,” Dr. Wang said. “It helps explain why meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD. We identified several biological pathways, including the novel one through TMAO-related metabolites produced by the gut microbiome.”

Three gut microbiota–generated metabolites of L-carnitine – TMAO, gamma-butyrobetaine, and crotonobetaine – seem to partly explain the association between unprocessed red meat intake and incident ASCVD, the study reported.

The study found 3.92 excess ASCVD events per 1,000 person years associated with each interquintile range of higher unprocessed red meat intake; 10.6% of them were attributed to plasma levels of the three L-carnitine metabolites (95% CI, 1.0-114.5).

In this study, neither blood cholesterol nor blood pressure levels seemed to explain the elevated risk of ASCVD associated with meat intake, but blood glucose and insulin did, with mediation proportions of 26.1% and 11.8%, respectively.

Study strengths are its size and its general population cohort with well-measured CVD risk factors, Dr. Wang pointed out. All participants were free of clinically diagnosed CVD at enrollment, which minimized selection bias and reverse causation, she said. However, she acknowledged that the use of self-reported diet intake data, along with the largely white population, constitute limitations.

“Our study findings need to be confirmed in different populations and more research efforts are needed to better understand the health effects of some of the components in red meat, such as L-carnitine and heme iron,” Dr. Wang said.

“This study is interesting in that it doesn’t just ask the question, ‘Is eating red meat associated with coronary disease and atherosclerotic disease?’ but it tells what the mechanism is,” Robert Vogel, MD, professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said in an interview.

The association between red meat and ASCVD is “an established science,” he said. “Where this study adds to the literature is that it suggests that elevated LDL cholesterol or blood pressure, things – especially the former – that are thought to be associated with coronary disease, may or may not be the mechanism.” He cautioned, however, “this is all associative data.”

The study “produces incremental knowledge for the association between eating red met and atherosclerosis, but it does not establish causality,” Dr. Vogel added.

Dr. Wang has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Vogel is a consultant to the Pritikin Longevity Center in Miami.

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

New York City is closing 10 city-run sites where children younger than 5 could get the COVID-19 vaccine, with three of those sites transitioning to administer the monkeypox vaccine.

The city health department said demand for children’s COVID vaccines had been on the downswing at the clinics, which opened in late June. Meanwhile, monkeypox cases have increased, with the city declaring it a public health emergency July 30.

“We always planned to transition vaccination for very young children to providers,” the city’s health department said in a statement, according to Spectrum News NY1. “Due to the ongoing monkeypox emergency, we transitioned some of these sites to administer monkeypox vaccine.”

All the COVID vaccine sites for children will close by Aug. 14, Spectrum News NY1 said. It’s unclear if the other sites will transition to monkeypox vaccine.

No appointments for children’s COVID vaccinations had to be canceled, the city said. The plan is that children now needing the COVID vaccine can go to doctors, pharmacies, or the health department clinics.

Manhattan City Councilwoman Gale Brewer urged the health department to keep the kids’ COVID vaccine sites open through the fall.

“I strongly urge you to maintain these family-friendly sites, at least until mid-September so that children who are going to day care and school can get vaccinated,” Brewer wrote. City schools open Sept. 8

Ms. Brewer noted that the city-run sites administered the Moderna vaccines, while many doctors and neighborhood health clinics use the Pfizer vaccine. That could be a problem for a child that had not finished the Moderna regimen or for families that prefer Moderna.

According to the city health department, 2,130 people in New York City had tested positive for monkeypox as of Aug. 12.

On Friday, the city announced 9,000 additional monkeypox vaccines would be made available the morning of Aug. 13.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Hair loss, reduced sex drive, and erectile dysfunction have joined a list of better-known symptoms linked to long COVID in patients who were not hospitalized, according to findings of a large study.

Anuradhaa Subramanian, PhD, with the Institute of Applied Health Research at the University of Birmingham (England), led the research published online in Nature Medicine.

The team analyzed 486,149 electronic health records from adult patients with confirmed COVID in the United Kingdom, compared with 1.9 million people with no history of COVID, from January 2020 to April 2021. Researchers matched both groups closely in terms of demographic, social, and clinical traits.
 

New symptoms

The team identified 62 symptoms, including the well-known indicators of long COVID, such as fatigue, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, and brain fog, but also hair loss, sexual dysfunction, chest pain, fever, loss of control of bowel movements, and limb swelling.

