COVID-19 Updates

By August 2022, two-and-a-half years into the COVID-19 pandemic, most children as well as most adults under age 60 years had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and/or infection, a Canadian seroprevalence study of almost 14,000 people over the first seven waves of the pandemic reports.

However, fewer than 50% people older than age 60, the age group most vulnerable to severe outcomes, showed evidence of immunity from infection or vaccination. The authors noted that older adults – who have the lowest infection rates but highest risk of severe outcomes – continue to warrant prioritized vaccination, writing online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The study

Conducted in British Columbia’s Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley, the analysis found that in the first year of the pandemic, when extraordinary measures were in place to curtail transmission, virtually everyone remained immunologically naive. Thereafter, however, age-based vaccine rollouts dramatically changed the immuno-epidemiological landscape so that by September 2021, more than 80% of the study population had antibody evidence of immunological priming, while more than 85% remained uninfected.

By August 2022, after the Omicron-variant waves, overall vaccine- and infection-induced seroprevalence exceeded 95%, with 60% having been actually infected, including at least three-quarters of children. Fewer than 50% of older adults, however, showed immunological evidence of exposure.

The study results were based on anonymized residual sera from children and adults in an outpatient laboratory network. At least three immunoassays per serosurvey were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike (from vaccine) and to nucleocapsid antibodies (from infection).

The researchers assessed any seroprevalence – vaccine-, infection-induced, or both – as defined by positivity on any two assays. Infection-induced seroprevalence was also defined by dual-assay positivity but required both antinucleocapsid and antispike detection. Their estimates of infection-induced seroprevalence indicated considerable under-ascertainment of infections by standard surveillance case reports.
 

Results

During the first year of the pandemic, fewer than 1% manifested seroprevalence during the first three snapshots and fewer than 5% by January 2021. With vaccine rollout, however, seroprevalence increased dramatically during the first half of 2021 to 56% by May/June 2021 and to 83% by September/October 2021.

In addition, infection-induced seroprevalence was low at less than 15% in September/October 2021 until the arrival of the Omicron waves, after which it rose to 42% by March 2022 and 61% by July/August 2022. Combined seroprevalence for vaccination or infection was more than 95% by the summer, with most children but less than half of adults older than 60 years showing evidence of having been infected.

“We found the highest infection rates among children, closely followed by young adults, which may reflect their greater interconnectedness, including between siblings and parents in the household, as well as with peers in schools and the community,” the authors wrote, adding that the low cumulative infection rates among older adults may reflect their higher vaccination rates and greater social isolation.

U.S. data show similar age-related infection rates, but data among children from other Canadian provinces are limited, the authors said.

Commenting on the survey but not involved in it, infectious diseases expert Marc Germain, MD, PhD, a vice president at Héma-Québec in Quebec City, believes the pattern observed in British Columbia is fairly representative of what happened across Canada and the United States, including the sweeping effect of the Omicron variant and the differential impact according to age.

“But regional differences might very well exist – for example, due to differential vaccine uptake – and are also probably related in part to the different testing platforms being used,” Dr. Germain told this news organization.

Caroline Quach-Tanh, MD, PhD, a pediatrician and epidemiologist/infectologist at the University of Montreal, pointed out that Quebec seroprevalence surveys using residual blood samples from children and adults visiting emergency departments for any reason showed higher rates of prior infection than did the BC surveys. “But Dr. Skowronski’s findings are likely applicable to settings where some nonpharmacological interventions were put in place, but without strict confinement – and thus are likely applicable to most settings in the U.S. and Canada.”

Dr. Quach-Tanh added that there is always a risk of bias with the use of residual blood samples, “but the fact that the study method was stable should have captured a similar population from time to time. It would be unlikely to result in a major overestimation in the proportion of individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.”

A recent global meta-analysis found that while global seroprevalence has risen considerably, albeit variably by region, more than a third of the world’s population is still seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Skowronski reported institutional grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Public Health for other SARSCoV-2 work. Coauthor Romina C. Reyes, MD, chairs the BC Diagnostic Accreditation Program committee. Coauthor Mel Krajden, MD, reported institutional grants from Roche, Hologic, and Siemens. Dr. Germain and Dr. Quach-Tanh disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

By August 2022, two-and-a-half years into the COVID-19 pandemic, most children as well as most adults under age 60 years had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and/or infection, a Canadian seroprevalence study of almost 14,000 people over the first seven waves of the pandemic reports.

However, fewer than 50% people older than age 60, the age group most vulnerable to severe outcomes, showed evidence of immunity from infection or vaccination. The authors noted that older adults – who have the lowest infection rates but highest risk of severe outcomes – continue to warrant prioritized vaccination, writing online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The study

Conducted in British Columbia’s Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley, the analysis found that in the first year of the pandemic, when extraordinary measures were in place to curtail transmission, virtually everyone remained immunologically naive. Thereafter, however, age-based vaccine rollouts dramatically changed the immuno-epidemiological landscape so that by September 2021, more than 80% of the study population had antibody evidence of immunological priming, while more than 85% remained uninfected.

By August 2022, after the Omicron-variant waves, overall vaccine- and infection-induced seroprevalence exceeded 95%, with 60% having been actually infected, including at least three-quarters of children. Fewer than 50% of older adults, however, showed immunological evidence of exposure.

The study results were based on anonymized residual sera from children and adults in an outpatient laboratory network. At least three immunoassays per serosurvey were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike (from vaccine) and to nucleocapsid antibodies (from infection).

