User login
Better COVID-19 outcomes confirmed in TNF inhibitor users
Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.
“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
Findings mirror those seen in other settings
These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”
Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
Study details
The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).
The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).
One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.
All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.
The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.
“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”
Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.
The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.
Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data
The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.
“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.
The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.
“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.
Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.
“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.
Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.
On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”
The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.
“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
Findings mirror those seen in other settings
These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”
Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
Study details
The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).
The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).
One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.
All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.
The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.
“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”
Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.
The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.
Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data
The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.
“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.
The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.
“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.
Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.
“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.
Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.
On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”
The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who get COVID-19, the risk for hospitalization and death is lower if they are receiving tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor monotherapy, compared with receiving most other common drugs for these conditions, with or without TNF inhibitors, according to a study published in JAMA Network Open The only combination not associated with an increased risk for hospitalization or death was TNF inhibitor therapy with methotrexate.
“These findings support the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy during the pandemic and warrant further research investigating the association of other biologic therapies with COVID-19 outcomes,” write Zara Izadi, MPharm, of the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues. “Treatment with TNF inhibitor combination therapy was associated with a more favorable safety profile when methotrexate rather than azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine was used, suggesting that clinicians would benefit from weighing the risks versus benefits of deescalating treatment or changing medications when a patient is receiving concomitant TNF inhibitors and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine,” they write.
Findings mirror those seen in other settings
These findings are in line with what has been found in other settings, according to Joel M. Gelfand, MD, director of the psoriasis and phototherapy treatment center, vice chair of clinical research, and medical director of the dermatology clinical studies unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
“In the beginning of the pandemic, there was concern about use of immune-modulating treatments, and many patients self-discontinued treatments like TNF inhibitors,” Dr. Gelfand, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization. “This has ultimately proved unnecessary and unfortunately resulted in harm to many patients due to flaring of their underlying disease.”
Dr. Gelfand emphasized the importance of vaccinating patients against COVID-19 as soon as possible and of getting a third dose for those who are already fully vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“I typically recommend this third dose be taken 6 months after the second dose,” Dr. Gelfand said. “The good news is that TNF inhibitors do not seem to meaningfully impact response to mRNA vaccines.”
Study details
The researchers analyzed data from three international registries of adults with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis who had COVID-19 between March 12, 2020, and Feb. 1, 2021. The registries included the Secure Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SECURE-IBD) registry, the Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection (PsoProtect), and the physician-reported registry from the Global Rheumatology Alliance (GRA).
The population included 6,077 patients from 74 countries. About half of the cohort (52.9%) were from Europe; more than half were women (58.6%). The average age was 48 years. A little over one-third of the patients (35.3%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 25.3% had Crohn’s disease, 12.5% had ulcerative colitis, 10.3% had spondyloarthritis, and 9.3% had psoriatic arthritis. Smaller percentages had psoriasis (4.9%), another type of arthritis or multiple types (1.7%), or another inflammatory bowel disease (0.6%).
One in five patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 3.1% died. The researchers compared outcomes for those who were receiving TNF inhibitor therapy alone to outcomes for those who were taking azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), methotrexate (alone or with a TNF inhibitor), and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. They adjusted their analysis to account for active disease and common comorbidities, as well as geography and the period during the pandemic in which the person was admitted, because treatment regimens and hospitalization indications have varied over time.
All of the therapies except the combination of TNF inhibitors and methotrexate were associated with higher odds of hospitalization and death than TNF inhibitor monotherapy.
The researchers explored several possible explanations for the findings, including the possibility that high serum TNF concentrations may have been associated with more organ damage at the time of COVID-19 admission, owing to interaction with SARS-CoV-2–associated hyperinflammation.
“Therefore, blocking TNF could inhibit this detrimental immune response,” the authors write. “Multiple case series reporting favorable outcomes among patients receiving TNF inhibitor therapy support this assertion.”
Another possibility relates to the effects of taking non–TNF inhibitor medications for immunosuppression. The authors note that thiopurine medications are linked to a greater risk for opportunistic viral infections and that JAK inhibitors may reduce the body’s ability to clear the virus because of its suppression of innate immune response.
The authors also postulate that methotrexate may lower the likelihood of cytokine storm linked to COVID-19, even though methotrexate monotherapy was associated with poorer outcomes. “This association could mean that TNF inhibitor therapy is exerting a protective benefit or that methotrexate therapy is exerting a harmful consequence,” the authors write.
Caution needed in interpreting uncontrolled, registry-based data
The findings were not surprising to Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, medical director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was not involved in the research.
“We’ve been monitoring IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] patients through the Secure registry similar to the rheumatologic and dermatologic societies and have not identified a signal of harm from any international groups,” Dr. Hanauer told this news organization. He noted that these registries also have not shown an increased risk for COVID-19 complications among patients receiving TNF inhibitors, antiadhesion therapies, or anti–IL12/23 inhibitors, compared with the general population not taking these therapies.
The study’s size and the diversity of patients strengthen its findings. However, the registries’ use of convenience sampling increases the potential for reporting bias, although the results remained similar after a sensitivity analysis. The study also lacked a control group, and the registries did not collect data uniformly.
“These are databases that rely on reporting from investigators and are not comprehensive prospective studies,” Dr. Hanauer noted as another study limitation.
Dr. Gelfand similarly advised caution in interpreting these findings, inasmuch as the study is a “collection of spontaneous reports” that should be viewed as hypothesis-generating rather than testing.
“Fortunately, more rigorous studies have been conducted, typically in large medical record systems, and have confirmed the hypothesis that TNF inhibitors are associated with a lower risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes, compared to other treatments,” Dr. Gelfand said.
Previous smaller studies similarly found better outcomes among patients taking TNF inhibitors, compared with other therapies, but their participants were predominantly from North America and Europe, noted Licio A. Velloso, MD, PhD, of the University of Campinas, in São Paulo, in an accompanying commentary.
On the basis of the findings of this study, “which included a much larger sample comprising distinct diseases and patients with a multitude of genetic backgrounds, the evidence in favor of the continued use of TNF inhibitor monotherapy for patients with IMIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic has become more substantial,” Dr. Velloso writes. “The finding that maintenance of TNF inhibitor monotherapy is associated with reductions in the risk of severe COVID-19 among patients with IMIDs offers new perspective that may guide health care professionals in the difficult decisions regarding therapeutic approaches among this specific group of patients.”
The research was funded by the American College of Rheumatology, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center, and the Psoriasis Association. Many authors reported receiving grants and/or personal fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Velloso has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hanauer has served as a consultant to companies that market TNF inhibitors. Dr. Gelfand has consulted for and received research grants from companies that market TNF inhibitors.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
CDC panel backs COVID-19 boosters for nearly all adults
Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.
The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.
“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.
She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.
Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.
They are:
- Anyone over age 65.
- Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
- Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.
These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.
There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
Questions, concerns
Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.
“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.
“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.
The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.
On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.
Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.
The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.
Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.
The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.
These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
“Real world” recommendations
In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.
“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.
Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.
The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.
Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.
Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.
Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.
The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.
In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.
Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.
“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.
The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.
“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.
She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.
Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.
They are:
- Anyone over age 65.
- Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
- Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.
These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.
There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
Questions, concerns
Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.
“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.
“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.
The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.
On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.
Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.
The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.
Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.
The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.
These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
“Real world” recommendations
In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.
“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.
Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.
The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.
Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.
Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.
Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.
The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.
In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.
Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.
“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Editor’s note: This story was updated with the CDC director’s endorsement.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has signed off on an advisory panel’s earlier unanimous vote to recommend boosters for the Moderna and Johnson and Johnson COVID vaccines.
The decision now means that millions of Americans are eligible to get a booster shot for either the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J COVID vaccines.
“The evidence shows that all three COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the United States are safe – as demonstrated by the over 400 million vaccine doses already given. And, they are all highly effective in reducing the risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death, even in the midst of the widely circulating Delta variant,” Dr. Walensky said in a CDC news release.
She also signed off on the panel’s suggestion that individuals can mix or match the booster from any one of the three available COVID-19 vaccines.
The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended in a late afternoon 15-0 vote that everyone over age 18 who are at least 2 months past their Johnson & Johnson vaccine should get a booster, an endorsement that affects an estimated 13 million Americans.