“These differences in symptoms reported between the infected and uninfected groups remained even after we accounted for age, sex, ethnic group, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, the presence of more than 80 health conditions, and past reporting of the same symptom,” Dr. Subramanian and coresearcher Shamil Haroon, PhD, wrote in a summary of their research in The Conversation.

They pointed out that only 20 of the symptoms they found are included in the World Health Organization’s clinical case definition for long COVID.

They also found that people more likely to have persistent symptoms 3 months after COVID infection were also more likely to be young, female, smokers, to belong to certain minority ethnic groups, and to have lower socioeconomic status. They were also more likely to be obese and have a wide range of health conditions.

Dr. Haroon, an associate clinical professor at the University of Birmingham, said that one reason it appeared that younger people were more likely to get symptoms of long COVID may be that older adults with COVID were more likely to be hospitalized and weren’t included in this study.

“Since we only considered nonhospitalized adults, the older adults we included in our study may have been relatively healthier and thus had a lower symptom burden,” he said.

Dr. Subramania noted that older patients were more likely to report lasting COVID-related symptoms in the study, but when researchers accounted for a wide range of other conditions that patients had before infection (which generally more commonly happen in older adults), they found younger age as a risk factor for long-term COVID-related symptoms.

In the study period, most patients were unvaccinated, and results came before the widespread Delta and Omicron variants.

More than half (56.6%) of the patients infected with the virus that causes COVID had been diagnosed in 2020, and 43.4% in 2021. Less than 5% (4.5%) of the patients infected with the virus and 4.7% of the patients with no recorded evidence of a COVID infection had received at least a single dose of a COVID vaccine before the study started.

Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and editor-in-chief of Medscape, said more studies need to be done to see whether results would be different with vaccination status and evolving variants.

But he noted that this study has several strengths: “The hair loss, libido loss, and ejaculation difficulty are all new symptoms,” and the study – large and carefully controlled – shows these issues were among those more likely to occur.

A loss of sense of smell – which is not a new observation – was still the most likely risk shown in the study, followed by hair loss, sneezing, ejaculation difficulty, and reduced sex drive; followed by shortness of breath, fatigue, chest pain associated with breathing difficulties, hoarseness, and fever.
 

Three main clusters of symptoms

Given the wide range of symptoms, long COVID likely represents a group of conditions, the authors wrote.

They found three main clusters. The largest, with roughly 80% of people with long COVID in the study, faced a broad spectrum of symptoms, ranging from fatigue to headache and pain. The second-largest group, (15%) mostly had symptoms having to do with mental health and thinking skills, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and insomnia. The smallest group (5%) had mainly respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath, coughing, and wheezing.

Putting symptoms in clusters will be important to start understanding what leads to long COVID, said Farha Ikramuddin, MD, a rehabilitation specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

She added that, while the symptoms listed in this paper are new in published research, she has certainly been seeing them over time in her long COVID clinic. (The researchers also used only coded health care data, so they were limited in what symptoms they could discover, she notes.)

Dr. Ikramuddin said a strength of the paper is its large size, but she also cautioned that it’s difficult to determine whether members of the comparison group truly had no COVID infection when the information is taken from their medical records. Often, people test at home or assume they have COVID and don’t test; therefore the information wouldn’t be recorded.

Evaluating nonhospitalized patients is also important, she said, as much of the research on long COVID has come from hospitalized patients, so little has been known about the symptoms of those with milder infections.

“Patients who have been hospitalized and have long COVID look very different from the patients who were not hospitalized,” Dr. Ikramuddin said.

One clear message from the paper, she said, is that listening and asking extensive questions about symptoms are important with patients who have had COVID.

“Counseling has also become very important for our patients in the pandemic,” she said.

It will also be important to do studies on returning to work for patients with long COVID to see how many are able to return and at what capacity, Dr. Ikramuddin said.

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

Lung cancer screening has been a success story in high-income countries, leading to a shift in diagnoses to earlier stages and a reduction in mortality among eligible groups.

A new report shows that middle- and low-income countries are being left out. “We do have good screening programs and some national ones, even in smaller European countries and in Canada, but in low- and middle-income countries where the mortality rates and the incidence of lung cancer is higher than in high-income countries, these programs are not implemented either at all or not implemented nationwide. This is a huge problem in the world,” said Milena Cavic, PhD, who presented the interim results on behalf of the diagnostics working group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer early detection and screening committee at a press conference on Aug. 7 at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Cavic is a senior research associate at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade.