The researchers assessed any seroprevalence – vaccine-, infection-induced, or both – as defined by positivity on any two assays. Infection-induced seroprevalence was also defined by dual-assay positivity but required both antinucleocapsid and antispike detection. Their estimates of infection-induced seroprevalence indicated considerable under-ascertainment of infections by standard surveillance case reports.
 

Results

During the first year of the pandemic, fewer than 1% manifested seroprevalence during the first three snapshots and fewer than 5% by January 2021. With vaccine rollout, however, seroprevalence increased dramatically during the first half of 2021 to 56% by May/June 2021 and to 83% by September/October 2021.

In addition, infection-induced seroprevalence was low at less than 15% in September/October 2021 until the arrival of the Omicron waves, after which it rose to 42% by March 2022 and 61% by July/August 2022. Combined seroprevalence for vaccination or infection was more than 95% by the summer, with most children but less than half of adults older than 60 years showing evidence of having been infected.

“We found the highest infection rates among children, closely followed by young adults, which may reflect their greater interconnectedness, including between siblings and parents in the household, as well as with peers in schools and the community,” the authors wrote, adding that the low cumulative infection rates among older adults may reflect their higher vaccination rates and greater social isolation.

U.S. data show similar age-related infection rates, but data among children from other Canadian provinces are limited, the authors said.

Commenting on the survey but not involved in it, infectious diseases expert Marc Germain, MD, PhD, a vice president at Héma-Québec in Quebec City, believes the pattern observed in British Columbia is fairly representative of what happened across Canada and the United States, including the sweeping effect of the Omicron variant and the differential impact according to age.

“But regional differences might very well exist – for example, due to differential vaccine uptake – and are also probably related in part to the different testing platforms being used,” Dr. Germain told this news organization.

Caroline Quach-Tanh, MD, PhD, a pediatrician and epidemiologist/infectologist at the University of Montreal, pointed out that Quebec seroprevalence surveys using residual blood samples from children and adults visiting emergency departments for any reason showed higher rates of prior infection than did the BC surveys. “But Dr. Skowronski’s findings are likely applicable to settings where some nonpharmacological interventions were put in place, but without strict confinement – and thus are likely applicable to most settings in the U.S. and Canada.”

Dr. Quach-Tanh added that there is always a risk of bias with the use of residual blood samples, “but the fact that the study method was stable should have captured a similar population from time to time. It would be unlikely to result in a major overestimation in the proportion of individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.”

A recent global meta-analysis found that while global seroprevalence has risen considerably, albeit variably by region, more than a third of the world’s population is still seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Skowronski reported institutional grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Public Health for other SARSCoV-2 work. Coauthor Romina C. Reyes, MD, chairs the BC Diagnostic Accreditation Program committee. Coauthor Mel Krajden, MD, reported institutional grants from Roche, Hologic, and Siemens. Dr. Germain and Dr. Quach-Tanh disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

By August 2022, two-and-a-half years into the COVID-19 pandemic, most children as well as most adults under age 60 years had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and/or infection, a Canadian seroprevalence study of almost 14,000 people over the first seven waves of the pandemic reports.

However, fewer than 50% people older than age 60, the age group most vulnerable to severe outcomes, showed evidence of immunity from infection or vaccination. The authors noted that older adults – who have the lowest infection rates but highest risk of severe outcomes – continue to warrant prioritized vaccination, writing online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The study

Conducted in British Columbia’s Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley, the analysis found that in the first year of the pandemic, when extraordinary measures were in place to curtail transmission, virtually everyone remained immunologically naive. Thereafter, however, age-based vaccine rollouts dramatically changed the immuno-epidemiological landscape so that by September 2021, more than 80% of the study population had antibody evidence of immunological priming, while more than 85% remained uninfected.

By August 2022, after the Omicron-variant waves, overall vaccine- and infection-induced seroprevalence exceeded 95%, with 60% having been actually infected, including at least three-quarters of children. Fewer than 50% of older adults, however, showed immunological evidence of exposure.

The study results were based on anonymized residual sera from children and adults in an outpatient laboratory network. At least three immunoassays per serosurvey were used to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike (from vaccine) and to nucleocapsid antibodies (from infection).

The researchers assessed any seroprevalence – vaccine-, infection-induced, or both – as defined by positivity on any two assays. Infection-induced seroprevalence was also defined by dual-assay positivity but required both antinucleocapsid and antispike detection. Their estimates of infection-induced seroprevalence indicated considerable under-ascertainment of infections by standard surveillance case reports.
 

Results

During the first year of the pandemic, fewer than 1% manifested seroprevalence during the first three snapshots and fewer than 5% by January 2021. With vaccine rollout, however, seroprevalence increased dramatically during the first half of 2021 to 56% by May/June 2021 and to 83% by September/October 2021.

In addition, infection-induced seroprevalence was low at less than 15% in September/October 2021 until the arrival of the Omicron waves, after which it rose to 42% by March 2022 and 61% by July/August 2022. Combined seroprevalence for vaccination or infection was more than 95% by the summer, with most children but less than half of adults older than 60 years showing evidence of having been infected.

“We found the highest infection rates among children, closely followed by young adults, which may reflect their greater interconnectedness, including between siblings and parents in the household, as well as with peers in schools and the community,” the authors wrote, adding that the low cumulative infection rates among older adults may reflect their higher vaccination rates and greater social isolation.

U.S. data show similar age-related infection rates, but data among children from other Canadian provinces are limited, the authors said.