Those eligible for a booster at least 6 months after their last Moderna shot are the same groups who can get a Pfizer booster.
They are:
- Anyone over age 65.
- Those over age 18 with an underlying health condition that puts them at risk of severe COVID-19.
- Those over age 18 who may be at higher risk of a COVID-19 infection because they live or work in a risky setting.
These recommendations are in line with the Food and Drug Administration’s Oct. 20 authorization of the boosters, along with the ability to mix-and-match vaccines.
There are an estimated 47 million Pfizer recipients and 39 million people vaccinated with Moderna who are now eligible for a booster dose, according to data presented by the CDC.
Questions, concerns
Before voting, some committee members expressed discomfort in broadly recommending boosters, stressing that there is very little evidence supporting the need for boosters in people younger than age 50.
“I can’t say that I am comfortable that anybody under 50 – an otherwise healthy individual – needs a booster vaccine at this time with either Moderna or Pfizer,” said ACIP member Sarah Long, MD, professor of pediatrics at Drexel University in Philadelphia.
She said she would try to mitigate any potential harm by having some kind of age restriction on the otherwise worried well.
“We don’t usually have the vaccines [for] the worried well. We give it because we have a need that’s worth the risk, and there’s a burden of severity of disease,” Dr. Long said.
The evidence to date shows that all the vaccines authorized for use in the U.S. continue to protect people well against severe COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death.
But breakthrough infections are on the rise, especially for people who initially received the Johnson and Johnson one-dose vaccine.
On Oct. 21, Pfizer released data from a study of more than 10,000 fully vaccinated people. Half were randomly assigned to get a booster of their Comirnaty vaccine, the other half were given a placebo.
Over the ensuing 2.5 months, there were 5 COVID-19 cases in the boosted group, and 109 in the group that got a placebo.
The data were posted in a press release and have not yet been peer reviewed, but are the first to show clinical effectiveness of boosters at preventing COVID-19 infections.
Data recently considered by the FDA and CDC for booster doses come from studies that were mostly shorter and smaller. These studies looked at biomarkers of immunity like the concentration of antibodies in a person’s blood and the percentage of study participants who saw a boost to those antibodies.
The studies demonstrated that boosters indeed restore high levels of antibodies, but unlike the newest Pfizer data they were not able to show that these antibodies prevented COVID-19.
These studies also weren’t powered to pick up on any less common safety problems that might arise after another dose of the shots.
“Real world” recommendations
In the end, however, the panel felt it was more important to be permissive in allowing boosters so that individuals and their doctors could be free to make their own decisions.
“The decision made by the FDA and the ACIP recommendations, I think, reflects the real world. The public is going to do what they feel driven to do. This at least adds a scientific review of the currently available data,” said Jay Varkey, MD, an infectious disease physician and associate professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who was not involved in the ACIP’s deliberations.
Dr. Varkey said he would recommend that anyone who is younger than 65, and who has no underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity, speak with their doctor about their individual benefits and risks before getting a booster.
The CDC is planning to release a detailed suite of clinical considerations to help people weigh the risks and benefits of getting a booster.
Safety updates presented at the meeting show that serious adverse events after vaccination are extremely rare, but in some cases, they may rise above the risk for those problems generally seen in the population.
Those rare events include the disabling autoimmune condition Guillain-Barré syndrome and the platelet disorder thrombosis with thrombocytopenia (TTS), which causes blood clots along with the risk of excess bleeding because of a low platelet count.
Both can occur after the J&J vaccine. Out of 15.3 million doses of the vaccine given to date, there have been 47 cases of TTS and five deaths. These events are more common in younger women.
The mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, can cause heart inflammation called myocarditis or pericarditis. This side effect is more common in men 18-24 years old. The reported rate of myocarditis after vaccination is 39 cases for every 1 million doses.
In voting to permit boosters, committee member Wilbur Chen, MD, professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Vaccine Development, said he hoped boosters wouldn’t give Americans false confidence.
Dr. Chen stressed that ending the pandemic would depend on “a multilayered approach” that includes masking, social distancing, avoiding large crowds indoors, and convincing more Americans to take their first doses of the vaccines.
“We’re not just going to vaccinate ourselves out of this situation,” Dr. Chen said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
COVID-19 ICU visit restrictions add to staff stress, burnout
During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.
Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.
“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
Valid concerns, negative effects
“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.
“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.
With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.
At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
Study details
ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.
A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.
A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.
In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.
Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.
“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”
She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.
“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.
Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.
“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
Valid concerns, negative effects
“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.
“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.
With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.
At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
Study details
ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.
A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.
A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.
In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.
Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.
“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”
She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.
“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, visitation in intensive care units has been restricted for obvious safety reasons, but such restrictions have contributed to the already serious strains on staff, results of a survey indicate.
Among 91 residents, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who work in ICUs in the Emory Healthcare system, in Atlanta, two-thirds agreed that visitation restrictions were necessary, but nearly three-fourths said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and slightly more than half reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, wrote Nicole Herbst, MD, and Joanne Kuntz, MD, from Emory University School of Medicine.
“Because families are not present at bedside, restrictive visitation policies have necessitated that communication with families be more intentional and planned than before the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the ways these restrictions impact providers and patients can help guide future interventions to improve communication with families and reduce provider burnout,” the authors wrote in a poster presentation at the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
Valid concerns, negative effects
“During the COVID pandemic, we fell back into old ways of doing things, where parents were restricted from the bedsides of patients in the intensive care unit. And I think we have shown over the last decade that family presence at the bedside significantly improves outcomes for patients and also helps clinicians caring for those patients,” commented Christopher Carroll, MD, FCCP, from Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford, in an interview.
“We had good reason to exclude visitors because we were worried about their own safety and their own health, but now 18 months into this pandemic, we know how to prevent COVID. We know now how to safely walk into the room of a patient who has COVID and walk out of it and not get infected. There’s no reason why we can’t relax these restrictions and allow families to be there with their loved ones,” continued Dr. Carroll, who was not involved in the study.
With visitation limited or banned outright, ICU staff have had to replace face-to-face discussion with more intentional, planned, and time-consuming methods, such as telephone calls and online video.
At the time of the survey, only two visitors were allowed to see patients in end-of-life situations in Emory ICUs. Exceptions to this rule were rare.
Study details
ICU staff members were asked about their communication practices, their attitudes about the effect of the restrictions on communication with families and job satisfaction, and about symptoms of burnout, using a validated single-item measure.
A total of 91 practitioners completed most of the survey questions. The results showed that more than half of all respondents (57.9%) reported spending more time communicating with families than they had the previous year.
A large majority (90.5%) also said that video communication (for example, with a tablet, personal device, or computer) was as effective or more effective than telephone communication.
In all, 64.3% of practitioners agreed that visitation restrictions were appropriate, but 71.4% said that the restrictions had a negative effect on their job satisfaction, and 51.8% reported experiencing symptoms of burnout, such as stress, low energy, exhaustion, or lack of motivation.
Casey Cable, MD, a pulmonary disease and critical care specialist at Virginia Commonwealth Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, did her fellowship at Emory. She told this news organization that the study findings might be skewed a bit by subjective impressions.
“I work in a level I trauma unit providing tertiary medical care, and we’re using more video to communicate with family members, more iPads,” she said. “Their finding is interesting that people felt that they were communicating more with family members, and I wonder if that’s a type of recall bias, because at the bedside, you can have a conversation, as opposed to actively talking to family members by calling them, videoing them, or whatnot, and I think that sticks in our head more, about putting in more effort. I don’t know if we are spending more time communicating with family or if that’s what we just recall.”
She agreed with the authors that visitation restrictions have a definite negative effect on job satisfaction and that they cause feelings of burnout.
“It’s tough not having families at bedside and offering them support. When visitors are not able to see how sick their family members are, it complicates discussions about end-of-life care, transitioning to comfort care, or maybe not doing everything,” she said.