“It’s definitely a work in progress, and it’s also about raising awareness of the problem. In several parts of Asia, in Taiwan, in Korea, smoking is not the major, or at least, not the only reason for getting lung cancer. The other reasons are family history and also environmental factors like cooking fires, etc. So, the criteria we have for screening in Western countries are not one to one implementable in these countries,” said Rudolf Huber, MD, PhD, a respiratory physician at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and a coauthor of the report.

The report also pointed out the lack of recommendations for lung cancer screening in middle- and low-income countries. One approach would be to produce recommendations for countries with similar infrastructures and health resources, as well as primary risk factors such as smoking or cooking fires. “We have to adapt it to the various situations,” said Dr. Huber.

Another possibility is to rework existing recommendations for high income countries to adapt them to low- and middle-income countries. In the coming year, the working group will conduct a modeling study of Serbia, China, South Africa, and Columbia. It will look at population-specific and geographic factors from each country to produce country-specific models. “It will be interesting to see if these models will give us new recommendations for countries like this. So we can derive something from the high-income countries, but it will need to be adapted very, very much,” said Dr. Cavic.

The report highlighted some of the disparities between countries. CT scanners are far more common in high-income countries. Japan leads the way at 111.5 per million residents, followed by Australia at 70.2, Iceland at 47.6, and the United States at 44.9. At the other end is Columbia with 1.3, which trails Mexico at 5.9, Hungary at 9.4, and the United Kingdom at 9.5. However, the authors point out that there is no consensus on the optimum number of CT scanners per capita, since too few can lead to lack of access and too many can result in overuse. In fact, the greatest number of CT scans performed per capita was in the United States (278.5 per million), followed by Iceland (234.4), Japan (230.8), and Korea (228.1).

Lung cancer screening can be at odds with other health priorities, especially in low-income countries. These can include HIV, tuberculosis, and granulomatous diseases. But that could also provide an opportunity, according to Dr. Huber. “For example, in South Africa, tuberculosis programs are done by chest x-ray. We now have data that [allows us to] detect nodules by artificial intelligence, so one of the things we are thinking about is whether we could even use chest x-ray to get an earlier detection. At the end, it may be that in some countries it’s possible to do the classical CT screening, while in other countries we have to adapt to other options – probably chest x-ray using artificial intelligence or computer-aided diagnosis. And, then a consequent program for following up and managing the incidentally diagnosed nodules.”

The group is hoping to explore the environmental factors that could affect lung cancer risk in middle- and low-income countries. That is difficult to do, however, because smoking data can be hard to come by in many countries, and there is general uncertainty about what other risk factors may exist, though air pollution is a clear suspect. “It is something we are hoping to focus on in the future because there is a subgroup of individuals without a smoking history who are at high risk. It would be really good to find this high-risk population that should actually be screened in the future,” Dr. Cavic said.

Some countries have no data on lung cancer screening. For example, only South Africa is represented from Africa, and data is missing from many countries in Asia. The diagnostics working group of the IASLC early detection and screening committee has created a survey to gather information on the availability of lung cancer screening and its effect on diagnosis and treatment in countries throughout the world.

Dr. Cavic and Dr. Huber reported no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the IASLC.

Lung cancer screening has been a success story in high-income countries, leading to a shift in diagnoses to earlier stages and a reduction in mortality among eligible groups.

A new report shows that middle- and low-income countries are being left out. “We do have good screening programs and some national ones, even in smaller European countries and in Canada, but in low- and middle-income countries where the mortality rates and the incidence of lung cancer is higher than in high-income countries, these programs are not implemented either at all or not implemented nationwide. This is a huge problem in the world,” said Milena Cavic, PhD, who presented the interim results on behalf of the diagnostics working group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer early detection and screening committee at a press conference on Aug. 7 at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Cavic is a senior research associate at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade.

“It’s definitely a work in progress, and it’s also about raising awareness of the problem. In several parts of Asia, in Taiwan, in Korea, smoking is not the major, or at least, not the only reason for getting lung cancer. The other reasons are family history and also environmental factors like cooking fires, etc. So, the criteria we have for screening in Western countries are not one to one implementable in these countries,” said Rudolf Huber, MD, PhD, a respiratory physician at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and a coauthor of the report.

The report also pointed out the lack of recommendations for lung cancer screening in middle- and low-income countries. One approach would be to produce recommendations for countries with similar infrastructures and health resources, as well as primary risk factors such as smoking or cooking fires. “We have to adapt it to the various situations,” said Dr. Huber.