Commenting on the survey but not involved in it, infectious diseases expert Marc Germain, MD, PhD, a vice president at Héma-Québec in Quebec City, believes the pattern observed in British Columbia is fairly representative of what happened across Canada and the United States, including the sweeping effect of the Omicron variant and the differential impact according to age.

“But regional differences might very well exist – for example, due to differential vaccine uptake – and are also probably related in part to the different testing platforms being used,” Dr. Germain told this news organization.

Caroline Quach-Tanh, MD, PhD, a pediatrician and epidemiologist/infectologist at the University of Montreal, pointed out that Quebec seroprevalence surveys using residual blood samples from children and adults visiting emergency departments for any reason showed higher rates of prior infection than did the BC surveys. “But Dr. Skowronski’s findings are likely applicable to settings where some nonpharmacological interventions were put in place, but without strict confinement – and thus are likely applicable to most settings in the U.S. and Canada.”

Dr. Quach-Tanh added that there is always a risk of bias with the use of residual blood samples, “but the fact that the study method was stable should have captured a similar population from time to time. It would be unlikely to result in a major overestimation in the proportion of individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.”

A recent global meta-analysis found that while global seroprevalence has risen considerably, albeit variably by region, more than a third of the world’s population is still seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Dr. Skowronski reported institutional grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control Foundation for Public Health for other SARSCoV-2 work. Coauthor Romina C. Reyes, MD, chairs the BC Diagnostic Accreditation Program committee. Coauthor Mel Krajden, MD, reported institutional grants from Roche, Hologic, and Siemens. Dr. Germain and Dr. Quach-Tanh disclosed no competing interests relevant to their comments.

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

In this current age of mass misinformation and disinformation on the Internet, a tongue-in-cheek study that evaluated beliefs and attitudes toward cancer among conspiracy theorists and people who oppose vaccinations has received some harsh criticism.

The study, entitled, “Everything Causes Cancer? Beliefs and Attitudes Towards Cancer Prevention Among Anti-Vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Reptilian Conspiracists: Online Cross Sectional Survey,” was published in the Christmas 2022 issue of The British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The authors explain that they set out to evaluate “the patterns of beliefs about cancer among people who believed in conspiracies, rejected the COVID-19 vaccine, or preferred alternative medicine.”

They sought such people on social media and online chat platforms and asked them questions about real and mythical causes of cancer.

Almost half of survey participants agreed with the statement, “It seems like everything causes cancer.”

Overall, among all participants, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was greater than awareness of the mythical causes of cancer, the authors report. However, awareness of the actual causes of cancer was lower among the unvaccinated and members of conspiracy groups than among their counterparts.

The authors are concerned that their findings suggest “a direct connection between digital misinformation and consequent potential erroneous health decisions, which may represent a further preventable fraction of cancer.”
 

Backlash and criticism

The study “highlights the difficulty society encounters in distinguishing the actual causes of cancer from mythical causes,” The BMJ commented on Twitter.

However, both the study and the journal received some backlash.

This is a “horrible article seeking to smear people with concerns about COVID vaccines,” commented Clare Craig, a British consultant pathologist who specializes in cancer diagnostics.

The study and its methodology were also harshly criticized on Twitter by Normal Fenton, professor of risk information management at the Queen Mary University of London.

The senior author of the study, Laura Costas, a medical epidemiologist with the Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, told this news organization that the naysayers on social media, many of whom focused their comments on the COVID-19 vaccine, prove the purpose of the study – that misinformation spreads widely on the internet.

“Most comments focused on spreading COVID-19 myths, which were not the direct subject of the study, and questioned the motivations of BMJ authors and the scientific community, assuming they had a common malevolent hidden agenda,” Ms. Costas said.

“They stated the need of having critical thinking, a trait in common with the scientific method, but dogmatically dismissed any information that comes from official sources,” she added.

Ms. Costas commented that “society encounters difficulty in differentiating actual from mythical causes of cancer owing to mass information. We therefore planned this study with a certain satire, which is in line with the essence of The BMJ Christmas issue.”

The BMJ has a long history of publishing a lighthearted Christmas edition full of original, satirical, and nontraditional studies. Previous years have seen studies that explored potential harms from holly and ivy, survival time of chocolates on hospital wards, and the question, “Were James Bond’s drinks shaken because of alcohol induced tremor?”
 

Study details

Ms. Costas and colleagues sought participants for their survey from online forums that included 4chan and Reddit, which are known for their controversial content posted by anonymous users. Data were also collected from ForoCoches and HispaChan, well-known Spanish online forums. These online sites were intentionally chosen because researchers thought “conspiracy beliefs would be more prevalent,” according to Ms. Costas.

Across the multiple forums, there were 1,494 participants. Of these, 209 participants were unvaccinated against COVID-19, 112 preferred alternatives rather than conventional medicine, and 62 reported that they believed the earth was flat or believed that humanoids take reptilian forms to manipulate human societies.

The team then sought to assess beliefs about actual and mythical (nonestablished) causes of cancer by presenting the participants with the closed risk factor questions on two validated scales – the Cancer Awareness Measure (CAM) and CAM–Mythical Causes Scale (CAM-MYCS).

Responses to both were recorded on a five-point scale; answers ranged from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

The CAM assesses cancer risk perceptions of 11 established risk factors for cancer: smoking actively or passively, consuming alcohol, low levels of physical activity, consuming red or processed meat, getting sunburnt as a child, family history of cancer, human papillomavirus infection, being overweight, age greater than or equal to 70 years, and low vegetable and fruit consumption.