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Herbst, Dr. Kuntz, Dr. Carroll, and Dr. Cable have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Symptoms persist in patients after acute COVID-19
Background: A large proportion of Italian patients with COVID-19 presented with symptoms, most commonly cough, fever, dyspnea, myalgias, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Information is lacking on persistent symptoms after recovery.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: Hospital system in Rome.
Synopsis: A postacute outpatient service for individuals discharged after recovery from COVID-19 was established. All patients who met World Health Organization criteria for discontinuation of quarantine (no fever for 3 consecutive days, improved symptoms, and two negative SARS-CoV-2 tests 24 hours apart) were offered a comprehensive medical assessment. Patients were asked to retrospectively recount the presence or absence of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 and whether each symptom persisted at the time of the visit.
From April 21 to May 29, 2020, 179 patients were potentially eligible; 143 ultimately were included. During hospitalization, 72.7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Patients were assessed a mean of 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom. Only 18 (12.6%) were completely free of any COVID-19–related symptoms, 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more. Worsened quality of life was observed among 44.1% of patients.
Bottom line: 87.4% of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported persistence of at least one symptom, particularly fatigue and dyspnea.
Citation: Carfi A et al. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5.
Dr. Walker is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.
Background: A large proportion of Italian patients with COVID-19 presented with symptoms, most commonly cough, fever, dyspnea, myalgias, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Information is lacking on persistent symptoms after recovery.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: Hospital system in Rome.
Synopsis: A postacute outpatient service for individuals discharged after recovery from COVID-19 was established. All patients who met World Health Organization criteria for discontinuation of quarantine (no fever for 3 consecutive days, improved symptoms, and two negative SARS-CoV-2 tests 24 hours apart) were offered a comprehensive medical assessment. Patients were asked to retrospectively recount the presence or absence of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 and whether each symptom persisted at the time of the visit.
From April 21 to May 29, 2020, 179 patients were potentially eligible; 143 ultimately were included. During hospitalization, 72.7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Patients were assessed a mean of 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom. Only 18 (12.6%) were completely free of any COVID-19–related symptoms, 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more. Worsened quality of life was observed among 44.1% of patients.
Bottom line: 87.4% of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported persistence of at least one symptom, particularly fatigue and dyspnea.
Citation: Carfi A et al. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5.
Dr. Walker is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.
Background: A large proportion of Italian patients with COVID-19 presented with symptoms, most commonly cough, fever, dyspnea, myalgias, anosmia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Information is lacking on persistent symptoms after recovery.
Study design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: Hospital system in Rome.
Synopsis: A postacute outpatient service for individuals discharged after recovery from COVID-19 was established. All patients who met World Health Organization criteria for discontinuation of quarantine (no fever for 3 consecutive days, improved symptoms, and two negative SARS-CoV-2 tests 24 hours apart) were offered a comprehensive medical assessment. Patients were asked to retrospectively recount the presence or absence of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19 and whether each symptom persisted at the time of the visit.
From April 21 to May 29, 2020, 179 patients were potentially eligible; 143 ultimately were included. During hospitalization, 72.7% of participants had evidence of interstitial pneumonia. Patients were assessed a mean of 60.3 days after onset of the first COVID-19 symptom. Only 18 (12.6%) were completely free of any COVID-19–related symptoms, 32% had one or two symptoms, and 55% had three or more. Worsened quality of life was observed among 44.1% of patients.
Bottom line: 87.4% of patients who had recovered from COVID-19 reported persistence of at least one symptom, particularly fatigue and dyspnea.
Citation: Carfi A et al. Persistent symptoms in patients after acute COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;324(6):603-5.
Dr. Walker is a hospitalist at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.
Comorbidities larger factor than race in COVID ICU deaths?
Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.
Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.
“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
Higher death rates for Black patients
At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.
To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.
All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.
In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.
The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.
The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.
Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.
Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
Missing data
Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.
“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.
He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.
“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.
“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.
Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.
“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
Higher death rates for Black patients
At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.
To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.
All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.
In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.
The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.
The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.
Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.
Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
Missing data
Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.
“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.
He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.
“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.
“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Racial/ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates may be related more to comorbidities than to demographics, suggest authors of a new study.
Researchers compared the length of stay in intensive care units in two suburban hospitals for patients with severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. Their study shows that although the incidence of comorbidities and rates of use of mechanical ventilation and death were higher among Black patients than among patients of other races, length of stay in the ICU was generally similar for patients of all races. The study was conducted by Tripti Kumar, DO, from Lankenau Medical Center, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania, and colleagues.
“Racial disparities are observed in the United States concerning COVID-19, and studies have discovered that minority populations are at ongoing risk for health inequity,” Dr. Kumar said in a narrated e-poster presented during the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) 2021 Annual Meeting.
“Primary prevention initiatives should take precedence in mitigating the effect that comorbidities have on these vulnerable populations to help reduce necessity for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, and overall mortality,” she said.
Higher death rates for Black patients
At the time the study was conducted, the COVID-19 death rate in the United States had topped 500,000 (as of this writing, it stands at 726,000). Of those who died, 22.4% were Black, 18.1% were Hispanic, and 3.6% were of Asian descent. The numbers of COVID-19 diagnoses and deaths were significantly higher in U.S. counties where the proportions of Black residents were higher, the authors note.
To see whether differences in COVID-19 outcomes were reflected in ICU length of stay, the researchers conducted a retrospective chart review of data on 162 patients admitted to ICUs at Paoli Hospital and Lankenau Medical Center, both in the suburban Philadelphia town of Wynnewood.
All patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 from March through June 2020.
In all, 60% of the study population were Black, 35% were White, 3% were Asian, and 2% were Hispanic. Women composed 46% of the sample.
The average length of ICU stay, which was the primary endpoint, was similar among Black patients (15.4 days), White patients (15.5 days), and Asians (16 days). The shortest average hospital stay was among Hispanic patients, at 11.3 days.
The investigators determined that among all races, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, obesity, hypertension, and smoking was highest among Black patients.
Overall, nearly 85% of patients required mechanical ventilation. Among the patients who required it, 86% were Black, 84% were White, 66% were Hispanic, and 75% were Asian.
Overall mortality was 62%. It was higher among Black patients, at 60%, than among White patients, at 33%. The investigators did not report mortality rates for Hispanic or Asian patients.
Missing data
Demondes Haynes, MD, FCCP, professor of medicine in the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care and associate dean for admissions at the University of Mississippi Medical Center and School of Medicine, Jackson, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization that there are some gaps in the study that make it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the findings.
“For sure, comorbidities contribute a great deal to mortality, but is there something else going on? I think this poster is incomplete in that it cannot answer that question,” he said in an interview.
He noted that the use of retrospective rather than prospective data makes it hard to account for potential confounders.
“I agree that these findings show the potential contribution of comorbidities, but to me, this is a little incomplete to make that a definitive statement,” he said.
“I can’t argue with their recommendation for primary prevention – we definitely want to do primary prevention to decrease comorbidities. Would it decrease overall mortality? It might, it sure might, for just COVID-19 I’d say no, we need more information.”
No funding source for the study was reported. Dr. Kumar and colleagues and Dr. Haynes reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The compass that points toward food
The new breakfast of champions
We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.
Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.
The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.
There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.
Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
COVID-19 resisters, please step forward
Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.
Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.
“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.
The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.
The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.
Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
Better living through parasitization
How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?
Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.
If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.
In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.
They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.
Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
Laughing the pandemic stress away
Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.
A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.
The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.
The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.
“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”
So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
Giving the gift of stress reduction
It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.
We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!
The new breakfast of champions
We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.
Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.
The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.
There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.
Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
COVID-19 resisters, please step forward
Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.
Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.
“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.
The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.
The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.
Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
Better living through parasitization
How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?
Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.
If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.
In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.
They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.
Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
Laughing the pandemic stress away
Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.
A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.
The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.
The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.
“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”
So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
Giving the gift of stress reduction
It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.
We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!
The new breakfast of champions
We love a good ranking system here at LOTME world headquarters, especially the food-based ones. Luckily for us (and our readers), a new study published in Nature Food offers a food-based ranking system.
