News

Heavier smoking significantly increased mortality in adults with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD), based on data from 377 individuals.

The negative impact of smoking on pulmonary diseases is well documented, but the specific impact on patients with PF-ILD has not been well studied, Mark Platenburg, MD, of St. Antonious Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in Respiratory Medicine .

GaryPhoto/ThinkStock

“Patients with PF-ILD or IPF [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis] are prone to early mortality, indicating a need for prognostic [bio]marker studies for precision medicine,” they said.

The researchers identified adults older than 18 years with PF-ILD who were diagnosed at a single center. All study participants had at least 10% fibrosis, and showed either a decline of at least 10% in forced vital capacity, a 5.0%-9.9% relative FVC decline plus progressive respiratory symptoms and/or an increase in extent of fibrosis on subsequent high-resolution (HRCT progression), or progressive respiratory symptoms and HRCT progression over 24 months after ILD diagnosis.

Pack-years of smoking was a prognostic variable; the researchers also compared median transplant-free survival in heavy smokers and mild to moderate smokers. They also investigated the association between smoking quantity and emphysema in the study population.

Overall, the increased risk for mortality was 11%, 22%, and 44% in patients with 10, 20, and 40 pack-years of smoking, respectively.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio for pack-years were significant (1.014, P < .001 and 1.011, P = .022, respectively).

The median transplant-free survival of ever-smokers versus never-smokers with PF-ILD was 3.3 years versus 4.8 years; median transplant-free survival was 3.0 years for heavy smokers and 3.8 years for mild to moderate smokers. Similarly, median survival was 4.2 years in never-smokers versus 3.0 years in former smokers.

Emphysema was significantly more comment in heavy smokers, compared with never smokers and mild to moderate smokers (P < .001 for both).

“We observed a gradual decrease in survival starting from never to mild-moderate and subsequent heavy smokers supporting our finding that [pack-years] is an independent predictor for mortality in PF-ILD,” the researchers wrote. “This is an important message that clinicians could convey to their ILD patients, but also to patients at-risk for ILD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the retrospective design, incomplete data for some patients, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results strengthen the evidence for the detrimental effect of heavy smoking in PF-ILD, they said. Consequently, “efforts to reduce pack-years in those with, and at risk for, PF-ILD may translate into a survival benefit and should have high priority in clinical practice.”

The study was supported by grants from ZonMw TopZorg Care and TZO. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Heavier smoking significantly increased mortality in adults with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD), based on data from 377 individuals.

The negative impact of smoking on pulmonary diseases is well documented, but the specific impact on patients with PF-ILD has not been well studied, Mark Platenburg, MD, of St. Antonious Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in Respiratory Medicine .

GaryPhoto/ThinkStock

“Patients with PF-ILD or IPF [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis] are prone to early mortality, indicating a need for prognostic [bio]marker studies for precision medicine,” they said.

The researchers identified adults older than 18 years with PF-ILD who were diagnosed at a single center. All study participants had at least 10% fibrosis, and showed either a decline of at least 10% in forced vital capacity, a 5.0%-9.9% relative FVC decline plus progressive respiratory symptoms and/or an increase in extent of fibrosis on subsequent high-resolution (HRCT progression), or progressive respiratory symptoms and HRCT progression over 24 months after ILD diagnosis.

Pack-years of smoking was a prognostic variable; the researchers also compared median transplant-free survival in heavy smokers and mild to moderate smokers. They also investigated the association between smoking quantity and emphysema in the study population.

Overall, the increased risk for mortality was 11%, 22%, and 44% in patients with 10, 20, and 40 pack-years of smoking, respectively.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio for pack-years were significant (1.014, P < .001 and 1.011, P = .022, respectively).

The median transplant-free survival of ever-smokers versus never-smokers with PF-ILD was 3.3 years versus 4.8 years; median transplant-free survival was 3.0 years for heavy smokers and 3.8 years for mild to moderate smokers. Similarly, median survival was 4.2 years in never-smokers versus 3.0 years in former smokers.

Emphysema was significantly more comment in heavy smokers, compared with never smokers and mild to moderate smokers (P < .001 for both).

“We observed a gradual decrease in survival starting from never to mild-moderate and subsequent heavy smokers supporting our finding that [pack-years] is an independent predictor for mortality in PF-ILD,” the researchers wrote. “This is an important message that clinicians could convey to their ILD patients, but also to patients at-risk for ILD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the retrospective design, incomplete data for some patients, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results strengthen the evidence for the detrimental effect of heavy smoking in PF-ILD, they said. Consequently, “efforts to reduce pack-years in those with, and at risk for, PF-ILD may translate into a survival benefit and should have high priority in clinical practice.”

The study was supported by grants from ZonMw TopZorg Care and TZO. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Heavier smoking significantly increased mortality in adults with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD), based on data from 377 individuals.

The negative impact of smoking on pulmonary diseases is well documented, but the specific impact on patients with PF-ILD has not been well studied, Mark Platenburg, MD, of St. Antonious Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands, and colleagues wrote in Respiratory Medicine .

GaryPhoto/ThinkStock

“Patients with PF-ILD or IPF [idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis] are prone to early mortality, indicating a need for prognostic [bio]marker studies for precision medicine,” they said.

The researchers identified adults older than 18 years with PF-ILD who were diagnosed at a single center. All study participants had at least 10% fibrosis, and showed either a decline of at least 10% in forced vital capacity, a 5.0%-9.9% relative FVC decline plus progressive respiratory symptoms and/or an increase in extent of fibrosis on subsequent high-resolution (HRCT progression), or progressive respiratory symptoms and HRCT progression over 24 months after ILD diagnosis.

Pack-years of smoking was a prognostic variable; the researchers also compared median transplant-free survival in heavy smokers and mild to moderate smokers. They also investigated the association between smoking quantity and emphysema in the study population.

Overall, the increased risk for mortality was 11%, 22%, and 44% in patients with 10, 20, and 40 pack-years of smoking, respectively.

Both the unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratio for pack-years were significant (1.014, P < .001 and 1.011, P = .022, respectively).

The median transplant-free survival of ever-smokers versus never-smokers with PF-ILD was 3.3 years versus 4.8 years; median transplant-free survival was 3.0 years for heavy smokers and 3.8 years for mild to moderate smokers. Similarly, median survival was 4.2 years in never-smokers versus 3.0 years in former smokers.

Emphysema was significantly more comment in heavy smokers, compared with never smokers and mild to moderate smokers (P < .001 for both).

“We observed a gradual decrease in survival starting from never to mild-moderate and subsequent heavy smokers supporting our finding that [pack-years] is an independent predictor for mortality in PF-ILD,” the researchers wrote. “This is an important message that clinicians could convey to their ILD patients, but also to patients at-risk for ILD.”

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the retrospective design, incomplete data for some patients, and lack of data on comorbidities, the researchers noted. However, the results strengthen the evidence for the detrimental effect of heavy smoking in PF-ILD, they said. Consequently, “efforts to reduce pack-years in those with, and at risk for, PF-ILD may translate into a survival benefit and should have high priority in clinical practice.”

The study was supported by grants from ZonMw TopZorg Care and TZO. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

The Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee has chosen the influenza vaccine strains for the 2022-2023 season in the northern hemisphere, which begins in the fall of 2022.

On March 3, the committee unanimously voted to endorse the World Health Organization’s recommendations as to which influenza strains to include for coverage by vaccines for the upcoming flu season. Two of the four recommended strains are different from last season.

The committee also heard updates on flu activity this season. So far, data from the U.S. Flu Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) network, which consists of seven study sites, have not shown that the vaccine is protective against influenza A. “We can say that it is not highly effective,” Brendan Flannery, PhD, who leads the U.S. Flu VE network for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in an interview. He was not involved with the advisory committee meeting. Flu activity this season has been low, he explained, so there are fewer cases his team can use to estimate vaccine efficacy. “If there’s some benefit, it’s hard for us to show that now,” he said.
 

Vaccine strains

The panel voted to include a A/Darwin/9/2021-like strain for the H3N2 component of the vaccine; this is changed from A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020. For the influenza B Victoria lineage component, the committee voted to include a B/Austria/1359417/2021-like virus, a swap from this year’s B/Washington/02/2019-like virus. These changes apply to the egg-based, cell-culture, and recombinant vaccines. Both new strains were included in WHO’s 2022 influenza vaccine strain recommendations for the southern hemisphere.