The CAM-MYCS measure includes 12 questions on risk perceptions of mythical causes of cancer – nonestablished causes that are commonly believed to cause cancer but for which there is no supporting scientific evidence, the authors explain. These items include drinking from plastic bottles; eating food containing artificial sweeteners or additives and genetically modified food; using microwave ovens, aerosol containers, mobile phones, and cleaning products; living near power lines; feeling stressed; experiencing physical trauma; and being exposed to electromagnetic frequencies/non-ionizing radiation, such as wi-fi networks, radio, and television.

The most endorsed mythical causes of cancer were eating food containing additives (63.9%) or sweeteners (50.7%), feeling stressed (59.7%), and eating genetically modified foods (38.4%).

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

NEW ORLEANS – Addressing an audience of hematologists, an immunologist and a thrombosis specialist presented insights on two hot COVID-19 topics: strategies the virus uses to breach the immune system and the diagnosis and treatment of vaccine-related blood clots.

In a presidential symposium at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, La Jolla Institute of Immunology scientist Shane Crotty, PhD, explained that COVID-19 has a “superpower” that allows it to be “extraordinarily stealthy.”

The virus, he said, can sneak past the body’s innate immune system, which normally responds to viral invaders within minutes to hours. “This is why you have people with high viral loads who are presymptomatic. Their innate immune system hasn’t even recognized that these people are infected.”

The adaptive immune system kicks in later. As Dr. Crotty noted, adaptive immunity is composed of three branches: B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4 “helper” T cells, and CD8 “killer” T cells. In the first year of COVID-19, his team tracked 188 subjects post infection in what he said was the largest study of its kind ever for any viral infection.

“In 8 months, 95% of people who had been infected still had measurable immune memory. In fact, most of them had multiple different compartments of immune memory still detectable, and it was likely that these individuals would still have that memory years into the future. Based on that, we made the prediction that most people who have had COVID-19 would likely be protected from reinfection – at least by severe infections – for 3 years into the future. That prediction has widely held up even in the presence of variants which weren’t around at the time.”

How do vaccines fit into the immunity picture? Dr. Crotty’s lab has tracked subjects who received 4 vaccines – Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Researchers found that the mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, “are fantastic at eliciting neutralizing antibodies quickly, but then they drop off rapidly at two doses and actually continue to drop for 10 months.”

Still, he said, “when we take a look at 6 months, actually the vaccines are doing pretty incredibly well. If we compare them to an average infected individual, the mRNA vaccines all have higher neutralizing antibody titers.”

What’s happening? According to Dr. Crotty, B cells are “making guesses about what other variants might look like.” But he said research suggests that an important component of this process – germinal centers – aren’t made in some vaccinated people who are immunocompromised. (Germinal centers have been described as “microbial boot camps” for B cells.)

The good news, Dr. Crotty noted, is that a greater understanding of how COVID-19 penetrates various layers of adaptive immune defenses will lead to better ways to protect the immunocompromised. “If you think about immunity in this layered defense way, there are various ways that it could be enhanced for individuals in different categories,” he said.

Hematologist Beverley J. Hunt, MD, OBE, of St. Thomas’ Hospital/King’s Healthcare Partners in London, spoke at the ASH presidential symposium about blood clots and COVID-19. As she noted, concern arose about vaccine-related blood clots. A British team “managed quickly to come up with a diagnostic criteria,” she said. “We looked at nearly 300 patients and essentially came up with a scoring system.”

The diagnostic criteria was based on an analysis of definite or probable cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) – all related to the AstraZeneca vaccine. The criteria appeared in a 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The report’s data didn’t allow it to compare the efficacy of anticoagulants. However, Dr. Hunt noted that clinicians turned to plasma exchange in patients with low platelet counts and extensive thrombosis. The report stated “survival after plasma exchange was 90%, considerably better than would be predicted given the baseline characteristics.”

“Now we’re following up,” Dr. Hunt said. One question to answer: Is long-term anticoagulation helpful? “We have many patients,” she said, “who are taking an anti-platelet factor out of habit.”

Dr. Crotty and Dr. Hunt report no disclosures. This reporter is a paid participant in a COVID vaccine study run by Dr. Crotty’s lab.

NEW ORLEANS – Addressing an audience of hematologists, an immunologist and a thrombosis specialist presented insights on two hot COVID-19 topics: strategies the virus uses to breach the immune system and the diagnosis and treatment of vaccine-related blood clots.

In a presidential symposium at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, La Jolla Institute of Immunology scientist Shane Crotty, PhD, explained that COVID-19 has a “superpower” that allows it to be “extraordinarily stealthy.”

The virus, he said, can sneak past the body’s innate immune system, which normally responds to viral invaders within minutes to hours. “This is why you have people with high viral loads who are presymptomatic. Their innate immune system hasn’t even recognized that these people are infected.”

The adaptive immune system kicks in later. As Dr. Crotty noted, adaptive immunity is composed of three branches: B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4 “helper” T cells, and CD8 “killer” T cells. In the first year of COVID-19, his team tracked 188 subjects post infection in what he said was the largest study of its kind ever for any viral infection.

“In 8 months, 95% of people who had been infected still had measurable immune memory. In fact, most of them had multiple different compartments of immune memory still detectable, and it was likely that these individuals would still have that memory years into the future. Based on that, we made the prediction that most people who have had COVID-19 would likely be protected from reinfection – at least by severe infections – for 3 years into the future. That prediction has widely held up even in the presence of variants which weren’t around at the time.”