Sadly, unlike the last food-related ranking we covered, the Food Compass doesn’t tell you how much life you gain or lose from each food you eat down to the precise minute. Instead, it favors a more simple rating system from 1 to 100, with healthier foods scoring higher, and even incorporates mixed foods, not just single ingredients. This makes it better at assessing and comparing food combinations, rather than trying to mix and match the many ingredients that go into even relatively simple recipes.
The top and bottom of the rankings contain the usual suspects. Legumes and nuts, at 78.6, had the highest average score among the broad food groups, followed by fruits and then vegetables. Rounding out the bottom were sweets and savory snacks at 16.4. Among the individual foods, there were perfect scores in both directions: 100 for raw raspberries, while instant noodle soup and nonchocolate, ready-to-eat, nonfat pudding (very specific there) each earned a 1.
There are a few surprises in between. Nonfat cappuccino received a green light from the investigators, great news for the coffee drinkers out there. A serving of sweet potato chips scored better than a simple grilled chicken breast, and a slice of pizza, loaded up with extra meat and a thick crust, is still more nutritious than a bowl of corn flakes.
Neither is good for you, of course, but we’re still going to take this as a sign that pizza is the ideal breakfast food. Add that to your morning coffee, and you’re ready to start the day. Move over Wheaties, there’s a new breakfast of champions.
COVID-19 resisters, please step forward
Some people have all the luck with good genes, both inside and out.
Genetically speaking, humans are 99.9% the same, but that 0.1% is where things get interesting. Because of that 0.1% difference, some people are more likely to contract diseases such as HIV, while others might be more resistant. These small differences in genetic code could be the key to finding treatments for COVID-19.
“The introduction of SARS-CoV-2 to a naive population, on a global scale, has provided yet another demonstration of the remarkable clinical variability between individuals in the course of infection, ranging from asymptomatic infections to life-threatening disease,” the researchers said in Nature Immunology.
The investigators have been scouring the world to find people who might be resistant to SARS-CoV-2 and have enrolled over 400 individuals in a “dedicated resistance study cohort,” according to ScienceAlert.
The investigators are looking at households in which families were infected but one member did not show severe symptoms, or for individuals who have been around the virus multiple times and haven’t contracted it. They are also looking at blood types.
Enrollment is ongoing, so if you’ve been in contact with COVID-19 multiple times and have not gotten sick, scientists would like to hear from you.
Better living through parasitization
How would you like to triple your life span, while maintaining a youthful appearance and gaining special social standing and privileges?
Sounds pretty good, right, so what’s the catch? Well, you have to be infected with a tapeworm ... and you have to be an ant.
If you are an ant, here’s the deal: Workers of the species Temnothorax nylanderi that have tapeworms live much longer than uninfected workers, and while living out those longer lives they do less work and receive gifts of food.
In a study conducted at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, infected ants’ metabolic rates and lipid levels were similar to those of younger ants, and they appeared to remain in a permanent juvenile stage as a result of the infection, the investigators reported.
They tracked Temnothorax colonies for 3 years, at which point 95% of the uninfected workers had died but over half of the infected ants were still alive. Pretty great, right? Wrong. There was no joy in antville, for the uninfected workers had struck out. “Strained by the additional burden of their wormed-up nestmates, they seemed to be shunting care away from their queen. They were dying sooner than they might have if the colonies had remained parasite-free,” according to an article in the Atlantic.
Does this situation seem just a wee bit familiar? A small group lives longer, healthier lives and enjoys special privileges while the majority of that society works harder to support them? We’ll put it into the form of a chicken-and-egg argument: Which came first, the tapeworms or the one-percenters?
Laughing the pandemic stress away
Doomscrolling on social media has become one of the world’s favorite pastimes during the pandemic, but research shows that those memes about COVID-19 might combat the doom and gloom of the outside world.
A study recently published in Psychology of Popular Media showed that viewing memes, specifically those that were COVID-19 related, actually lessened the stress of the pandemic.
The researchers conducted a survey of 748 people aged 18-88 years. Each participant viewed three memes with text or three memes with text but no images. All three memes had similar cuteness levels (baby or adult), subject (animal or human), and caption (COVID-19–related or not). The participants were then asked to report on their stress levels and feelings before and after the memes.
The people who looked at memes felt less stressed and a higher humor level, especially the participants who received the COVID-19 memes. Study Finds said that they had more “pandemic-coping confidence” than those who got regular memes.
“While the World Health Organization recommended that people avoid too much COVID-related media for the benefit of their mental health, our research reveals that memes about COVID-19 could help people feel more confident in their ability to deal with the pandemic,” lead author Jessica Gall Myrick, PhD, said in a written statement. “The positive emotions associated with this type of content may make people feel psychologically safer and therefore better able to pay attention to the underlying messages related to health threats.”
So if you think you’ve been wasting time looking at memes during this pandemic, think again. It actually might keep you sane. Keep on scrolling!
Giving the gift of stress reduction
It’s a big week here at LOTME. You’ve just read our 100th edition, and to help celebrate that milestone – along with Count Your Buttons Day, Celebration of the Mind Day, and the International Day of the Nacho – we’re presenting an extra-special bonus feature, courtesy of Sad and Useless: The most depressive humor site on the Internet.
We hope you’ll stop your doomscrolling long enough to enjoy this stress-reducing meme. Thanks for reading!
FDA authorizes boosters for Moderna, J&J, allows mix-and-match
in people who are eligible to get them.
The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.
The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.
People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:
- 65 years of age or older
- 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
- 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare
People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.
“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
in people who are eligible to get them.
The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.
The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.
People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:
- 65 years of age or older
- 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
- 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare
People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.
“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
in people who are eligible to get them.
The move to amend the Emergency Use Authorization for these vaccines gives the vaccine experts on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices latitude to recommend a mix-and-match strategy if they feel the science supports it.
The committee convenes Oct. 21 for a day-long meeting to make its recommendations for additional doses.
People who’ve previously received two doses of the Moderna mRNA vaccine, which is now called Spikevax, are eligible for a third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are 6 months past their second dose and are:
- 65 years of age or older
- 18 to 64 years of age, but at high risk for severe COVID-19 because of an underlying health condition
- 18 to 64 years of age and at high risk for exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they live in a group setting, such as a prison or care home, or work in a risky occupation, such as healthcare
People who’ve previously received a dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are eligible for a second dose of any COVID-19 vaccine if they are over the age of 18 and at least 2 months past their vaccination.
“Today’s actions demonstrate our commitment to public health in proactively fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, in a news release. “As the pandemic continues to impact the country, science has shown that vaccination continues to be the safest and most effective way to prevent COVID-19, including the most serious consequences of the disease, such as hospitalization and death.
“The available data suggest waning immunity in some populations who are fully vaccinated. The availability of these authorized boosters is important for continued protection against COVID-19 disease.”
A version of this article was first published on Medscape.com.
White House announces vaccination plans for younger children
States were allowed to begin preordering the shots this week. But they can’t be delivered into kids’ arms until the FDA and CDC sign off. The shots could be available in early November.
“We know millions of parents have been waiting for COVID-19 vaccine for kids in this age group, and should the FDA and CDC authorize the vaccine, we will be ready to get shots in arms,” Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said at a briefing Oct. 20.
Asked whether announcing plans to deliver a vaccine to children might put pressure on the agencies considering the evidence for their use, Mr. Zients defended the Biden administration’s plans.
“This is the right way to do things: To be operationally ready,” he said. Mr. Zients said they had learned a lesson from the prior administration.
“The decision was made by the FDA and CDC, and the operations weren’t ready. And that meant that adults at the time were not able to receive their vaccines as efficiently, equitably as possible. And this will enable us to be ready for kids,” he said.
Pfizer submitted data to the FDA in late September from its test of the vaccine in 2,200 children. The company said the shots had a favorable safety profile and generated “robust” antibody responses.
An FDA panel is scheduled to meet on Oct. 26 to consider Pfizer’s application. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet the following week, on Nov. 2 and 3.
Laying the groundwork
Doctors applauded the advance planning.
“Laying this advance groundwork, ensuring supply is available at physician practices, and that a patient’s own physician is available to answer questions, is critical to the continued success of this rollout,” Gerald Harmon, MD, president of the American Medical Association, said in a written statement.