For the influenza A H1N1 component, the group also agreed to include a A/Victoria/2570/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for the egg-based vaccine and the A/Wisconsin/588/2019 (H1N1) pdm09-like virus for cell culture or recombinant vaccines. These strains were included for the 2021-2022 season. The panel also voted for the inclusion of a B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus (B/Yamagata lineage) as the second influenza B strain for the quadrivalent egg-based, cell culture, or recombinant vaccines, which is unchanged from this flu season.
 

‘Sporadic’ flu activity

While there was an uptick in influenza activity this year compared to the 2020-2021 season, hospitalization rates are lower than in the four seasons preceding the pandemic (from 2016-2017 to 2019-2020). As of Feb. 26, the cumulative hospitalization rate for this flu season was 5.2 hospitalizations per 100,000 individuals. There have been eight pediatric deaths due to influenza so far this season, compared to one pediatric death reported to the CDC during the 2020-2021 flu season.

About 4.1% of specimens tested at clinical laboratories were positive for flu. Since Oct. 30, 2.7% of specimens have been positive for influenza this season. Nearly all viruses detected (97.7%) have been influenza A.

Lisa Grohskopf, MD, MPH, a medical officer in the influenza division at the CDC who presented the data at the meeting, described flu activity this season as “sporadic” and noted that activity is increasing in some areas of the country. According to CDC’s weekly influenza surveillance report, most states had minimal influenza-like illness (ILI) activity, although Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, and Utah had slightly higher ILI activity as of Feb. 26. Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Brownwood, Texas, had the highest levels of flu activity in the country.
 

Low vaccine effectiveness

As of Jan. 22, results from the U.S. Flu VE network do not show statistically significant evidence that the flu vaccine is effective. Currently, the vaccine is estimated to be 8% effective against preventing influenza A infection (95% confidence interval, –31% to 36%) and 14% effective against preventing A/H3N2 infection (95% CI, –28% to 43%) for people aged 6 months and older.

The network did not have enough data to provide age-specific VE estimates or estimates of effectiveness against influenza B. This could be due to low flu activity relative to prepandemic years, Dr. Flannery said. Of the 2,758 individuals enrolled in the VE flu network this season, just 147 (5%) tested positive for the flu this season. This is the lowest positivity rate observed in the Flu VE network participants with respiratory illness over the past 10 flu seasons, Dr. Grohskopf noted. In comparison, estimates from the 2019 to 2020 season included 4,112 individuals, and 1,060 tested positive for flu.

“We are really at the bare minimum of what we can use for a flu vaccine effectiveness estimate,” Dr. Flannery said about the more recent data. The network was not able to produce any estimates about flu vaccine effectiveness for the 2020-2021 season because of historically low flu activity.

The Department of Defense also presented vaccine efficacy estimates for the 2021–2022 season. The vaccine has been 36% effective (95% CI, 28%-44%) against all strains of the virus, 33% effective against influenza A (95% CI, 24%-41%), 32% effective against A/H3N2 (95% CI, 3%-53%), and 59% effective against influenza B (95% CI, 42%-71%). These results are from a young, healthy adult population, Lieutenant Commander Courtney Gustin, DrPH, MSN, told the panel, and they may not be reflective of efficacy rates across all age groups.

Though these findings suggest there is low to no measurable benefit against influenza A, Dr. Flannery said the CDC still recommends getting the flu vaccine, as it can be protective against other circulating flu strains. “We have been able to demonstrate protection against other H3 [viruses], B viruses, and H1 viruses in the past,” he said. And as these results only show protection against mild disease, “there is still possibility that there’s benefit against more severe disease,” he added. Studies measuring effectiveness against more severe outcomes are not yet available.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

As the COVID-19 pandemic winds down – for the time being at least – efforts are ramping up to develop next-generation vaccines that can protect against future novel coronaviruses and variants. Several projects are presenting clever combinations of viral parts to the immune system that evoke a robust and hopefully lasting response.

The coming generation of “pan” vaccines aims to tamp down SARS-CoV-2, its closest relatives, and whatever may come into tamer respiratory viruses like the common cold. Whatever the eventual components of this new generation of vaccines, experts agree on the goal: preventing severe disease and death. And a broader approach is critical.

“All the vaccines have been amazing. But we’re playing a whack-a-mole game with the variants. We need to take a step back and ask if a pan-variant vaccine is possible. That’s important because Omicron isn’t the last variant,” said Jacob Lemieux, MD, PhD, instructor in medicine and infectious disease specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
 

A broad spectrum vaccine

The drive to create a vaccine that would deter multiple coronaviruses arose early, among many researchers. An article published in Nature in May 2020 by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases researcher Luca T. Giurgea, MD, and colleagues said it all in the title: “Universal coronavirus vaccines: the time to start is now.”

Their concerns? The diversity of bat coronaviruses poised to jump into humans; the high mutability of the spike gene that the immune response recognizes; and the persistence of mutations in an RNA virus, which can’t repair errors. 

Work on broader vaccines began in several labs as SARS-CoV-2 spawned variant after variant.

On Sept. 28, NIAID announced funding for developing ‘pan-coronavirus’ vaccines – the quotation marks theirs to indicate that a magic bullet against any new coronavirus is unrealistic. “These new awards are designed to look ahead and prepare for the next generation of coronaviruses with pandemic potential,” said NIAID director Anthony S. Fauci, MD. An initial three awards went to groups at the University of Wisconsin, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Duke University.

President Biden mentioned the NIAID funding in his State of the Union Address. He also talked about how the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, founded in 2006 to prepare for public health emergencies, is spearheading development of new vaccine platforms and vaccines that target a broader swath of pathogen parts.

Meanwhile, individual researchers from eclectic fields are finding new ways to prevent future pandemics.

Artem Babaian, PhD, a computational biologist at the University of Cambridge (England), had the idea to probe National Institutes of Health genome databases, going back more than a decade, for overlooked novel coronaviruses. He started the project while he was between jobs as the pandemic was unfurling, using a telltale enzyme unique to the RNA viruses to fish out COVID cousins. The work is published in Nature and the data freely available at serratus.io.

Among the nearly 132,000 novel RNA viruses Dr. Babaian’s team found, 9 were from previously unrecognized coronaviruses. The novel nine came from “ecologically diverse sources”: a seahorse, an axolotl, an eel, and several fishes. Deciphering the topographies of these coronaviruses may provide clues to developing vaccines that stay ahead of future pandemics.

But optics are important in keeping expectations reasonable. “‘Universal vaccine’ is a misnomer. I think about it as ‘broad spectrum vaccines.’ It’s critical to be up front that these vaccines can never guarantee immunity against all coronaviruses. There are no absolutes in biology, but they hopefully will work against the dangers that we do know exist. A vaccine that mimics exposure to many coronaviruses could protect against a currently unknown coronavirus, especially if slower-evolving antigens are included,” Dr. Babaian said in an interview.

Nikolai Petrovsky, MD, PhD, of Flinders University, Adelaide, and the biotechnology company Vaccine Pty, agrees, calling a literal pan-coronavirus vaccine a “pipe dream. What I do think is achievable is a broadly protective, pan–CoV-19 vaccine – I can say that because we have already developed and tested it, combining antigens rather than trying just one that can do everything.”
 

Immunity lures

The broader vaccines in development display viral antigens, such as spike proteins, to the immune system on diverse frameworks. Here are a few approaches.

Ferritin nanoparticles: A candidate vaccine from the emerging infectious diseases branch of Water Reed National Military Medical Center began phase 1 human trials in April 2021. Called SpFN, the vaccine consists of arrays of ferritin nanoparticles linked to spike proteins from various variants and species. Ferritin is a protein that binds and stores iron in the body.

“The repetitive and ordered display of the coronavirus spike protein on a multifaced nanoparticle may stimulate immunity in such a way as to translate into significantly broader protection,” said Walter Reed’s branch director and vaccine coinventor Kayvon Modjarrad, MD, PhD.

A second vaccine targets only the “bullseye” part of the spike that the virus uses to attach and gain access to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain (RBD), of SARS-CoV-2 variants and of the virus behind the original SARS. The preclinical data appeared in Science Translational Medicine.

Barton Haynes, MD and colleagues at the Duke Human Vaccine Institute are also using ferritin to design and develop a “pan-betacoronavirus vaccine,” referring to the genus to which SARS-CoV-2 belongs. They say their results in macaques, published in Nature, “demonstrate that current mRNA-based vaccines may provide some protection from future outbreaks of zoonotic betacoronaviruses.”