How do vaccines fit into the immunity picture? Dr. Crotty’s lab has tracked subjects who received 4 vaccines – Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Researchers found that the mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, “are fantastic at eliciting neutralizing antibodies quickly, but then they drop off rapidly at two doses and actually continue to drop for 10 months.”

Still, he said, “when we take a look at 6 months, actually the vaccines are doing pretty incredibly well. If we compare them to an average infected individual, the mRNA vaccines all have higher neutralizing antibody titers.”

What’s happening? According to Dr. Crotty, B cells are “making guesses about what other variants might look like.” But he said research suggests that an important component of this process – germinal centers – aren’t made in some vaccinated people who are immunocompromised. (Germinal centers have been described as “microbial boot camps” for B cells.)

The good news, Dr. Crotty noted, is that a greater understanding of how COVID-19 penetrates various layers of adaptive immune defenses will lead to better ways to protect the immunocompromised. “If you think about immunity in this layered defense way, there are various ways that it could be enhanced for individuals in different categories,” he said.

Hematologist Beverley J. Hunt, MD, OBE, of St. Thomas’ Hospital/King’s Healthcare Partners in London, spoke at the ASH presidential symposium about blood clots and COVID-19. As she noted, concern arose about vaccine-related blood clots. A British team “managed quickly to come up with a diagnostic criteria,” she said. “We looked at nearly 300 patients and essentially came up with a scoring system.”

The diagnostic criteria was based on an analysis of definite or probable cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) – all related to the AstraZeneca vaccine. The criteria appeared in a 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The report’s data didn’t allow it to compare the efficacy of anticoagulants. However, Dr. Hunt noted that clinicians turned to plasma exchange in patients with low platelet counts and extensive thrombosis. The report stated “survival after plasma exchange was 90%, considerably better than would be predicted given the baseline characteristics.”

“Now we’re following up,” Dr. Hunt said. One question to answer: Is long-term anticoagulation helpful? “We have many patients,” she said, “who are taking an anti-platelet factor out of habit.”

Dr. Crotty and Dr. Hunt report no disclosures. This reporter is a paid participant in a COVID vaccine study run by Dr. Crotty’s lab.

NEW ORLEANS – Addressing an audience of hematologists, an immunologist and a thrombosis specialist presented insights on two hot COVID-19 topics: strategies the virus uses to breach the immune system and the diagnosis and treatment of vaccine-related blood clots.

In a presidential symposium at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, La Jolla Institute of Immunology scientist Shane Crotty, PhD, explained that COVID-19 has a “superpower” that allows it to be “extraordinarily stealthy.”

The virus, he said, can sneak past the body’s innate immune system, which normally responds to viral invaders within minutes to hours. “This is why you have people with high viral loads who are presymptomatic. Their innate immune system hasn’t even recognized that these people are infected.”

The adaptive immune system kicks in later. As Dr. Crotty noted, adaptive immunity is composed of three branches: B cells (the source of antibodies), CD4 “helper” T cells, and CD8 “killer” T cells. In the first year of COVID-19, his team tracked 188 subjects post infection in what he said was the largest study of its kind ever for any viral infection.

“In 8 months, 95% of people who had been infected still had measurable immune memory. In fact, most of them had multiple different compartments of immune memory still detectable, and it was likely that these individuals would still have that memory years into the future. Based on that, we made the prediction that most people who have had COVID-19 would likely be protected from reinfection – at least by severe infections – for 3 years into the future. That prediction has widely held up even in the presence of variants which weren’t around at the time.”

How do vaccines fit into the immunity picture? Dr. Crotty’s lab has tracked subjects who received 4 vaccines – Moderna, Pfizer/BioNTech, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax. Researchers found that the mRNA vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech, “are fantastic at eliciting neutralizing antibodies quickly, but then they drop off rapidly at two doses and actually continue to drop for 10 months.”

Still, he said, “when we take a look at 6 months, actually the vaccines are doing pretty incredibly well. If we compare them to an average infected individual, the mRNA vaccines all have higher neutralizing antibody titers.”

What’s happening? According to Dr. Crotty, B cells are “making guesses about what other variants might look like.” But he said research suggests that an important component of this process – germinal centers – aren’t made in some vaccinated people who are immunocompromised. (Germinal centers have been described as “microbial boot camps” for B cells.)

The good news, Dr. Crotty noted, is that a greater understanding of how COVID-19 penetrates various layers of adaptive immune defenses will lead to better ways to protect the immunocompromised. “If you think about immunity in this layered defense way, there are various ways that it could be enhanced for individuals in different categories,” he said.

Hematologist Beverley J. Hunt, MD, OBE, of St. Thomas’ Hospital/King’s Healthcare Partners in London, spoke at the ASH presidential symposium about blood clots and COVID-19. As she noted, concern arose about vaccine-related blood clots. A British team “managed quickly to come up with a diagnostic criteria,” she said. “We looked at nearly 300 patients and essentially came up with a scoring system.”

The diagnostic criteria was based on an analysis of definite or probable cases of vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) – all related to the AstraZeneca vaccine. The criteria appeared in a 2021 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The report’s data didn’t allow it to compare the efficacy of anticoagulants. However, Dr. Hunt noted that clinicians turned to plasma exchange in patients with low platelet counts and extensive thrombosis. The report stated “survival after plasma exchange was 90%, considerably better than would be predicted given the baseline characteristics.”