The shots planned for children are 10 micrograms, a smaller dose than is given to adults. To be fully immunized, kids get two doses, spaced about 21 days apart. Vaccines for younger children are packaged in smaller vials and injected through smaller needles, too.
The vaccine for younger children will roll out slightly differently than it has for adults and teens. While adults mostly got their COVID-19 vaccines through pop-up mass vaccination sites, health departments, and other community locations, the strategy to get children immunized against COVID is centered on the offices of pediatricians and primary care doctors.
The White House says 25,000 doctors have already signed up to give the vaccines.
The vaccination campaign will get underway at a tough moment for pediatricians.
The voicemail message at Roswell Pediatrics Center in the suburbs north of Atlanta, for instance, warns parents to be patient.
“Due to the current, new COVID-19 surge, we are experiencing extremely high call volume, as well as suffering from the same staffing shortages that most businesses are having,” the message says, adding that they’re working around the clock to answer questions and return phone calls.
Jesse Hackell, MD, says he knows the feeling. He’s the chief operating officer of Pomona Pediatrics in Pomona, N.Y., and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“We’re swamped now by kids who get sent home from school because they sneezed once and they have to be cleared before they can go back to school,” he said. “We’re seeing kids who we don’t need to see in terms of the degree of illness because the school requires them to be cleared [of COVID-19].”
Dr. Hackell has been offering the vaccines to kids ages 12 and up since May. He’s planning to offer it to younger children too.
“Adding the vaccines to it is going to be a challenge, but you know we’ll get up to speed and we’ll make it happen,” he said, adding that pediatricians have done many large-scale vaccination campaigns, like those for the H1N1 influenza vaccine in 2009.
Dr. Hackell helped to draft a new policy in New York that will require COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren once they are granted full approval from the FDA. Other states may follow with their own vaccination requirements.
He said ultimately, vaccinating school-age children is going to make them safer, will help prevent the virus from mutating and spreading, and will help society as a whole get back to normal.
“We’re the vaccine experts in pediatrics. This is what we do. It’s a huge part of our practice like no other specialty. If we can’t get it right, how can anyone else be expected to?” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
States were allowed to begin preordering the shots this week. But they can’t be delivered into kids’ arms until the FDA and CDC sign off. The shots could be available in early November.
“We know millions of parents have been waiting for COVID-19 vaccine for kids in this age group, and should the FDA and CDC authorize the vaccine, we will be ready to get shots in arms,” Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said at a briefing Oct. 20.
Asked whether announcing plans to deliver a vaccine to children might put pressure on the agencies considering the evidence for their use, Mr. Zients defended the Biden administration’s plans.
“This is the right way to do things: To be operationally ready,” he said. Mr. Zients said they had learned a lesson from the prior administration.
“The decision was made by the FDA and CDC, and the operations weren’t ready. And that meant that adults at the time were not able to receive their vaccines as efficiently, equitably as possible. And this will enable us to be ready for kids,” he said.
Pfizer submitted data to the FDA in late September from its test of the vaccine in 2,200 children. The company said the shots had a favorable safety profile and generated “robust” antibody responses.
An FDA panel is scheduled to meet on Oct. 26 to consider Pfizer’s application. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet the following week, on Nov. 2 and 3.
Laying the groundwork
Doctors applauded the advance planning.
“Laying this advance groundwork, ensuring supply is available at physician practices, and that a patient’s own physician is available to answer questions, is critical to the continued success of this rollout,” Gerald Harmon, MD, president of the American Medical Association, said in a written statement.
The shots planned for children are 10 micrograms, a smaller dose than is given to adults. To be fully immunized, kids get two doses, spaced about 21 days apart. Vaccines for younger children are packaged in smaller vials and injected through smaller needles, too.
The vaccine for younger children will roll out slightly differently than it has for adults and teens. While adults mostly got their COVID-19 vaccines through pop-up mass vaccination sites, health departments, and other community locations, the strategy to get children immunized against COVID is centered on the offices of pediatricians and primary care doctors.
The White House says 25,000 doctors have already signed up to give the vaccines.
The vaccination campaign will get underway at a tough moment for pediatricians.
The voicemail message at Roswell Pediatrics Center in the suburbs north of Atlanta, for instance, warns parents to be patient.
“Due to the current, new COVID-19 surge, we are experiencing extremely high call volume, as well as suffering from the same staffing shortages that most businesses are having,” the message says, adding that they’re working around the clock to answer questions and return phone calls.
Jesse Hackell, MD, says he knows the feeling. He’s the chief operating officer of Pomona Pediatrics in Pomona, N.Y., and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“We’re swamped now by kids who get sent home from school because they sneezed once and they have to be cleared before they can go back to school,” he said. “We’re seeing kids who we don’t need to see in terms of the degree of illness because the school requires them to be cleared [of COVID-19].”
Dr. Hackell has been offering the vaccines to kids ages 12 and up since May. He’s planning to offer it to younger children too.
“Adding the vaccines to it is going to be a challenge, but you know we’ll get up to speed and we’ll make it happen,” he said, adding that pediatricians have done many large-scale vaccination campaigns, like those for the H1N1 influenza vaccine in 2009.
Dr. Hackell helped to draft a new policy in New York that will require COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren once they are granted full approval from the FDA. Other states may follow with their own vaccination requirements.
He said ultimately, vaccinating school-age children is going to make them safer, will help prevent the virus from mutating and spreading, and will help society as a whole get back to normal.
“We’re the vaccine experts in pediatrics. This is what we do. It’s a huge part of our practice like no other specialty. If we can’t get it right, how can anyone else be expected to?” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
States were allowed to begin preordering the shots this week. But they can’t be delivered into kids’ arms until the FDA and CDC sign off. The shots could be available in early November.
“We know millions of parents have been waiting for COVID-19 vaccine for kids in this age group, and should the FDA and CDC authorize the vaccine, we will be ready to get shots in arms,” Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, said at a briefing Oct. 20.
Asked whether announcing plans to deliver a vaccine to children might put pressure on the agencies considering the evidence for their use, Mr. Zients defended the Biden administration’s plans.
“This is the right way to do things: To be operationally ready,” he said. Mr. Zients said they had learned a lesson from the prior administration.
“The decision was made by the FDA and CDC, and the operations weren’t ready. And that meant that adults at the time were not able to receive their vaccines as efficiently, equitably as possible. And this will enable us to be ready for kids,” he said.
Pfizer submitted data to the FDA in late September from its test of the vaccine in 2,200 children. The company said the shots had a favorable safety profile and generated “robust” antibody responses.
An FDA panel is scheduled to meet on Oct. 26 to consider Pfizer’s application. The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet the following week, on Nov. 2 and 3.
Laying the groundwork
Doctors applauded the advance planning.
“Laying this advance groundwork, ensuring supply is available at physician practices, and that a patient’s own physician is available to answer questions, is critical to the continued success of this rollout,” Gerald Harmon, MD, president of the American Medical Association, said in a written statement.
The shots planned for children are 10 micrograms, a smaller dose than is given to adults. To be fully immunized, kids get two doses, spaced about 21 days apart. Vaccines for younger children are packaged in smaller vials and injected through smaller needles, too.
The vaccine for younger children will roll out slightly differently than it has for adults and teens. While adults mostly got their COVID-19 vaccines through pop-up mass vaccination sites, health departments, and other community locations, the strategy to get children immunized against COVID is centered on the offices of pediatricians and primary care doctors.
The White House says 25,000 doctors have already signed up to give the vaccines.
The vaccination campaign will get underway at a tough moment for pediatricians.
The voicemail message at Roswell Pediatrics Center in the suburbs north of Atlanta, for instance, warns parents to be patient.
“Due to the current, new COVID-19 surge, we are experiencing extremely high call volume, as well as suffering from the same staffing shortages that most businesses are having,” the message says, adding that they’re working around the clock to answer questions and return phone calls.
Jesse Hackell, MD, says he knows the feeling. He’s the chief operating officer of Pomona Pediatrics in Pomona, N.Y., and a spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics.
“We’re swamped now by kids who get sent home from school because they sneezed once and they have to be cleared before they can go back to school,” he said. “We’re seeing kids who we don’t need to see in terms of the degree of illness because the school requires them to be cleared [of COVID-19].”