Mosaic nanoparticles: Graduate student Alexander Cohen is leading an effort at CalTech, in the lab of Pamela Bjorkman, PhD, that uses nanoparticles consisting of proteins from a bacterium (Strep pyogenes) to which RBDs from spike proteins of four or eight different betacoronaviruses are attached. The strategy demonstrates that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

“Alex’s results show that it is possible to raise diverse neutralizing antibody responses, even against coronavirus strains that were not represented on the injected nanoparticle. We are hopeful that this technology could be used to protect against future animal coronaviruses that cross into humans,” said Dr. Björkman. The work appeared in Science.

Candidate vaccines from Inovio Pharmaceuticals also use a mosaic spike strategy, but with DNA rings (plasmids) rather than nanoparticles. One version works against pre-Omicron variants and is being tested against Omicron, and another with “pan–COVID-19” coverage has tested well in animal models. Inovio’s vaccines are delivered into the skin using a special device that applies an electric pulse that increases the cells’ permeability.

Chimeric spikes: Yet another approach is to fashion vaccines from various parts of the betacoronaviruses that are most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 – the pathogens behind Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome as well as several bat viruses and a few pangolin ones. The abundance and ubiquity of these viruses provide a toolbox of sorts, with instructions written in the language of RNA, from which to select, dissect, recombine, and customize vaccines.

“SARS-like viruses can recombine and exhibit great genetic diversity in several parts of the genome. We designed chimeric spikes to improve coverage of a multiplexed vaccine,” said David Martinez, PhD.

His team at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has developed mRNA vaccines that deliver “scrambled coronavirus spikes” representing various parts, not just the RBD, as described in Science.

In mice, the chimeric vaccines elicit robust T- and B-cell immune responses, which stimulate antibody production and control other facets of building immunity.
 

Beyond the spike bullseye

The challenge of developing pan-coronavirus vaccines is dual. “The very best vaccines are highly specific to each strain, and the universal vaccines have to sacrifice effectiveness to get broad coverage. Life is a trade-off.” Dr. Petrovsky told this news organization. 

Efforts to broaden vaccine efficacy venture beyond targeting the RBD bullseyes of the spike triplets that festoon the virus. Some projects are focusing on less changeable spike parts that are more alike among less closely related coronaviruses than is the mutation-prone RBD. For example, the peptides that twist into the “stem-helix” portion of the part of the spike that adheres to host cells are the basis of some candidate vaccines now in preclinical studies.

Still other vaccines aren’t spike based at all. French company Osivax, for example, is working on a vaccine that targets the nucleocapsid protein that shields the viral RNA. The hope is that presenting various faces of the pathogen may spark immunity beyond an initial antibody rush and evoke more diverse and lasting T-cell responses.

With the myriad efforts to back up the first generation of COVID-19 vaccines with new ones offering broader protection, it appears that science may have finally learned from history.

“After the SARS outbreak, we lost interest and failed to complete development of a vaccine for use in case of a recurrent outbreak. We must not make the same mistake again,” Dr. Giurgea and colleagues wrote in their Nature article about universal coronavirus vaccines.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Data from the first 6 months after the rollout of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States released today show that adverse effects from shots are typically mild and short-lived.

Findings of the large study, compiled after nearly 300 million doses were administered, were published online March 7 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

Researchers, led by Hannah G. Rosenblum, MD, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Response Team, used passive U.S. surveillance data collected through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), and the active system, v-safe, starting in December 2020 through the first 6 months of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program. V-safe is a voluntary, smartphone-based system set up in 2020 specifically for monitoring reactions to COVID-19 and health effects after vaccination. The health effects information from v-safe is presented in this study for the first time.

Of the 298.7 million doses of mRNA vaccines administered in the U.S. during the study period, VAERS processed 340,522 reports. Of those, 313,499 (92.1%) were nonserious; 22,527 (6.6%) were serious (nondeath); and 4,496 (1.3%) were deaths.

From v-safe reporting, researchers learned that about 71% of the 7.9 million participants reported local or systemic reactions, more frequently after dose 2 than after dose 1. Of those reporting reactions after dose 1, about two-thirds (68.6%) reported a local reaction and 52.7% reported a systemic reaction.

Among other findings:

• Injection-site pain occurred after dose 1 in 66.2% of participants and 68.6% after dose 2.
• One-third of participants (33.9%) reported fatigue after dose 1 and 55.7% after dose 2.
• Headache was reported among 27% of participants after dose 1 and 46.2% after dose 2.
• When injection site pain, fatigue, or headaches were reported, the reports were usually in the first week after vaccination.
• Reports of being unable to work or do normal daily activities, or instances of seeking medical care, occurred more commonly after dose 2 (32.1%) than after dose 1 (11.9%). Fewer than 1% of participants reported seeking medical care after dose 1 or 2 of the vaccine.
• Reactions and health effects were reported more often in female than in male recipients, and in people younger than 65 years, compared with older people.
• Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations, but the events are rare.

The authors wrote that these results are consistent with preauthorization clinical trials and early postauthorization reports.

“On the basis of our findings, mild to moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated,” they said, “particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients.”
 

‘Robust and reassuring data’

“The safety monitoring of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines stands out as the most comprehensive of any vaccine in U.S. history. The use of these complementary monitoring systems has provided robust and reassuring data,” Matthew S. Krantz, MD, with the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and Elizabeth J. Phillips, MD, with the department of pathology, microbiology, and immunology at Vanderbilt, wrote in a related commentary in The Lancet Infectious Diseases.

They point out that the v-safe reports of reactions are consistent with those reported from clinical trials and a large population study in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Phillips said in a press release, “[A]lthough approximately one in 1,000 individuals vaccinated may have an adverse effect, most of these are nonserious. No unusual patterns emerged in the cause of death or serious adverse effects among VAERS reports. For adverse events of special interest, it is reassuring that there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines.”

The study authors and editorialists have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Testing is ongoing after more than 4,600 veterans who had received care at the Carl Vinson Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dublin, Georgia, were alerted that they may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. The exposure was due to improperly sterilized equipment. At least some of the patients have tested positive, but the facility has not indicated the number, the diseases, or whether the infections were the result of the exposure.

A mid-January internal review at the hospital found that not all steps were being followed in the procedures for sterilizing equipment between patients. Patients who had dentistry, endoscopy, urology, podiatry, optometry, or surgical procedures in 2021 may have been exposed to blood-borne pathogens.

In response, the VA sent teams from other hospitals to help, including a team from the Augusta Veterans Affairs Medical Center to reprocess all equipment and staff from VA facilities in Atlanta, South Carolina, and Alabama to provide personnel training. All staff at Carl Vinson Veterans Affairs Medical Center have since been retrained on all current guidelines.

The hospital says it’s still testing exposed veterans. Hospital spokesperson James Huckfeldt told a Macon-based newspaper, The Telegraph, that veterans with positive test results will undergo additional testing to determine whether the transmission is new or preexisting. “The findings from the additional testing will be used to accurately diagnose any impacted veterans and ensure that they receive appropriate medical treatment,” he said.

Manuel M. Davila, director of the hospital, sent letters to the patients at risk, alerting them to the exposure. “We sincerely apologize and accept responsibility for this mistake and are taking steps to prevent it from happening in the future,” Davilla wrote. “This event is unacceptable to us as well, and we want to work with you to correct the situation and ensure your safety and well-being. Because your safety is important to us and because we want to honor your trust in us, we want you to know that when concerns are raised over our processes or procedures, we take immediate steps to stop everything and make sure things are.”

Davilla reassured the veterans that “we are confident that the risk of infectious disease is very low.”

The Carl Vinson Medical Center has set up a communication center to answer questions for veterans: (478) 274-5400.

Testing is ongoing after more than 4,600 veterans who had received care at the Carl Vinson Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dublin, Georgia, were alerted that they may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. The exposure was due to improperly sterilized equipment. At least some of the patients have tested positive, but the facility has not indicated the number, the diseases, or whether the infections were the result of the exposure.

A mid-January internal review at the hospital found that not all steps were being followed in the procedures for sterilizing equipment between patients. Patients who had dentistry, endoscopy, urology, podiatry, optometry, or surgical procedures in 2021 may have been exposed to blood-borne pathogens.

In response, the VA sent teams from other hospitals to help, including a team from the Augusta Veterans Affairs Medical Center to reprocess all equipment and staff from VA facilities in Atlanta, South Carolina, and Alabama to provide personnel training. All staff at Carl Vinson Veterans Affairs Medical Center have since been retrained on all current guidelines.