“Now we’re following up,” Dr. Hunt said. One question to answer: Is long-term anticoagulation helpful? “We have many patients,” she said, “who are taking an anti-platelet factor out of habit.”

Dr. Crotty and Dr. Hunt report no disclosures. This reporter is a paid participant in a COVID vaccine study run by Dr. Crotty’s lab.

A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.

A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).

“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.

“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.

The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.

In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.

For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.

Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21). 

The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).

The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.

Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.

“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release. 

“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.

The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.

A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).

“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.

“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.

The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.

In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.

For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.

Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21). 

The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).

The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.

Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.

“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release. 

“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.

The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study provides more evidence that endocarditis associated with drug use is a significant and growing health concern, and further demonstrates that this risk has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The rate of infective endocarditis among individuals in the United States with opioid or cocaine use disorder increased in the 11-year period 2011 to 2022, with the steepest increase logged during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021-2022), according to the study.

A diagnosis of COVID-19 more than doubled the risk for a new diagnosis of endocarditis in patients with either cocaine (hazard ratio, 2.24) or opioid use disorder (HR, 2.23).

“Our data suggests that, in addition to the major social disruption from the pandemic, including disrupted access to health care, COVID-19 infection itself is a significant risk factor for new diagnosis of endocarditis in drug using populations,” authors Nora Volkow, MD, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and colleagues wrote.

“Drug-using populations, particularly those who use cocaine or opioids, have some of the highest risk for endocarditis, and here we show that having a COVID-19 diagnoses further increases this risk,” they added.

The study was published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The researchers analyzed electronic health record data collected from January 2011 to August 2022 for more than 109 million people across the United States, including more than 736,000 with an opioid use disorder and more than 379,000 with a cocaine use disorder.

In 2011, there were 4 cases of endocarditis per day for every 1 million people with opioid use disorder. By 2022, the rate had increased to 30 cases per day per 1 million people with opioid use disorder.

For people with cocaine use disorder, cases of endocarditis increased from 5 per 1 million in 2011 to 23 per 1 million in 2022.

Among individuals with cocaine or opioid use disorder, the risk of being hospitalized within 180 days following a diagnosis of endocarditis was higher in those with than without COVID-19 (67.5% vs. 58.7%; HR, 1.21). 

The risk of dying within 180 days following new diagnosis of endocarditis was also higher in those with than without COVID-19 (9.2% vs. 8%; HR, 1.16).

The study also showed that Black and Hispanic individuals had a lower risk for COVID-19-associated endocarditis than non-Hispanic White individuals, which is consistent with a higher prevalence of injection drug use in non-Hispanic White populations, compared with Black or Hispanic populations, the researchers pointed out.

Dr. Volkow and colleagues said their findings highlight the need to screen drug users for endocarditis and link them to infectious disease and addiction treatment if they contract COVID-19.

“People with substance use disorder already face major impediments to proper health care due to lack of access and stigma,” Dr. Volkow said in a news release. 

“Proven techniques like syringe service programs, which help people avoid infection from reused or shared injection equipment, can help prevent this often fatal and costly condition,” Dr. Volkow added.

The authors said it will also be important to determine exactly how SARS-CoV-2 viral infection exacerbates the risk for endocarditis in drug users.

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute on Aging, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Clinical and Translational Science Collaborative of Cleveland, and the National Cancer Institute Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

This holiday season, I am looking forward to spending some time with family, as I have in the past. As I have chatted with others, many friends are looking forward to events that are potentially larger and potentially returning to prepandemic type gatherings.

Gathering is important and can bring joy, sense of community, and love to the lives of many. Unfortunately, the risks associated with gathering are not over. We are currently facing what many are calling a “tripledemic” as our country faces many cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), COVID-19, and influenza at the same time.

During the first week of December, cases of influenza were rising across the country¹ and were rising faster than in previous years. Although getting the vaccine is an important method of influenza prevention and is recommended for everyone over the age of 6 months with rare exception, many have not gotten their vaccine this year.
 

Influenza

Thus far, “nearly 50% of reported flu-associated hospitalizations in women of childbearing age have been in women who are pregnant.” We are seeing this at a time with lower-than-average uptake of influenza vaccine leaving both the pregnant persons and their babies unprotected. In addition to utilizing vaccines as prevention, isolating when ill, cleaning surfaces, and practicing good hand hygiene can all decrease transmission.

RSV

In addition to rises of influenza, there are currently high rates of RSV in various parts of the country. Prior to 2020, RSV typically started in the fall and peaked in the winter months. However, since the pandemic, the typical seasonal pattern has not returned, and it is unclear when it will. Although RSV hits the very young, the old, and the immunocompromised the most, RSV can infect anyone. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a vaccine for everyone against this virus. Prevention of transmission includes, as with flu, isolating when ill, cleaning surfaces, and washing hands.²

COVID-19

Of course, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are also still here as well. During the first week of December, the CDC reported rising cases of COVID across the country. Within the past few months, there have been several developments, though, for protection. There are now bivalent vaccines available as either third doses or booster doses approved for all persons over 6 months of age. As of the first week of December, only 13.5% of those aged 5 and over had received an updated booster.

There is currently wider access to rapid testing, including at-home testing, which can allow individuals to identify if COVID positive. Additionally, there is access to medication to decrease the likelihood of severe disease – though this does not take the place of vaccinations.