Dr. Hackell has been offering the vaccines to kids ages 12 and up since May. He’s planning to offer it to younger children too.
“Adding the vaccines to it is going to be a challenge, but you know we’ll get up to speed and we’ll make it happen,” he said, adding that pediatricians have done many large-scale vaccination campaigns, like those for the H1N1 influenza vaccine in 2009.
Dr. Hackell helped to draft a new policy in New York that will require COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren once they are granted full approval from the FDA. Other states may follow with their own vaccination requirements.
He said ultimately, vaccinating school-age children is going to make them safer, will help prevent the virus from mutating and spreading, and will help society as a whole get back to normal.
“We’re the vaccine experts in pediatrics. This is what we do. It’s a huge part of our practice like no other specialty. If we can’t get it right, how can anyone else be expected to?” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Children and COVID: Vaccinations lower than ever as cases continue to drop
As the COVID-19 vaccine heads toward approval for children under age 12 years, the number of older children receiving it dropped for the 10th consecutive week, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Over 47% of all children aged 12-17 years – that’s close to 12 million eligible individuals – have not received even one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and less than 44% (about 11.1 million) were fully vaccinated as of Oct. 18, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
, when eligibility expanded to include 12- to 15-year-olds, according to the CDC data, which also show that weekly vaccinations have never been lower.
Fortunately, the decline in new cases also continued, as the national total fell for a 6th straight week. There were more than 130,000 child cases reported during the week of Oct. 8-14, compared with 148,000 the previous week and the high of almost 252,000 in late August/early September, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
That brings the cumulative count to 6.18 million, with children accounting for 16.4% of all cases reported since the start of the pandemic. For the week of Oct. 8-14, children represented 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases in the 46 states with up-to-date online dashboards, the AAP and CHA said, noting that New York has never reported age ranges for cases and that Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer.
Current data indicate that child cases in California now exceed 671,000, more than any other state, followed by Florida with 439,000 (the state defines a child as someone aged 0-14 years) and Illinois with 301,000. Vermont has the highest proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children (24.3%), with Alaska (24.1%) and South Carolina (23.2%) just behind. The highest rate of cases – 15,569 per 100,000 children – can be found in South Carolina, while the lowest is in Hawaii (4,838 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA reported.
The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 681 as of Oct. 18, according to the CDC, with the AAP/CHA reporting 558 as of Oct. 14, based on data from 45 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The CDC reports 65,655 admissions since Aug. 1, 2020, in children aged 0-17 years, and the AAP/CHA tally 23,582 since May 5, 2020, among children in 24 states and New York City.
As the COVID-19 vaccine heads toward approval for children under age 12 years, the number of older children receiving it dropped for the 10th consecutive week, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Over 47% of all children aged 12-17 years – that’s close to 12 million eligible individuals – have not received even one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and less than 44% (about 11.1 million) were fully vaccinated as of Oct. 18, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
, when eligibility expanded to include 12- to 15-year-olds, according to the CDC data, which also show that weekly vaccinations have never been lower.
Fortunately, the decline in new cases also continued, as the national total fell for a 6th straight week. There were more than 130,000 child cases reported during the week of Oct. 8-14, compared with 148,000 the previous week and the high of almost 252,000 in late August/early September, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
That brings the cumulative count to 6.18 million, with children accounting for 16.4% of all cases reported since the start of the pandemic. For the week of Oct. 8-14, children represented 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases in the 46 states with up-to-date online dashboards, the AAP and CHA said, noting that New York has never reported age ranges for cases and that Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer.
Current data indicate that child cases in California now exceed 671,000, more than any other state, followed by Florida with 439,000 (the state defines a child as someone aged 0-14 years) and Illinois with 301,000. Vermont has the highest proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children (24.3%), with Alaska (24.1%) and South Carolina (23.2%) just behind. The highest rate of cases – 15,569 per 100,000 children – can be found in South Carolina, while the lowest is in Hawaii (4,838 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA reported.
The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 681 as of Oct. 18, according to the CDC, with the AAP/CHA reporting 558 as of Oct. 14, based on data from 45 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The CDC reports 65,655 admissions since Aug. 1, 2020, in children aged 0-17 years, and the AAP/CHA tally 23,582 since May 5, 2020, among children in 24 states and New York City.
As the COVID-19 vaccine heads toward approval for children under age 12 years, the number of older children receiving it dropped for the 10th consecutive week, based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Over 47% of all children aged 12-17 years – that’s close to 12 million eligible individuals – have not received even one dose of COVID-19 vaccine, and less than 44% (about 11.1 million) were fully vaccinated as of Oct. 18, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.
, when eligibility expanded to include 12- to 15-year-olds, according to the CDC data, which also show that weekly vaccinations have never been lower.
Fortunately, the decline in new cases also continued, as the national total fell for a 6th straight week. There were more than 130,000 child cases reported during the week of Oct. 8-14, compared with 148,000 the previous week and the high of almost 252,000 in late August/early September, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID-19 report.
That brings the cumulative count to 6.18 million, with children accounting for 16.4% of all cases reported since the start of the pandemic. For the week of Oct. 8-14, children represented 25.5% of all COVID-19 cases in the 46 states with up-to-date online dashboards, the AAP and CHA said, noting that New York has never reported age ranges for cases and that Alabama, Nebraska, and Texas stopped reporting over the summer.
Current data indicate that child cases in California now exceed 671,000, more than any other state, followed by Florida with 439,000 (the state defines a child as someone aged 0-14 years) and Illinois with 301,000. Vermont has the highest proportion of COVID-19 cases occurring in children (24.3%), with Alaska (24.1%) and South Carolina (23.2%) just behind. The highest rate of cases – 15,569 per 100,000 children – can be found in South Carolina, while the lowest is in Hawaii (4,838 per 100,000), the AAP and CHA reported.
The total number of COVID-related deaths in children is 681 as of Oct. 18, according to the CDC, with the AAP/CHA reporting 558 as of Oct. 14, based on data from 45 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam. The CDC reports 65,655 admissions since Aug. 1, 2020, in children aged 0-17 years, and the AAP/CHA tally 23,582 since May 5, 2020, among children in 24 states and New York City.
Why toilet paper is the unofficial symbol of anxiety during COVID
How did toilet paper become the unofficial symbol of anxiety during the pandemic? Empty store shelves are a stark reminder of how COVID-19 has taken a toll on people.
At the beginning of the pandemic, stay-at-home orders drove people to buy large amounts of household goods, especially toilet paper. Demand grew to unforeseen heights in March 2020, with $1.45 billion in toilet paper sales in the 4-week period ending March 29, up 112% from the year before, according to IRI, a Chicago-based market research firm.
As the Delta variant drove a COVID-19 resurgence this summer, market research suggests that almost one in two Americans started stockpiling toilet paper again over fears that supply would run out. The higher demand causes ripples through the retail chain, and a growing number of stores are again facing challenges in stocking toilet paper.
Yet there is plenty for everyone if people don’t stockpile too much, according to paper industry market analyst Ronalds Gonzalez, PhD, an associate professor of conversion economics and sustainability at North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
“As long as people buy what they actually need and don’t get into a panic, there won’t be any issue with the supply of hygienic tissue,” he says, adding that “too much” would equate to stockpiling 6-8 months’ worth of toilet paper, as some people did early in the pandemic.
But retailers are worried that history will repeat itself. In late September 2021, warehouse retail giant Costco told Wall Street analysts that it decided to limit customer purchases of essential items like toilet paper and water. Another retailer, Sam’s Club, began limiting customer purchases of supplies like toilet paper at the end of July.
“We are wired to run with the herd,” says Bradley Klontz, PsyD, an associate professor of practice at Creighton University Heider College of Business, Omaha, N.E., who specializes in financial psychology.
“Quite literally, the last person to get to Costco doesn’t get the toilet paper, so when the herd is running in a certain direction, we feel a biological imperative to not be that last person. That fear of scarcity actually creates the experience of scarcity,” he explains.