The hospital says it’s still testing exposed veterans. Hospital spokesperson James Huckfeldt told a Macon-based newspaper, The Telegraph, that veterans with positive test results will undergo additional testing to determine whether the transmission is new or preexisting. “The findings from the additional testing will be used to accurately diagnose any impacted veterans and ensure that they receive appropriate medical treatment,” he said.

Manuel M. Davila, director of the hospital, sent letters to the patients at risk, alerting them to the exposure. “We sincerely apologize and accept responsibility for this mistake and are taking steps to prevent it from happening in the future,” Davilla wrote. “This event is unacceptable to us as well, and we want to work with you to correct the situation and ensure your safety and well-being. Because your safety is important to us and because we want to honor your trust in us, we want you to know that when concerns are raised over our processes or procedures, we take immediate steps to stop everything and make sure things are.”

Davilla reassured the veterans that “we are confident that the risk of infectious disease is very low.”

The Carl Vinson Medical Center has set up a communication center to answer questions for veterans: (478) 274-5400.

Testing is ongoing after more than 4,600 veterans who had received care at the Carl Vinson Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Dublin, Georgia, were alerted that they may have been exposed to HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. The exposure was due to improperly sterilized equipment. At least some of the patients have tested positive, but the facility has not indicated the number, the diseases, or whether the infections were the result of the exposure.

A mid-January internal review at the hospital found that not all steps were being followed in the procedures for sterilizing equipment between patients. Patients who had dentistry, endoscopy, urology, podiatry, optometry, or surgical procedures in 2021 may have been exposed to blood-borne pathogens.

In response, the VA sent teams from other hospitals to help, including a team from the Augusta Veterans Affairs Medical Center to reprocess all equipment and staff from VA facilities in Atlanta, South Carolina, and Alabama to provide personnel training. All staff at Carl Vinson Veterans Affairs Medical Center have since been retrained on all current guidelines.

The hospital says it’s still testing exposed veterans. Hospital spokesperson James Huckfeldt told a Macon-based newspaper, The Telegraph, that veterans with positive test results will undergo additional testing to determine whether the transmission is new or preexisting. “The findings from the additional testing will be used to accurately diagnose any impacted veterans and ensure that they receive appropriate medical treatment,” he said.

Manuel M. Davila, director of the hospital, sent letters to the patients at risk, alerting them to the exposure. “We sincerely apologize and accept responsibility for this mistake and are taking steps to prevent it from happening in the future,” Davilla wrote. “This event is unacceptable to us as well, and we want to work with you to correct the situation and ensure your safety and well-being. Because your safety is important to us and because we want to honor your trust in us, we want you to know that when concerns are raised over our processes or procedures, we take immediate steps to stop everything and make sure things are.”

Davilla reassured the veterans that “we are confident that the risk of infectious disease is very low.”

The Carl Vinson Medical Center has set up a communication center to answer questions for veterans: (478) 274-5400.

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

California-based emergency physician Simone Melissa Gold, MD, JD, founder of the antivaccine group America’s Frontline Doctors (AFD) and leading voice in the antivaccine movement, has pleaded guilty to one of five charges related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the plea deal, Dr. Gold pleaded guilty to charges that she “did unlawfully and knowingly enter and remain in a restricted building and grounds, that is, any posted, cordoned-off, or otherwise restricted area within the United States Capitol and its grounds, during a time when the vice president was in the building without lawful authority to do so.” As part of the agreement, additional charges against her – obstructing an official proceeding and intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of government business – will be dismissed. She also agreed to cooperate with investigators, including allowing them to review social media postings made during the time surrounding the event.

Shortly after she was indicted, Dr. Gold told The Washington Post that she did not see any violence and that the event was “peaceful.” However, according to news reports, Dr. Gold acknowledged in her plea deal that she and her codefendant, John Herbert Strand, witnessed the assault of a police officer while they were outside the building.

Dr. Gold, 56, based in Beverly Hills, Calif., founded AFD in 2019. The group notes its goal is to “amplify the voices of concerned physicians and patients nationwide to combat those who push political and economic agendas at the expense of science and quality health care solutions.” Mr. Strand is the organization’s communication’s director.

The group has been a leading proponent of the use of ivermectin as a “safe and effective treatment” for COVID-19, according to its website.

In 2021, Dr. Gold spoke at an event called The Stand, representing AFD, where she promised to tell “the truth” about COVID vaccines, including that it was actually giving people the virus, that COVID was renamed from the “Wuhan Virus” as part of a cover-up, and touted treatments, including hydroxycholoroquine and ivermectin.

Dr. Gold has been one of the leading voices in the anti-vaccine movement. She has more than 400,000 Twitter followers; her Twitter profile includes a pinned tweet saying: “We are living in Orwellian times.” In addition to spreading vaccine misinformation, Dr. Gold has promoted the use of unproven treatments such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin.

Calls and emails to AFD regarding a statement on Gold’s plea made by this news organization were not returned by press time.

In October, Representative James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), chairman of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, launched an investigation into organizations, including AFD, that spread misinformation and facilitate access to disproven and potentially hazardous treatments for COVID-19. According to news reports, Rep. Clyburn called the AFD and other such groups “predatory actors.”

Hospitals where Dr. Gold previously worked, including Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Santa Monica, Calif., and Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, have disassociated themselves from her. On July 29, 2020, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where Gold previously worked, issued a statement that said, in part, “Simone Gold, MD, has not worked with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center or any of its offices or affiliates since 2015. For 3 weeks in late 2015, Dr. Gold was employed on a per diem basis by Cedars-Sinai Medical Network, a component of Cedars-Sinai. She worked during this brief time in a network urgent care clinic. Dr. Gold is not authorized to represent or speak about any information on behalf of Cedars-Sinai.”

Dr. Gold’s medical license in the state of California is current and she has no pending hearings before the state medical board, according to its website. On her own website, Dr. Gold says she “voluntarily refused” to renew her board certification last year, “due to the unethical behavior of the medical boards.”

Dr. Gold is also a licensed attorney, having earned her law degree in health policy analysis at Stanford (Calif.) Law School.

Dr. Gold faces 6 months in prison. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16.

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

“Adipose tissue is an underappreciated and misunderstood organ.” It’s with these words that Aaron M. Cypess, MD, PhD, begins his recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As obesity rates steadily rise, “the riskiest approach to human adipose tissue is to dismiss its importance,” he adds, especially because there has been “an explosive growth” in our understanding of white and brown adipose tissue over the past 5 to 10 years.

This news organization asked Dr. Cypess, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist whose research focuses on brown fat, to discuss some of the main points in his review, titled, “Reassessing Human Adipose Tissue,” and clear up some misconceptions about fat.

You write that, for people who struggle to lose weight, “fat is often a source of misery, not marvel.” Why is fat a marvel?

When I started medical school in 1992, fat was just a thing that stored calories. You had to get it out of the way when you operated on the stomach or intestines. Now we know it’s not just one cell, it’s multiple types of cells, including immune cells and some blood cells. There’s cell turnover, and cells can get bigger or smaller, so it’s a dynamic tissue. It impacts the immune system and affects insulin sensitivity.

Why use the term “adipose tissue” and not just “fat”?

People think of fat cells and that’s it. However, adipose tissue (fat) has multiple cell types, and they each matter. There are adipocytes (fat cells) – which can be white, brown, beige, or pink – as well as immune cells, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and parts of nerve cells.

The main function of white adipose tissue is to store energy in the form of triglycerides. Brown adipose tissue consumes glucose and triglycerides, generating heat. Brown fat cells within depots of white fat are termed brite cells (a portmanteau of brown and white) or beige cells. Pink fat cells have been found in breast tissue in mice.

What do we now know about white fat and brown fat? Can brown fat change to white fat or vice versa?

White adipose tissue is commonly separated into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which have negative and neutral or positive metabolic effects, respectively. It is capable of more than doubling in mass and then returning to baseline.

White adipocyte-derived hormones include leptin, which is low in starvation, and adiponectin, which regulates glucose and lipid metabolism. White adipose tissue is essential for the proper function of the reproductive system, including secretion of hormones and lactation.

Brown adipose tissue protects newborns from cold as they develop the ability to shiver, and in adults it is found in depots in the neck, shoulders, posterior thorax, and abdomen. The amount of brown adipose tissue varies according to sex and lowers with increasing age and increasing body mass index.

There is much more white fat in the body than brown fat. It appears that activating brown fat leads to beneficial effects on metabolism, though we don’t know yet all the steps for how that happens.

In mice, you’ve got white fat depots and brown fat depots, and some brown fat can be found in the white fat.