If anyone does test positive for COVID, they should follow the most recent quarantine guidelines including wearing a well-fitted mask when they do begin returning to activities.³

With rising cases of all three of these viruses, some may be asking how we can safely gather. There are several things to consider and do to enjoy our events. The first thing everyone can do is to receive updated vaccinations for both influenza and COVID-19 if eligible. Although it may take some time to be effective, vaccination is still one of our most effective methods of disease prevention and is important this winter season. Vaccinations can also help decrease the risk of severe disease.

Although many have stopped masking, as cases rise, it is time to consider masking particularly when community levels of any of these viruses are high. Masks help with preventing and spreading more than just COVID-19. Using them can be especially important for those going places such as stores and to large public gatherings and when riding on buses, planes, or trains.
 

In summary

Preventing exposure by masking can help keep individuals healthy prior to celebrating the holidays with others. With access to rapid testing, it makes sense to consider testing prior to gathering with friends and family. Most importantly, although we all are looking forward to spending time with our loved ones, it is important to stay home if not feeling well. Following these recommendations will allow us to have a safer and more joyful holiday season.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza (flu). [Online] Dec. 1, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/index.htm.

2. Respiratory syncytial virus. Respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV). [Online] Oct. 28, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/index.html.

3. COVID-19. [Online] Dec. 7, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.

This holiday season, I am looking forward to spending some time with family, as I have in the past. As I have chatted with others, many friends are looking forward to events that are potentially larger and potentially returning to prepandemic type gatherings.

Gathering is important and can bring joy, sense of community, and love to the lives of many. Unfortunately, the risks associated with gathering are not over. We are currently facing what many are calling a “tripledemic” as our country faces many cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), COVID-19, and influenza at the same time.

During the first week of December, cases of influenza were rising across the country¹ and were rising faster than in previous years. Although getting the vaccine is an important method of influenza prevention and is recommended for everyone over the age of 6 months with rare exception, many have not gotten their vaccine this year.
 

Influenza

Thus far, “nearly 50% of reported flu-associated hospitalizations in women of childbearing age have been in women who are pregnant.” We are seeing this at a time with lower-than-average uptake of influenza vaccine leaving both the pregnant persons and their babies unprotected. In addition to utilizing vaccines as prevention, isolating when ill, cleaning surfaces, and practicing good hand hygiene can all decrease transmission.

RSV

In addition to rises of influenza, there are currently high rates of RSV in various parts of the country. Prior to 2020, RSV typically started in the fall and peaked in the winter months. However, since the pandemic, the typical seasonal pattern has not returned, and it is unclear when it will. Although RSV hits the very young, the old, and the immunocompromised the most, RSV can infect anyone. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a vaccine for everyone against this virus. Prevention of transmission includes, as with flu, isolating when ill, cleaning surfaces, and washing hands.²

COVID-19

Of course, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are also still here as well. During the first week of December, the CDC reported rising cases of COVID across the country. Within the past few months, there have been several developments, though, for protection. There are now bivalent vaccines available as either third doses or booster doses approved for all persons over 6 months of age. As of the first week of December, only 13.5% of those aged 5 and over had received an updated booster.

There is currently wider access to rapid testing, including at-home testing, which can allow individuals to identify if COVID positive. Additionally, there is access to medication to decrease the likelihood of severe disease – though this does not take the place of vaccinations.

If anyone does test positive for COVID, they should follow the most recent quarantine guidelines including wearing a well-fitted mask when they do begin returning to activities.³

With rising cases of all three of these viruses, some may be asking how we can safely gather. There are several things to consider and do to enjoy our events. The first thing everyone can do is to receive updated vaccinations for both influenza and COVID-19 if eligible. Although it may take some time to be effective, vaccination is still one of our most effective methods of disease prevention and is important this winter season. Vaccinations can also help decrease the risk of severe disease.

Although many have stopped masking, as cases rise, it is time to consider masking particularly when community levels of any of these viruses are high. Masks help with preventing and spreading more than just COVID-19. Using them can be especially important for those going places such as stores and to large public gatherings and when riding on buses, planes, or trains.
 

In summary

Preventing exposure by masking can help keep individuals healthy prior to celebrating the holidays with others. With access to rapid testing, it makes sense to consider testing prior to gathering with friends and family. Most importantly, although we all are looking forward to spending time with our loved ones, it is important to stay home if not feeling well. Following these recommendations will allow us to have a safer and more joyful holiday season.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza (flu). [Online] Dec. 1, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/index.htm.

2. Respiratory syncytial virus. Respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV). [Online] Oct. 28, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/index.html.

3. COVID-19. [Online] Dec. 7, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.

This holiday season, I am looking forward to spending some time with family, as I have in the past. As I have chatted with others, many friends are looking forward to events that are potentially larger and potentially returning to prepandemic type gatherings.

Gathering is important and can bring joy, sense of community, and love to the lives of many. Unfortunately, the risks associated with gathering are not over. We are currently facing what many are calling a “tripledemic” as our country faces many cases of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), COVID-19, and influenza at the same time.

During the first week of December, cases of influenza were rising across the country¹ and were rising faster than in previous years. Although getting the vaccine is an important method of influenza prevention and is recommended for everyone over the age of 6 months with rare exception, many have not gotten their vaccine this year.
 

Influenza

Thus far, “nearly 50% of reported flu-associated hospitalizations in women of childbearing age have been in women who are pregnant.” We are seeing this at a time with lower-than-average uptake of influenza vaccine leaving both the pregnant persons and their babies unprotected. In addition to utilizing vaccines as prevention, isolating when ill, cleaning surfaces, and practicing good hand hygiene can all decrease transmission.