Another possibility is to rework existing recommendations for high income countries to adapt them to low- and middle-income countries. In the coming year, the working group will conduct a modeling study of Serbia, China, South Africa, and Columbia. It will look at population-specific and geographic factors from each country to produce country-specific models. “It will be interesting to see if these models will give us new recommendations for countries like this. So we can derive something from the high-income countries, but it will need to be adapted very, very much,” said Dr. Cavic.

The report highlighted some of the disparities between countries. CT scanners are far more common in high-income countries. Japan leads the way at 111.5 per million residents, followed by Australia at 70.2, Iceland at 47.6, and the United States at 44.9. At the other end is Columbia with 1.3, which trails Mexico at 5.9, Hungary at 9.4, and the United Kingdom at 9.5. However, the authors point out that there is no consensus on the optimum number of CT scanners per capita, since too few can lead to lack of access and too many can result in overuse. In fact, the greatest number of CT scans performed per capita was in the United States (278.5 per million), followed by Iceland (234.4), Japan (230.8), and Korea (228.1).

Lung cancer screening can be at odds with other health priorities, especially in low-income countries. These can include HIV, tuberculosis, and granulomatous diseases. But that could also provide an opportunity, according to Dr. Huber. “For example, in South Africa, tuberculosis programs are done by chest x-ray. We now have data that [allows us to] detect nodules by artificial intelligence, so one of the things we are thinking about is whether we could even use chest x-ray to get an earlier detection. At the end, it may be that in some countries it’s possible to do the classical CT screening, while in other countries we have to adapt to other options – probably chest x-ray using artificial intelligence or computer-aided diagnosis. And, then a consequent program for following up and managing the incidentally diagnosed nodules.”

The group is hoping to explore the environmental factors that could affect lung cancer risk in middle- and low-income countries. That is difficult to do, however, because smoking data can be hard to come by in many countries, and there is general uncertainty about what other risk factors may exist, though air pollution is a clear suspect. “It is something we are hoping to focus on in the future because there is a subgroup of individuals without a smoking history who are at high risk. It would be really good to find this high-risk population that should actually be screened in the future,” Dr. Cavic said.

Some countries have no data on lung cancer screening. For example, only South Africa is represented from Africa, and data is missing from many countries in Asia. The diagnostics working group of the IASLC early detection and screening committee has created a survey to gather information on the availability of lung cancer screening and its effect on diagnosis and treatment in countries throughout the world.

Dr. Cavic and Dr. Huber reported no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the IASLC.

Lung cancer screening has been a success story in high-income countries, leading to a shift in diagnoses to earlier stages and a reduction in mortality among eligible groups.

A new report shows that middle- and low-income countries are being left out. “We do have good screening programs and some national ones, even in smaller European countries and in Canada, but in low- and middle-income countries where the mortality rates and the incidence of lung cancer is higher than in high-income countries, these programs are not implemented either at all or not implemented nationwide. This is a huge problem in the world,” said Milena Cavic, PhD, who presented the interim results on behalf of the diagnostics working group of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer early detection and screening committee at a press conference on Aug. 7 at the World Conference on Lung Cancer. Dr. Cavic is a senior research associate at the Institute for Oncology and Radiology of Serbia in Belgrade.

“It’s definitely a work in progress, and it’s also about raising awareness of the problem. In several parts of Asia, in Taiwan, in Korea, smoking is not the major, or at least, not the only reason for getting lung cancer. The other reasons are family history and also environmental factors like cooking fires, etc. So, the criteria we have for screening in Western countries are not one to one implementable in these countries,” said Rudolf Huber, MD, PhD, a respiratory physician at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich and a coauthor of the report.

The report also pointed out the lack of recommendations for lung cancer screening in middle- and low-income countries. One approach would be to produce recommendations for countries with similar infrastructures and health resources, as well as primary risk factors such as smoking or cooking fires. “We have to adapt it to the various situations,” said Dr. Huber.

Another possibility is to rework existing recommendations for high income countries to adapt them to low- and middle-income countries. In the coming year, the working group will conduct a modeling study of Serbia, China, South Africa, and Columbia. It will look at population-specific and geographic factors from each country to produce country-specific models. “It will be interesting to see if these models will give us new recommendations for countries like this. So we can derive something from the high-income countries, but it will need to be adapted very, very much,” said Dr. Cavic.

The report highlighted some of the disparities between countries. CT scanners are far more common in high-income countries. Japan leads the way at 111.5 per million residents, followed by Australia at 70.2, Iceland at 47.6, and the United States at 44.9. At the other end is Columbia with 1.3, which trails Mexico at 5.9, Hungary at 9.4, and the United Kingdom at 9.5. However, the authors point out that there is no consensus on the optimum number of CT scanners per capita, since too few can lead to lack of access and too many can result in overuse. In fact, the greatest number of CT scans performed per capita was in the United States (278.5 per million), followed by Iceland (234.4), Japan (230.8), and Korea (228.1).