With humans it’s much more complicated, and I’ve seen this in the operating room myself, and on slides. Where you find brown fat cells you also find a certain proportion of white fat cells, not an exclusive brown fat depot like you see in a mouse.

It is hotly debated right now whether brown fat can change to white fat and vice versa (transdifferentiation). The beige fat cells are supposed to be the kind that can shuttle between more white-like or brown-like. They can sometimes be white or sometimes brown. It can be very contentious in [scientific] papers and meetings.

Are humans born with all the fat cells they will ever have?

No. New fat cells are made throughout our lives. When the white adipocytes store too much triglyceride, they get really big and they get “sick” and die faster. It’s the rate at which the white cells take up the fat to store it and then get rid of it that can impact whether someone gains a lot of weight and whether they can successfully lose it after reasonable effort.

The average lifespan of a white fat cell is 15 years. We have no idea yet of the lifespan of a brown fat cell.

Is there a single “fat gene”? What role do fat genes play in the likelihood of developing metabolic diseases and type 2 diabetes?

Genes are very important for influencing the development of obesity and probably influence 50%-70% of obesity, based on studies in populations of predominantly European origin. But that high percentage reflects the impact of hundreds of genes. For most people, there is no one gene that exerts all of the effects. There are extremely rare diseases where one gene is responsible. Currently, only 20% of the entire phenotypic variation in obesity can be explained by the thousands of loci identified so far.

Why is it “correct but too simplistic” to attribute the increasing rates of obesity to excessive triglyceride storage in white adipose tissue?

Saying obesity is caused by too much triglyceride storage ignores the reasons how and why the triglycerides got there. There are likely to be multiple contributing factors to drive obesity, and those have billions of dollars of policy implications. Is obesity resulting from portion sizes? Then we should work on educating the public on how to estimate their caloric intake. Is it the types of foods, such as ultra-processed foods? Then we can discourage eating certain food groups while promoting others. Is it about physical activity? Then we should prioritize exercise programs.

Why is obesity “not simply a failure of will power”?

Genetic factors in adipose tissue impact how easy it is to store triglycerides, how easy it is to get fat out of the tissue and burn it up, and what kinds of hormones are released by the tissue to regulate appetite, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Ten different people can all overeat the same amount of the same foods, yet there will be differences in the amount of weight gain and metabolic complications experienced. And at the brain level, some people will feel “full” sooner than others.

How can excess adipose tissue lead to disease? Do some people have “metabolically healthy obesity”?

Excess adipose tissue leads to chronic inflammation that can then cause insulin resistance, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and other complications. It appears that there are metabolically healthy obese people, but it is not clear if that is only a temporary state.

Could long-term brown adipose tissue activation help treat obesity or related metabolic disease?

Our research group at the NIH and others have shown that long-term brown adipose tissue activation produces metabolic benefit such as improved insulin resistance, lower plasma glucose, and higher HDL [good] cholesterol. However, there is no evidence yet that it will lead to actual weight loss.

We are trying to use brown adipose tissue activation to treat obesity-related metabolic disease to see if it could lead to reduction in inflammation, improvement in the cholesterol profile, and decrease in blood pressure.

A large observational study published Jan. 4, 2021, in Nature Medicine by Paul Cohen’s group at Rockefeller University, in tens of thousands of people at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, showed that people who had brown fat were generally healthier and had less high blood pressure and less cardiovascular disease. This study could not show causation, but at every BMI, people were healthier if they had more brown fat than if they had less. So, there’s something going on. We’re still trying to figure that out.

Dr. Cypess has no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Adipose tissue is an underappreciated and misunderstood organ.” It’s with these words that Aaron M. Cypess, MD, PhD, begins his recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As obesity rates steadily rise, “the riskiest approach to human adipose tissue is to dismiss its importance,” he adds, especially because there has been “an explosive growth” in our understanding of white and brown adipose tissue over the past 5 to 10 years.

This news organization asked Dr. Cypess, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist whose research focuses on brown fat, to discuss some of the main points in his review, titled, “Reassessing Human Adipose Tissue,” and clear up some misconceptions about fat.

You write that, for people who struggle to lose weight, “fat is often a source of misery, not marvel.” Why is fat a marvel?

When I started medical school in 1992, fat was just a thing that stored calories. You had to get it out of the way when you operated on the stomach or intestines. Now we know it’s not just one cell, it’s multiple types of cells, including immune cells and some blood cells. There’s cell turnover, and cells can get bigger or smaller, so it’s a dynamic tissue. It impacts the immune system and affects insulin sensitivity.

Why use the term “adipose tissue” and not just “fat”?

People think of fat cells and that’s it. However, adipose tissue (fat) has multiple cell types, and they each matter. There are adipocytes (fat cells) – which can be white, brown, beige, or pink – as well as immune cells, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and parts of nerve cells.

The main function of white adipose tissue is to store energy in the form of triglycerides. Brown adipose tissue consumes glucose and triglycerides, generating heat. Brown fat cells within depots of white fat are termed brite cells (a portmanteau of brown and white) or beige cells. Pink fat cells have been found in breast tissue in mice.

What do we now know about white fat and brown fat? Can brown fat change to white fat or vice versa?

White adipose tissue is commonly separated into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which have negative and neutral or positive metabolic effects, respectively. It is capable of more than doubling in mass and then returning to baseline.

White adipocyte-derived hormones include leptin, which is low in starvation, and adiponectin, which regulates glucose and lipid metabolism. White adipose tissue is essential for the proper function of the reproductive system, including secretion of hormones and lactation.

Brown adipose tissue protects newborns from cold as they develop the ability to shiver, and in adults it is found in depots in the neck, shoulders, posterior thorax, and abdomen. The amount of brown adipose tissue varies according to sex and lowers with increasing age and increasing body mass index.

There is much more white fat in the body than brown fat. It appears that activating brown fat leads to beneficial effects on metabolism, though we don’t know yet all the steps for how that happens.

In mice, you’ve got white fat depots and brown fat depots, and some brown fat can be found in the white fat.

With humans it’s much more complicated, and I’ve seen this in the operating room myself, and on slides. Where you find brown fat cells you also find a certain proportion of white fat cells, not an exclusive brown fat depot like you see in a mouse.

It is hotly debated right now whether brown fat can change to white fat and vice versa (transdifferentiation). The beige fat cells are supposed to be the kind that can shuttle between more white-like or brown-like. They can sometimes be white or sometimes brown. It can be very contentious in [scientific] papers and meetings.

Are humans born with all the fat cells they will ever have?

No. New fat cells are made throughout our lives. When the white adipocytes store too much triglyceride, they get really big and they get “sick” and die faster. It’s the rate at which the white cells take up the fat to store it and then get rid of it that can impact whether someone gains a lot of weight and whether they can successfully lose it after reasonable effort.

The average lifespan of a white fat cell is 15 years. We have no idea yet of the lifespan of a brown fat cell.

Is there a single “fat gene”? What role do fat genes play in the likelihood of developing metabolic diseases and type 2 diabetes?

Genes are very important for influencing the development of obesity and probably influence 50%-70% of obesity, based on studies in populations of predominantly European origin. But that high percentage reflects the impact of hundreds of genes. For most people, there is no one gene that exerts all of the effects. There are extremely rare diseases where one gene is responsible. Currently, only 20% of the entire phenotypic variation in obesity can be explained by the thousands of loci identified so far.

Why is it “correct but too simplistic” to attribute the increasing rates of obesity to excessive triglyceride storage in white adipose tissue?

Saying obesity is caused by too much triglyceride storage ignores the reasons how and why the triglycerides got there. There are likely to be multiple contributing factors to drive obesity, and those have billions of dollars of policy implications. Is obesity resulting from portion sizes? Then we should work on educating the public on how to estimate their caloric intake. Is it the types of foods, such as ultra-processed foods? Then we can discourage eating certain food groups while promoting others. Is it about physical activity? Then we should prioritize exercise programs.

Why is obesity “not simply a failure of will power”?

Genetic factors in adipose tissue impact how easy it is to store triglycerides, how easy it is to get fat out of the tissue and burn it up, and what kinds of hormones are released by the tissue to regulate appetite, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Ten different people can all overeat the same amount of the same foods, yet there will be differences in the amount of weight gain and metabolic complications experienced. And at the brain level, some people will feel “full” sooner than others.

How can excess adipose tissue lead to disease? Do some people have “metabolically healthy obesity”?

Excess adipose tissue leads to chronic inflammation that can then cause insulin resistance, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and other complications. It appears that there are metabolically healthy obese people, but it is not clear if that is only a temporary state.