The science behind the stockpile
People are collectively alerted by photos shared on social media showing store shelves stripped of toilet paper. Those images triggered consumers to rush out and buy bathroom tissue, even if they didn’t need it – and that herd behavior created toilet paper shortages.
Now, a year and half into the pandemic, people are hypervigilant to danger. Any hint of a possible toilet paper shortage can provoke anxiety and the desire to stockpile.
, says Dr. Klontz. He advises people to take a deep breath before buying extra toilet paper and then assess whether it is truly needed.
Deep in our brains is the limbic system, a group of structures that rules over emotions, motivation, reward, learning, memory, and the fight-or-flight response to stress and danger. When a person senses danger, the brain activates hormones to raise blood pressure and heart rate, increase blood flow, and boost the breath rate, making the body ready to fight or flee under threat.
Once everything settles, the body activates chemicals like dopamine that bring on positive feelings of well-being, rewarding that flight-or-fight response. In this way, the brain powerfully reinforces a key survival instinct.
This sequence of experiences and the brain chemistry behind them may explain why people panic-buy toilet paper.
“With toilet paper, my limbic system starts thinking about a perceived threat to safety,” says Julie Pike, PhD, a psychologist in Chapel Hill, N.C., who specializes in anxiety, hoarding, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
She notes that, in stockpiling toilet paper, “we avoid a perceived threat and then we are chemically rewarded” with dopamine. A storage closet full of toilet paper after a perceived threat of scarcity – no matter how unfounded – brings on that satisfied feeling.
When the market shifted
Paper producers make hygiene paper for two markets: the commercial (think: those big rolls of thin paper used in offices, schools, and restaurants) and the consumer (the soft paper you likely use at home). In the spring of 2020, the commercial market plummeted, and the consumer market skyrocketed.
Generally, the consumer toilet paper market is steady. The average American uses about 57 toilet sheets a day and about 50 pounds annually. Grocery stores and other retailers keep just enough toilet paper on hand to meet this steady demand, meaning panic buying at the start of the pandemic quickly depleted stocks. Paper makers had to change production to meet higher consumer demand and fewer commercial buyers.
By the end of the summer of 2020, toilet paper makers had adjusted for the market shift and caught up with demand, as consumers worked through their stockpiles of paper. But retail inventories remain lean because toilet paper doesn’t carry huge profit margins. For this reason, even healthy stocks remain sensitive to sudden shifts in consumer demand, Dr. Gonzalez says.
“If people buy more than they should, then they are just buying from other people,” creating an unnecessary scarcity of toilet paper, he says.
The supply chain
It is true that the supply chain is under unprecedented strain, leading to higher prices for many goods, says Katie Denis, vice president of research and industry narrative at the Consumer Brands Association, Washington, which represents toilet paper makers Georgia-Pacific and Procter & Gamble. Consumers should expect toilet paper to be available, but there may be fewer options for product sizes, she says.
Still, Dr. Gonzalez says consumers should not worry too much about the global supply chain affecting the domestic toilet paper supply. The raw material for toilet paper production is available domestically, and more than 97% of the supply on U.S. retailer shelves is made in the United States, he says.
In modern society, toilet paper is a primary link to civilization, health, and hygiene. While there is no easy substitute, alternatives do exist A bidet, for example, is a device that can spray water on the genital area. Other options are reusable cloths, sponges, baby wipes, napkins, towels, and washcloths.
Human health and hygiene
“Compared to many other items, toilet paper can’t really be replaced,” says Frank H. Farley, PhD, a professor of psychological studies in education at Temple University, who studies human motivation. “It is a unique consumer item that is perceived to be extremely necessary. In that way, it plays into that survivor mentality, that having it is necessary for survival.”
Being without it can truly seem like an existential threat.
New York City emergency planner Ira Tannenbaum advises families to assess their usage of essential household supplies like toilet paper (you can do so through this toilet paper calculator) and keep at least a 1-week supply on hand in case of emergency. New York City has posted recommendations to families for emergency planning, including the guidance to “avoid panic buying.”
Dr. Pike says she would stockpile a bit more, something that could be done gradually, before there’s a panic. She says that if people are tempted to buy more out of anxiety, they should remind themselves that shortages arise because of panicky purchasing.
“Leave some for other families – other people have children and partners and siblings just like us,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
How did toilet paper become the unofficial symbol of anxiety during the pandemic? Empty store shelves are a stark reminder of how COVID-19 has taken a toll on people.
At the beginning of the pandemic, stay-at-home orders drove people to buy large amounts of household goods, especially toilet paper. Demand grew to unforeseen heights in March 2020, with $1.45 billion in toilet paper sales in the 4-week period ending March 29, up 112% from the year before, according to IRI, a Chicago-based market research firm.
As the Delta variant drove a COVID-19 resurgence this summer, market research suggests that almost one in two Americans started stockpiling toilet paper again over fears that supply would run out. The higher demand causes ripples through the retail chain, and a growing number of stores are again facing challenges in stocking toilet paper.
Yet there is plenty for everyone if people don’t stockpile too much, according to paper industry market analyst Ronalds Gonzalez, PhD, an associate professor of conversion economics and sustainability at North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
“As long as people buy what they actually need and don’t get into a panic, there won’t be any issue with the supply of hygienic tissue,” he says, adding that “too much” would equate to stockpiling 6-8 months’ worth of toilet paper, as some people did early in the pandemic.
But retailers are worried that history will repeat itself. In late September 2021, warehouse retail giant Costco told Wall Street analysts that it decided to limit customer purchases of essential items like toilet paper and water. Another retailer, Sam’s Club, began limiting customer purchases of supplies like toilet paper at the end of July.
“We are wired to run with the herd,” says Bradley Klontz, PsyD, an associate professor of practice at Creighton University Heider College of Business, Omaha, N.E., who specializes in financial psychology.
“Quite literally, the last person to get to Costco doesn’t get the toilet paper, so when the herd is running in a certain direction, we feel a biological imperative to not be that last person. That fear of scarcity actually creates the experience of scarcity,” he explains.
The science behind the stockpile
People are collectively alerted by photos shared on social media showing store shelves stripped of toilet paper. Those images triggered consumers to rush out and buy bathroom tissue, even if they didn’t need it – and that herd behavior created toilet paper shortages.
Now, a year and half into the pandemic, people are hypervigilant to danger. Any hint of a possible toilet paper shortage can provoke anxiety and the desire to stockpile.
, says Dr. Klontz. He advises people to take a deep breath before buying extra toilet paper and then assess whether it is truly needed.
Deep in our brains is the limbic system, a group of structures that rules over emotions, motivation, reward, learning, memory, and the fight-or-flight response to stress and danger. When a person senses danger, the brain activates hormones to raise blood pressure and heart rate, increase blood flow, and boost the breath rate, making the body ready to fight or flee under threat.
Once everything settles, the body activates chemicals like dopamine that bring on positive feelings of well-being, rewarding that flight-or-fight response. In this way, the brain powerfully reinforces a key survival instinct.
This sequence of experiences and the brain chemistry behind them may explain why people panic-buy toilet paper.
“With toilet paper, my limbic system starts thinking about a perceived threat to safety,” says Julie Pike, PhD, a psychologist in Chapel Hill, N.C., who specializes in anxiety, hoarding, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
She notes that, in stockpiling toilet paper, “we avoid a perceived threat and then we are chemically rewarded” with dopamine. A storage closet full of toilet paper after a perceived threat of scarcity – no matter how unfounded – brings on that satisfied feeling.
When the market shifted
Paper producers make hygiene paper for two markets: the commercial (think: those big rolls of thin paper used in offices, schools, and restaurants) and the consumer (the soft paper you likely use at home). In the spring of 2020, the commercial market plummeted, and the consumer market skyrocketed.
Generally, the consumer toilet paper market is steady. The average American uses about 57 toilet sheets a day and about 50 pounds annually. Grocery stores and other retailers keep just enough toilet paper on hand to meet this steady demand, meaning panic buying at the start of the pandemic quickly depleted stocks. Paper makers had to change production to meet higher consumer demand and fewer commercial buyers.