Lung cancer screening can be at odds with other health priorities, especially in low-income countries. These can include HIV, tuberculosis, and granulomatous diseases. But that could also provide an opportunity, according to Dr. Huber. “For example, in South Africa, tuberculosis programs are done by chest x-ray. We now have data that [allows us to] detect nodules by artificial intelligence, so one of the things we are thinking about is whether we could even use chest x-ray to get an earlier detection. At the end, it may be that in some countries it’s possible to do the classical CT screening, while in other countries we have to adapt to other options – probably chest x-ray using artificial intelligence or computer-aided diagnosis. And, then a consequent program for following up and managing the incidentally diagnosed nodules.”

The group is hoping to explore the environmental factors that could affect lung cancer risk in middle- and low-income countries. That is difficult to do, however, because smoking data can be hard to come by in many countries, and there is general uncertainty about what other risk factors may exist, though air pollution is a clear suspect. “It is something we are hoping to focus on in the future because there is a subgroup of individuals without a smoking history who are at high risk. It would be really good to find this high-risk population that should actually be screened in the future,” Dr. Cavic said.

Some countries have no data on lung cancer screening. For example, only South Africa is represented from Africa, and data is missing from many countries in Asia. The diagnostics working group of the IASLC early detection and screening committee has created a survey to gather information on the availability of lung cancer screening and its effect on diagnosis and treatment in countries throughout the world.

Dr. Cavic and Dr. Huber reported no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the IASLC.

Two children taking the gene therapy drug onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) have died from acute liver failure, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.

The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.

These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.

“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.

“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
 

Rare genetic disorder

SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.

Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.

The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.

“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.

Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.

Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.

The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.

That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.

None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.

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

Two children taking the gene therapy drug onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) have died from acute liver failure, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.

The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.

These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.

“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.

“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
 

Rare genetic disorder

SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.

Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.

The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.

“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.

Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.

Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.

The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.

That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.

None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.

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

Two children taking the gene therapy drug onasemnogene abeparvovec (Zolgensma, Novartis) for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) have died from acute liver failure, according to a statement issued by the drug›s manufacturer.

The patients were 4 months and 28 months of age and lived in Russia and Kazakhstan. They died 5-6 weeks after infusion with Zolgensma and approximately 1-10 days after the initiation of a corticosteroid taper.

These are the first known fatal cases of acute liver failure associated with the drug, which the company notes was a known side effect included in the product label and in a boxed warning in the United States.

“Following two recent patient fatalities, and in alignment with health authorities, we will be updating the labeling to specify that fatal acute liver failure has been reported,” the statement reads.

“While this is important safety information, it is not a new safety signal,” it adds.
 

Rare genetic disorder

SMA is a rare genetic disorder that affects about 1 in 10,000 newborns. Patients with SMA lack a working copy of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene, which encodes a protein called SMN that is critical for the maintenance and function of motor neurons.

Without this protein, motor neurons eventually die, causing debilitating and progressive muscle weakness that affects the ability to walk, eat, and breathe.

Zolgensma, a one-time gene replacement therapy delivered via intravenous infusion, replaces the function of the missing or nonworking SMN1 gene with a new, working copy of the SMN1 gene.

The first gene therapy treatment for SMA, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2019 for patients with SMA up to 2 years of age. It is also the most expensive drug in the world, costing about $2.1 million for a one-time treatment.

“We have notified health authorities in all markets where Zolgensma is used, including FDA, and are communicating to relevant healthcare professionals as an additional step in markets where this action is supported by health authorities,” the manufacturer’s statement says.

Studies have suggested that the treatment›s effects persist more than 5 years after infusion.

Clinical trials currently underway by Novartis are studying the drug’s long-term efficacy and safety and its potential use in older patients.

The company is also leading the phase 3 clinical trial STEER to test intrathecal (IT) administration of the drug in patients ages 2-18 years who have type 2 SMA.

That trial began late last year after the FDA lifted a 2-year partial hold on an earlier study. The FDA halted the STRONG trial in 2019, citing concerns from animal studies that IT administration may result in dorsal root ganglia injury. The partial hold was released last fall following positive study results in nonhuman primates.

None of the current trials will be affected by the two deaths reported this week, according to a Novartis spokesperson.

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