Could long-term brown adipose tissue activation help treat obesity or related metabolic disease?

Our research group at the NIH and others have shown that long-term brown adipose tissue activation produces metabolic benefit such as improved insulin resistance, lower plasma glucose, and higher HDL [good] cholesterol. However, there is no evidence yet that it will lead to actual weight loss.

We are trying to use brown adipose tissue activation to treat obesity-related metabolic disease to see if it could lead to reduction in inflammation, improvement in the cholesterol profile, and decrease in blood pressure.

A large observational study published Jan. 4, 2021, in Nature Medicine by Paul Cohen’s group at Rockefeller University, in tens of thousands of people at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, showed that people who had brown fat were generally healthier and had less high blood pressure and less cardiovascular disease. This study could not show causation, but at every BMI, people were healthier if they had more brown fat than if they had less. So, there’s something going on. We’re still trying to figure that out.

Dr. Cypess has no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Adipose tissue is an underappreciated and misunderstood organ.” It’s with these words that Aaron M. Cypess, MD, PhD, begins his recent review published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As obesity rates steadily rise, “the riskiest approach to human adipose tissue is to dismiss its importance,” he adds, especially because there has been “an explosive growth” in our understanding of white and brown adipose tissue over the past 5 to 10 years.

This news organization asked Dr. Cypess, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scientist whose research focuses on brown fat, to discuss some of the main points in his review, titled, “Reassessing Human Adipose Tissue,” and clear up some misconceptions about fat.

You write that, for people who struggle to lose weight, “fat is often a source of misery, not marvel.” Why is fat a marvel?

When I started medical school in 1992, fat was just a thing that stored calories. You had to get it out of the way when you operated on the stomach or intestines. Now we know it’s not just one cell, it’s multiple types of cells, including immune cells and some blood cells. There’s cell turnover, and cells can get bigger or smaller, so it’s a dynamic tissue. It impacts the immune system and affects insulin sensitivity.

Why use the term “adipose tissue” and not just “fat”?

People think of fat cells and that’s it. However, adipose tissue (fat) has multiple cell types, and they each matter. There are adipocytes (fat cells) – which can be white, brown, beige, or pink – as well as immune cells, fibroblasts, blood vessels, and parts of nerve cells.

The main function of white adipose tissue is to store energy in the form of triglycerides. Brown adipose tissue consumes glucose and triglycerides, generating heat. Brown fat cells within depots of white fat are termed brite cells (a portmanteau of brown and white) or beige cells. Pink fat cells have been found in breast tissue in mice.

What do we now know about white fat and brown fat? Can brown fat change to white fat or vice versa?

White adipose tissue is commonly separated into visceral fat and subcutaneous fat, which have negative and neutral or positive metabolic effects, respectively. It is capable of more than doubling in mass and then returning to baseline.

White adipocyte-derived hormones include leptin, which is low in starvation, and adiponectin, which regulates glucose and lipid metabolism. White adipose tissue is essential for the proper function of the reproductive system, including secretion of hormones and lactation.

Brown adipose tissue protects newborns from cold as they develop the ability to shiver, and in adults it is found in depots in the neck, shoulders, posterior thorax, and abdomen. The amount of brown adipose tissue varies according to sex and lowers with increasing age and increasing body mass index.

There is much more white fat in the body than brown fat. It appears that activating brown fat leads to beneficial effects on metabolism, though we don’t know yet all the steps for how that happens.

In mice, you’ve got white fat depots and brown fat depots, and some brown fat can be found in the white fat.

With humans it’s much more complicated, and I’ve seen this in the operating room myself, and on slides. Where you find brown fat cells you also find a certain proportion of white fat cells, not an exclusive brown fat depot like you see in a mouse.

It is hotly debated right now whether brown fat can change to white fat and vice versa (transdifferentiation). The beige fat cells are supposed to be the kind that can shuttle between more white-like or brown-like. They can sometimes be white or sometimes brown. It can be very contentious in [scientific] papers and meetings.

Are humans born with all the fat cells they will ever have?

No. New fat cells are made throughout our lives. When the white adipocytes store too much triglyceride, they get really big and they get “sick” and die faster. It’s the rate at which the white cells take up the fat to store it and then get rid of it that can impact whether someone gains a lot of weight and whether they can successfully lose it after reasonable effort.

The average lifespan of a white fat cell is 15 years. We have no idea yet of the lifespan of a brown fat cell.

Is there a single “fat gene”? What role do fat genes play in the likelihood of developing metabolic diseases and type 2 diabetes?

Genes are very important for influencing the development of obesity and probably influence 50%-70% of obesity, based on studies in populations of predominantly European origin. But that high percentage reflects the impact of hundreds of genes. For most people, there is no one gene that exerts all of the effects. There are extremely rare diseases where one gene is responsible. Currently, only 20% of the entire phenotypic variation in obesity can be explained by the thousands of loci identified so far.

Why is it “correct but too simplistic” to attribute the increasing rates of obesity to excessive triglyceride storage in white adipose tissue?

Saying obesity is caused by too much triglyceride storage ignores the reasons how and why the triglycerides got there. There are likely to be multiple contributing factors to drive obesity, and those have billions of dollars of policy implications. Is obesity resulting from portion sizes? Then we should work on educating the public on how to estimate their caloric intake. Is it the types of foods, such as ultra-processed foods? Then we can discourage eating certain food groups while promoting others. Is it about physical activity? Then we should prioritize exercise programs.

Why is obesity “not simply a failure of will power”?

Genetic factors in adipose tissue impact how easy it is to store triglycerides, how easy it is to get fat out of the tissue and burn it up, and what kinds of hormones are released by the tissue to regulate appetite, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Ten different people can all overeat the same amount of the same foods, yet there will be differences in the amount of weight gain and metabolic complications experienced. And at the brain level, some people will feel “full” sooner than others.

How can excess adipose tissue lead to disease? Do some people have “metabolically healthy obesity”?

Excess adipose tissue leads to chronic inflammation that can then cause insulin resistance, hypertension, fatty liver disease, and other complications. It appears that there are metabolically healthy obese people, but it is not clear if that is only a temporary state.

Could long-term brown adipose tissue activation help treat obesity or related metabolic disease?

Our research group at the NIH and others have shown that long-term brown adipose tissue activation produces metabolic benefit such as improved insulin resistance, lower plasma glucose, and higher HDL [good] cholesterol. However, there is no evidence yet that it will lead to actual weight loss.

We are trying to use brown adipose tissue activation to treat obesity-related metabolic disease to see if it could lead to reduction in inflammation, improvement in the cholesterol profile, and decrease in blood pressure.

A large observational study published Jan. 4, 2021, in Nature Medicine by Paul Cohen’s group at Rockefeller University, in tens of thousands of people at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, showed that people who had brown fat were generally healthier and had less high blood pressure and less cardiovascular disease. This study could not show causation, but at every BMI, people were healthier if they had more brown fat than if they had less. So, there’s something going on. We’re still trying to figure that out.

Dr. Cypess has no reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Who is most at risk of suicide by drug overdose? Has that changed in recent years? Researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse analyzed data from 2001 to 2019 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System to find out.

On the whole, they say, intentional overdose deaths have declined. But suicide rates increased in certain subgroups: young adults (aged 15-24 years), older adults (aged 75-84 years), and non-Hispanic Black women. Rates among women were “consistently higher” than those of men. The highest rates were observed in women aged 45 to 64 years.

Monday was the worst day, and the weekends had the lowest rates. The researchers say social factors, such as more social interactions on the weekend and reluctance about starting the workweek, could be factors.

Seasonally, the numbers ran true to the pattern seen in previous studies: The lowest rates occurred in December and highest in late spring and summer. Perhaps the “collective optimism” of the holiday season and social interactions exert protective effects against suicidality, the researchers suggest.

Factors also may include biological changes. In this study, the researchers found a positive linear relationship between daylength, which varies by latitude, and intentional overdose deaths for both sexes. Daylength is associated with mu opioid receptor (MOR) availability that might underlie seasonal variations in mood, they posit. MORs are the main target of opioid drugs; the researchers cite a study that found altered MOR expression in postmortem brains of suicide victims.

They note some limitations of their study, one being that, in 2019, 5% of overdose deaths had undetermined intent. Improving classifications of overdose deaths is needed, they say.

Moreover, the trends might have changed during the pandemic, as provisional mortality data indicate decreases in deaths by suicides, but also an approximate 30% increase in overall overdose deaths.