By the end of the summer of 2020, toilet paper makers had adjusted for the market shift and caught up with demand, as consumers worked through their stockpiles of paper. But retail inventories remain lean because toilet paper doesn’t carry huge profit margins. For this reason, even healthy stocks remain sensitive to sudden shifts in consumer demand, Dr. Gonzalez says.
“If people buy more than they should, then they are just buying from other people,” creating an unnecessary scarcity of toilet paper, he says.
The supply chain
It is true that the supply chain is under unprecedented strain, leading to higher prices for many goods, says Katie Denis, vice president of research and industry narrative at the Consumer Brands Association, Washington, which represents toilet paper makers Georgia-Pacific and Procter & Gamble. Consumers should expect toilet paper to be available, but there may be fewer options for product sizes, she says.
Still, Dr. Gonzalez says consumers should not worry too much about the global supply chain affecting the domestic toilet paper supply. The raw material for toilet paper production is available domestically, and more than 97% of the supply on U.S. retailer shelves is made in the United States, he says.
In modern society, toilet paper is a primary link to civilization, health, and hygiene. While there is no easy substitute, alternatives do exist A bidet, for example, is a device that can spray water on the genital area. Other options are reusable cloths, sponges, baby wipes, napkins, towels, and washcloths.
Human health and hygiene
“Compared to many other items, toilet paper can’t really be replaced,” says Frank H. Farley, PhD, a professor of psychological studies in education at Temple University, who studies human motivation. “It is a unique consumer item that is perceived to be extremely necessary. In that way, it plays into that survivor mentality, that having it is necessary for survival.”
Being without it can truly seem like an existential threat.
New York City emergency planner Ira Tannenbaum advises families to assess their usage of essential household supplies like toilet paper (you can do so through this toilet paper calculator) and keep at least a 1-week supply on hand in case of emergency. New York City has posted recommendations to families for emergency planning, including the guidance to “avoid panic buying.”
Dr. Pike says she would stockpile a bit more, something that could be done gradually, before there’s a panic. She says that if people are tempted to buy more out of anxiety, they should remind themselves that shortages arise because of panicky purchasing.
“Leave some for other families – other people have children and partners and siblings just like us,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
How did toilet paper become the unofficial symbol of anxiety during the pandemic? Empty store shelves are a stark reminder of how COVID-19 has taken a toll on people.
At the beginning of the pandemic, stay-at-home orders drove people to buy large amounts of household goods, especially toilet paper. Demand grew to unforeseen heights in March 2020, with $1.45 billion in toilet paper sales in the 4-week period ending March 29, up 112% from the year before, according to IRI, a Chicago-based market research firm.
As the Delta variant drove a COVID-19 resurgence this summer, market research suggests that almost one in two Americans started stockpiling toilet paper again over fears that supply would run out. The higher demand causes ripples through the retail chain, and a growing number of stores are again facing challenges in stocking toilet paper.
Yet there is plenty for everyone if people don’t stockpile too much, according to paper industry market analyst Ronalds Gonzalez, PhD, an associate professor of conversion economics and sustainability at North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
“As long as people buy what they actually need and don’t get into a panic, there won’t be any issue with the supply of hygienic tissue,” he says, adding that “too much” would equate to stockpiling 6-8 months’ worth of toilet paper, as some people did early in the pandemic.
But retailers are worried that history will repeat itself. In late September 2021, warehouse retail giant Costco told Wall Street analysts that it decided to limit customer purchases of essential items like toilet paper and water. Another retailer, Sam’s Club, began limiting customer purchases of supplies like toilet paper at the end of July.
“We are wired to run with the herd,” says Bradley Klontz, PsyD, an associate professor of practice at Creighton University Heider College of Business, Omaha, N.E., who specializes in financial psychology.
“Quite literally, the last person to get to Costco doesn’t get the toilet paper, so when the herd is running in a certain direction, we feel a biological imperative to not be that last person. That fear of scarcity actually creates the experience of scarcity,” he explains.
The science behind the stockpile
People are collectively alerted by photos shared on social media showing store shelves stripped of toilet paper. Those images triggered consumers to rush out and buy bathroom tissue, even if they didn’t need it – and that herd behavior created toilet paper shortages.
Now, a year and half into the pandemic, people are hypervigilant to danger. Any hint of a possible toilet paper shortage can provoke anxiety and the desire to stockpile.
, says Dr. Klontz. He advises people to take a deep breath before buying extra toilet paper and then assess whether it is truly needed.
Deep in our brains is the limbic system, a group of structures that rules over emotions, motivation, reward, learning, memory, and the fight-or-flight response to stress and danger. When a person senses danger, the brain activates hormones to raise blood pressure and heart rate, increase blood flow, and boost the breath rate, making the body ready to fight or flee under threat.
Once everything settles, the body activates chemicals like dopamine that bring on positive feelings of well-being, rewarding that flight-or-fight response. In this way, the brain powerfully reinforces a key survival instinct.
This sequence of experiences and the brain chemistry behind them may explain why people panic-buy toilet paper.
“With toilet paper, my limbic system starts thinking about a perceived threat to safety,” says Julie Pike, PhD, a psychologist in Chapel Hill, N.C., who specializes in anxiety, hoarding, and posttraumatic stress disorder.
She notes that, in stockpiling toilet paper, “we avoid a perceived threat and then we are chemically rewarded” with dopamine. A storage closet full of toilet paper after a perceived threat of scarcity – no matter how unfounded – brings on that satisfied feeling.
When the market shifted
Paper producers make hygiene paper for two markets: the commercial (think: those big rolls of thin paper used in offices, schools, and restaurants) and the consumer (the soft paper you likely use at home). In the spring of 2020, the commercial market plummeted, and the consumer market skyrocketed.
Generally, the consumer toilet paper market is steady. The average American uses about 57 toilet sheets a day and about 50 pounds annually. Grocery stores and other retailers keep just enough toilet paper on hand to meet this steady demand, meaning panic buying at the start of the pandemic quickly depleted stocks. Paper makers had to change production to meet higher consumer demand and fewer commercial buyers.
By the end of the summer of 2020, toilet paper makers had adjusted for the market shift and caught up with demand, as consumers worked through their stockpiles of paper. But retail inventories remain lean because toilet paper doesn’t carry huge profit margins. For this reason, even healthy stocks remain sensitive to sudden shifts in consumer demand, Dr. Gonzalez says.
“If people buy more than they should, then they are just buying from other people,” creating an unnecessary scarcity of toilet paper, he says.
The supply chain
It is true that the supply chain is under unprecedented strain, leading to higher prices for many goods, says Katie Denis, vice president of research and industry narrative at the Consumer Brands Association, Washington, which represents toilet paper makers Georgia-Pacific and Procter & Gamble. Consumers should expect toilet paper to be available, but there may be fewer options for product sizes, she says.
Still, Dr. Gonzalez says consumers should not worry too much about the global supply chain affecting the domestic toilet paper supply. The raw material for toilet paper production is available domestically, and more than 97% of the supply on U.S. retailer shelves is made in the United States, he says.
In modern society, toilet paper is a primary link to civilization, health, and hygiene. While there is no easy substitute, alternatives do exist A bidet, for example, is a device that can spray water on the genital area. Other options are reusable cloths, sponges, baby wipes, napkins, towels, and washcloths.
Human health and hygiene
“Compared to many other items, toilet paper can’t really be replaced,” says Frank H. Farley, PhD, a professor of psychological studies in education at Temple University, who studies human motivation. “It is a unique consumer item that is perceived to be extremely necessary. In that way, it plays into that survivor mentality, that having it is necessary for survival.”
Being without it can truly seem like an existential threat.
New York City emergency planner Ira Tannenbaum advises families to assess their usage of essential household supplies like toilet paper (you can do so through this toilet paper calculator) and keep at least a 1-week supply on hand in case of emergency. New York City has posted recommendations to families for emergency planning, including the guidance to “avoid panic buying.”
Dr. Pike says she would stockpile a bit more, something that could be done gradually, before there’s a panic. She says that if people are tempted to buy more out of anxiety, they should remind themselves that shortages arise because of panicky purchasing.
“Leave some for other families – other people have children and partners and siblings just like us,” she says.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.