“This research underscores the importance of external support structures and environmental factors in determining a person’s suicide risk,” said Emily B. Einstein, PhD, chief of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Science Policy Branch and an author on the study. “The risk of intentional overdoses, and suicide risk in general, is not static. This is crucial for clinicians to keep in mind, as they may need to assess patients’ suicide risk frequently rather than at one point in time. It is also important for friends and family members of people who may be at an increased risk of suicide, and for those people themselves, so that they can be aware of the greatest periods of risk and seek help when needed.”

Sources: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/suicides-drug-overdose-increased-among-young-people-elderly-people-black-women-despite-overall-downward-tren

Han B, Compton WM, Einstein EB, et al. Intentional drug overdose deaths in the United States.  Am J Psychiatry. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060604

Who is most at risk of suicide by drug overdose? Has that changed in recent years? Researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse analyzed data from 2001 to 2019 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System to find out.

On the whole, they say, intentional overdose deaths have declined. But suicide rates increased in certain subgroups: young adults (aged 15-24 years), older adults (aged 75-84 years), and non-Hispanic Black women. Rates among women were “consistently higher” than those of men. The highest rates were observed in women aged 45 to 64 years.

Monday was the worst day, and the weekends had the lowest rates. The researchers say social factors, such as more social interactions on the weekend and reluctance about starting the workweek, could be factors.

Seasonally, the numbers ran true to the pattern seen in previous studies: The lowest rates occurred in December and highest in late spring and summer. Perhaps the “collective optimism” of the holiday season and social interactions exert protective effects against suicidality, the researchers suggest.

Factors also may include biological changes. In this study, the researchers found a positive linear relationship between daylength, which varies by latitude, and intentional overdose deaths for both sexes. Daylength is associated with mu opioid receptor (MOR) availability that might underlie seasonal variations in mood, they posit. MORs are the main target of opioid drugs; the researchers cite a study that found altered MOR expression in postmortem brains of suicide victims.

They note some limitations of their study, one being that, in 2019, 5% of overdose deaths had undetermined intent. Improving classifications of overdose deaths is needed, they say.

Moreover, the trends might have changed during the pandemic, as provisional mortality data indicate decreases in deaths by suicides, but also an approximate 30% increase in overall overdose deaths.

“This research underscores the importance of external support structures and environmental factors in determining a person’s suicide risk,” said Emily B. Einstein, PhD, chief of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Science Policy Branch and an author on the study. “The risk of intentional overdoses, and suicide risk in general, is not static. This is crucial for clinicians to keep in mind, as they may need to assess patients’ suicide risk frequently rather than at one point in time. It is also important for friends and family members of people who may be at an increased risk of suicide, and for those people themselves, so that they can be aware of the greatest periods of risk and seek help when needed.”

Sources: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/suicides-drug-overdose-increased-among-young-people-elderly-people-black-women-despite-overall-downward-tren

Han B, Compton WM, Einstein EB, et al. Intentional drug overdose deaths in the United States.  Am J Psychiatry. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060604

Who is most at risk of suicide by drug overdose? Has that changed in recent years? Researchers at the National Institute on Drug Abuse analyzed data from 2001 to 2019 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System to find out.

On the whole, they say, intentional overdose deaths have declined. But suicide rates increased in certain subgroups: young adults (aged 15-24 years), older adults (aged 75-84 years), and non-Hispanic Black women. Rates among women were “consistently higher” than those of men. The highest rates were observed in women aged 45 to 64 years.

Monday was the worst day, and the weekends had the lowest rates. The researchers say social factors, such as more social interactions on the weekend and reluctance about starting the workweek, could be factors.

Seasonally, the numbers ran true to the pattern seen in previous studies: The lowest rates occurred in December and highest in late spring and summer. Perhaps the “collective optimism” of the holiday season and social interactions exert protective effects against suicidality, the researchers suggest.

Factors also may include biological changes. In this study, the researchers found a positive linear relationship between daylength, which varies by latitude, and intentional overdose deaths for both sexes. Daylength is associated with mu opioid receptor (MOR) availability that might underlie seasonal variations in mood, they posit. MORs are the main target of opioid drugs; the researchers cite a study that found altered MOR expression in postmortem brains of suicide victims.

They note some limitations of their study, one being that, in 2019, 5% of overdose deaths had undetermined intent. Improving classifications of overdose deaths is needed, they say.

Moreover, the trends might have changed during the pandemic, as provisional mortality data indicate decreases in deaths by suicides, but also an approximate 30% increase in overall overdose deaths.

“This research underscores the importance of external support structures and environmental factors in determining a person’s suicide risk,” said Emily B. Einstein, PhD, chief of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s Science Policy Branch and an author on the study. “The risk of intentional overdoses, and suicide risk in general, is not static. This is crucial for clinicians to keep in mind, as they may need to assess patients’ suicide risk frequently rather than at one point in time. It is also important for friends and family members of people who may be at an increased risk of suicide, and for those people themselves, so that they can be aware of the greatest periods of risk and seek help when needed.”

Sources: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/suicides-drug-overdose-increased-among-young-people-elderly-people-black-women-despite-overall-downward-tren

Han B, Compton WM, Einstein EB, et al. Intentional drug overdose deaths in the United States.  Am J Psychiatry. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060604

Pregnant women with a history of spontaneous abortion had a significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies, based on data from more than 100,000 women.

Gestational diabetes is associated not only with adverse perinatal outcomes, but also with an increased risk of long-term cardiovascular and metabolic health issues in mothers and children, wrote Yan Zhao, PhD, of Tongji University, Shanghai, and colleagues.

Previous studies also have shown that spontaneous abortion (SAB) is associated with later maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism, the researchers said. The same mechanisms might contribute to the development of gestational diabetes, but the association between abortion history and gestational diabetes risk in subsequent pregnancies remains unclear, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 102,259 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care at a single hospital in Shanghai between January 2014 and December 2019. The mean age of the women was 29.8 years.

During the study period, 14,579 women experienced SAB (14.3%), 17,935 experienced induced abortion (17.5%), and 4,017 experienced both (11.9%).

In all, 12,153 cases of gestational diabetes were identified, for a prevalence of 11.9%. The relative risk of gestational diabetes was 1.25 for women who experienced SAB and 1.15 for those who experienced both SAB and induced abortion, and the association between SAB and gestational diabetes increased in a number-dependent manner, the researchers said. The increase in relative risk for gestational diabetes in pregnant women with one SAB, two SABs, and three or more SABs was 18%, 41%, and 43%, compared to pregnant women with no SAB history.

However, no association appeared between a history of induced abortion and gestational diabetes, the researchers said. “To date, no study has reported the association of prior induced abortion with gestational diabetes,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports for history of SAB and therefore possible underreporting, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on the timing of SABs; therefore, the time between SAB and gestational diabetes diagnosis could not be included in the analysis, they said. Unknown variables and the inclusion only of women from a single city in China might limit the generalizability of the results, they added.

More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the association between SAB and gestational diabetes, an association that has potential public health implications, they noted. However, the results suggest that “pregnant women with a history of SAB, especially those with a history of recurrent SAB, should attend more antenatal visits to monitor their blood glucose and implement early prevention and intervention,” such as healthful eating and regular exercise, they wrote.
 

Findings confirm, not surprise

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes in the current study “was made with a slightly different test than we typically use in the United States – a 1-hour nonfasting glucola followed by a confirmatory 3-hour fasting glucola,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. The current study of both SAB and gestational diabetes is important because both conditions are very common and have been the focus of increased attention in the popular media and in scientific study, she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings of a link between a history of gestational diabetes and a history of SAB, “but the association is likely that people at risk for gestational diabetes or who have undiagnosed diabetes/glucose intolerance are more likely to experience SAB,” she noted. “I would be surprised if the direction of the association is that SAB puts people at risk for gestational diabetes; more likely undiagnosed diabetes is a risk factor for SAB,” she added. “Perhaps we should be screening for glucose intolerance and other metabolic disorders more frequently in people who have especially recurrent SAB, as the more miscarriages someone had, the more likely they were in this study to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes;” or perhaps those with a history of SAB/recurrent SAB should be screened closer to 24 weeks’ than 28 weeks’ gestation to enable earlier intervention in those more likely to have gestational diabetes, Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Medical and Health Discipline Construction Projects, and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program. The researchers and Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Pregnant women with a history of spontaneous abortion had a significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies, based on data from more than 100,000 women.

Gestational diabetes is associated not only with adverse perinatal outcomes, but also with an increased risk of long-term cardiovascular and metabolic health issues in mothers and children, wrote Yan Zhao, PhD, of Tongji University, Shanghai, and colleagues.

Previous studies also have shown that spontaneous abortion (SAB) is associated with later maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism, the researchers said. The same mechanisms might contribute to the development of gestational diabetes, but the association between abortion history and gestational diabetes risk in subsequent pregnancies remains unclear, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 102,259 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care at a single hospital in Shanghai between January 2014 and December 2019. The mean age of the women was 29.8 years.

During the study period, 14,579 women experienced SAB (14.3%), 17,935 experienced induced abortion (17.5%), and 4,017 experienced both (11.9%).

In all, 12,153 cases of gestational diabetes were identified, for a prevalence of 11.9%. The relative risk of gestational diabetes was 1.25 for women who experienced SAB and 1.15 for those who experienced both SAB and induced abortion, and the association between SAB and gestational diabetes increased in a number-dependent manner, the researchers said. The increase in relative risk for gestational diabetes in pregnant women with one SAB, two SABs, and three or more SABs was 18%, 41%, and 43%, compared to pregnant women with no SAB history.

However, no association appeared between a history of induced abortion and gestational diabetes, the researchers said. “To date, no study has reported the association of prior induced abortion with gestational diabetes,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports for history of SAB and therefore possible underreporting, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on the timing of SABs; therefore, the time between SAB and gestational diabetes diagnosis could not be included in the analysis, they said. Unknown variables and the inclusion only of women from a single city in China might limit the generalizability of the results, they added.

More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the association between SAB and gestational diabetes, an association that has potential public health implications, they noted. However, the results suggest that “pregnant women with a history of SAB, especially those with a history of recurrent SAB, should attend more antenatal visits to monitor their blood glucose and implement early prevention and intervention,” such as healthful eating and regular exercise, they wrote.
 

Findings confirm, not surprise

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes in the current study “was made with a slightly different test than we typically use in the United States – a 1-hour nonfasting glucola followed by a confirmatory 3-hour fasting glucola,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. The current study of both SAB and gestational diabetes is important because both conditions are very common and have been the focus of increased attention in the popular media and in scientific study, she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings of a link between a history of gestational diabetes and a history of SAB, “but the association is likely that people at risk for gestational diabetes or who have undiagnosed diabetes/glucose intolerance are more likely to experience SAB,” she noted. “I would be surprised if the direction of the association is that SAB puts people at risk for gestational diabetes; more likely undiagnosed diabetes is a risk factor for SAB,” she added. “Perhaps we should be screening for glucose intolerance and other metabolic disorders more frequently in people who have especially recurrent SAB, as the more miscarriages someone had, the more likely they were in this study to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes;” or perhaps those with a history of SAB/recurrent SAB should be screened closer to 24 weeks’ than 28 weeks’ gestation to enable earlier intervention in those more likely to have gestational diabetes, Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Medical and Health Discipline Construction Projects, and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program. The researchers and Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

Pregnant women with a history of spontaneous abortion had a significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes in subsequent pregnancies, based on data from more than 100,000 women.

Gestational diabetes is associated not only with adverse perinatal outcomes, but also with an increased risk of long-term cardiovascular and metabolic health issues in mothers and children, wrote Yan Zhao, PhD, of Tongji University, Shanghai, and colleagues.

Previous studies also have shown that spontaneous abortion (SAB) is associated with later maternal risk of cardiovascular disease and venous thromboembolism, the researchers said. The same mechanisms might contribute to the development of gestational diabetes, but the association between abortion history and gestational diabetes risk in subsequent pregnancies remains unclear, they added.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 102,259 pregnant women seen for routine prenatal care at a single hospital in Shanghai between January 2014 and December 2019. The mean age of the women was 29.8 years.

During the study period, 14,579 women experienced SAB (14.3%), 17,935 experienced induced abortion (17.5%), and 4,017 experienced both (11.9%).

In all, 12,153 cases of gestational diabetes were identified, for a prevalence of 11.9%. The relative risk of gestational diabetes was 1.25 for women who experienced SAB and 1.15 for those who experienced both SAB and induced abortion, and the association between SAB and gestational diabetes increased in a number-dependent manner, the researchers said. The increase in relative risk for gestational diabetes in pregnant women with one SAB, two SABs, and three or more SABs was 18%, 41%, and 43%, compared to pregnant women with no SAB history.

However, no association appeared between a history of induced abortion and gestational diabetes, the researchers said. “To date, no study has reported the association of prior induced abortion with gestational diabetes,” they wrote.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the reliance on self-reports for history of SAB and therefore possible underreporting, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of data on the timing of SABs; therefore, the time between SAB and gestational diabetes diagnosis could not be included in the analysis, they said. Unknown variables and the inclusion only of women from a single city in China might limit the generalizability of the results, they added.

More research is needed to understand the biological mechanisms behind the association between SAB and gestational diabetes, an association that has potential public health implications, they noted. However, the results suggest that “pregnant women with a history of SAB, especially those with a history of recurrent SAB, should attend more antenatal visits to monitor their blood glucose and implement early prevention and intervention,” such as healthful eating and regular exercise, they wrote.
 

Findings confirm, not surprise

The diagnosis of gestational diabetes in the current study “was made with a slightly different test than we typically use in the United States – a 1-hour nonfasting glucola followed by a confirmatory 3-hour fasting glucola,” Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. The current study of both SAB and gestational diabetes is important because both conditions are very common and have been the focus of increased attention in the popular media and in scientific study, she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the findings of a link between a history of gestational diabetes and a history of SAB, “but the association is likely that people at risk for gestational diabetes or who have undiagnosed diabetes/glucose intolerance are more likely to experience SAB,” she noted. “I would be surprised if the direction of the association is that SAB puts people at risk for gestational diabetes; more likely undiagnosed diabetes is a risk factor for SAB,” she added. “Perhaps we should be screening for glucose intolerance and other metabolic disorders more frequently in people who have especially recurrent SAB, as the more miscarriages someone had, the more likely they were in this study to be diagnosed with gestational diabetes;” or perhaps those with a history of SAB/recurrent SAB should be screened closer to 24 weeks’ than 28 weeks’ gestation to enable earlier intervention in those more likely to have gestational diabetes, Dr. Prager said.

The study was supported by the Key Program of the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Medical and Health Discipline Construction Projects, and the Shanghai Rising-Star Program. The researchers and Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager serves on the editorial advisory board of Ob.Gyn. News.

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)—the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the US) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)—the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the US) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”

From environmental tobacco smoke to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, diesel exhaust particulates, lead, and now, chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)—the Report on Carcinogens has regularly updated the list of substances known or “reasonably anticipated” to cause cancer.

The 15th report, which is prepared by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) for the Department of Health and Human Services, has 8 new entries, bringing the number of human carcinogens (eg, metals, pesticides, and drugs) on the list to 256. (The first report, released in 1980, listed 26.) In addition to H pylori infection, this edition adds the flame-retardant chemical antimony trioxide, and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection byproducts.

In 1971, then President Nixon declared “war on cancer” (the second leading cause of death in the US) and signed the National Cancer Act. In 1978, Congress ordered the Report on Carcinogens, to educate the public and health professionals on potential environmental carcinogenic hazards.

Perhaps disheartening to know that even with 256 entries, the list probably understates the number of carcinogens humans and other creatures are exposed to. But things can change with time. Each list goes through a rigorous round of reviews. Sometimes substances are “delisted” after, for instance, litigation or new research. Saccharin, for example, was removed from the ninth edition. It was listed as “reasonably anticipated” in 1981, based on “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.” It was removed, however, after extensive review of decades of saccharin use determined that the data were not sufficient to meet current criteria. Further research had revealed, also, that the observed bladder tumors in rats arose from a mechanism not relevant to humans.

Other entries, such as the controversial listing of the cancer drug tamoxifen, walk a fine line between risk and benefit. Tamoxifen, first listed in the ninth report (and still in the 15th report), was included because studies revealed that it could increase the risk of uterine cancer in women. But there also was conclusive evidence that it may prevent or delay breast cancer in women who are at high risk.

Ultimately, the report’s authors make it clear that it is for informative value and guidance, not necessarily a dictate. As one report put it: “Personal decisions concerning voluntary exposures to carcinogenic agents need to be based on additional information that is beyond the scope” of the report.

“As the identification of carcinogens is a key step in cancer prevention,” said Rick Woychik, PhD, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and NTP, “publication of the report represents an important government activity towards improving public health.”