RSV

In addition to rises of influenza, there are currently high rates of RSV in various parts of the country. Prior to 2020, RSV typically started in the fall and peaked in the winter months. However, since the pandemic, the typical seasonal pattern has not returned, and it is unclear when it will. Although RSV hits the very young, the old, and the immunocompromised the most, RSV can infect anyone. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a vaccine for everyone against this virus. Prevention of transmission includes, as with flu, isolating when ill, cleaning surfaces, and washing hands.²

COVID-19

Of course, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are also still here as well. During the first week of December, the CDC reported rising cases of COVID across the country. Within the past few months, there have been several developments, though, for protection. There are now bivalent vaccines available as either third doses or booster doses approved for all persons over 6 months of age. As of the first week of December, only 13.5% of those aged 5 and over had received an updated booster.

There is currently wider access to rapid testing, including at-home testing, which can allow individuals to identify if COVID positive. Additionally, there is access to medication to decrease the likelihood of severe disease – though this does not take the place of vaccinations.

If anyone does test positive for COVID, they should follow the most recent quarantine guidelines including wearing a well-fitted mask when they do begin returning to activities.³

With rising cases of all three of these viruses, some may be asking how we can safely gather. There are several things to consider and do to enjoy our events. The first thing everyone can do is to receive updated vaccinations for both influenza and COVID-19 if eligible. Although it may take some time to be effective, vaccination is still one of our most effective methods of disease prevention and is important this winter season. Vaccinations can also help decrease the risk of severe disease.

Although many have stopped masking, as cases rise, it is time to consider masking particularly when community levels of any of these viruses are high. Masks help with preventing and spreading more than just COVID-19. Using them can be especially important for those going places such as stores and to large public gatherings and when riding on buses, planes, or trains.
 

In summary

Preventing exposure by masking can help keep individuals healthy prior to celebrating the holidays with others. With access to rapid testing, it makes sense to consider testing prior to gathering with friends and family. Most importantly, although we all are looking forward to spending time with our loved ones, it is important to stay home if not feeling well. Following these recommendations will allow us to have a safer and more joyful holiday season.

Dr. Wheat is a family physician at Erie Family Health Center and program director of Northwestern University’s McGaw Family Medicine residency program, both in Chicago. Dr. Wheat serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News. You can contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Influenza (flu). [Online] Dec. 1, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/index.htm.

2. Respiratory syncytial virus. Respiratory syncytial virus infection (RSV). [Online] Oct. 28, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/rsv/index.html.

3. COVID-19. [Online] Dec. 7, 2022. [Cited: 2022 Dec 10.] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html.

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

New COVID-19 cases in children jumped by 66% during the first 2 weeks of December after an 8-week steady period lasting through October and November, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases reached close to 48,000 for the most recent reporting week, Dec. 9-15, after rising to just over 41,000 the previous week and totaling less than 29,000 for the week of Nov. 25 to Dec. 1. That increase of almost 19,000 cases is the largest over a 2-week period since late July, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report based on data collected from state and territorial health department websites.

[This publication has been following the AAP/CHA report since the summer of 2020 and continues to share the data for the sake of consistency, but it must be noted that a number of states are no longer updating their public COVID dashboards. As a result, there is now a considerable discrepancy between the AAP/CHA weekly figures and those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has no such limitations on state data.]

The situation involving new cases over the last 2 weeks is quite different from the CDC’s perspective. The agency does not publish a weekly count, instead offering cumulative cases, which stood at almost 16.1 million as of Dec. 14. Calculating a 2-week total puts the new-case count for Dec. 1-14 at 113,572 among children aged 0-17 years. That is higher than the AAP/CHA count (88,629) for roughly the same period, but it is actually lower than the CDC’s figure (161,832) for the last 2 weeks of November.

The CDC data, in other words, suggest that new cases have gone down in the last 2 weeks, while the AAP and CHA, with their somewhat limited perspective, announced that new cases have gone up.

One COVID-related measure from the CDC that is not contradicted by other sources is hospitalization rates, which had climbed from 0.16 new admissions in children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID per 100,000 population on Oct. 22 to 0.29 per 100,000 on Dec. 9. Visits to the emergency department with diagnosed COVID, meanwhile, have been fairly steady so far through December in children, according to the CDC.

New COVID-19 cases in children jumped by 66% during the first 2 weeks of December after an 8-week steady period lasting through October and November, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases reached close to 48,000 for the most recent reporting week, Dec. 9-15, after rising to just over 41,000 the previous week and totaling less than 29,000 for the week of Nov. 25 to Dec. 1. That increase of almost 19,000 cases is the largest over a 2-week period since late July, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report based on data collected from state and territorial health department websites.

[This publication has been following the AAP/CHA report since the summer of 2020 and continues to share the data for the sake of consistency, but it must be noted that a number of states are no longer updating their public COVID dashboards. As a result, there is now a considerable discrepancy between the AAP/CHA weekly figures and those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has no such limitations on state data.]

The situation involving new cases over the last 2 weeks is quite different from the CDC’s perspective. The agency does not publish a weekly count, instead offering cumulative cases, which stood at almost 16.1 million as of Dec. 14. Calculating a 2-week total puts the new-case count for Dec. 1-14 at 113,572 among children aged 0-17 years. That is higher than the AAP/CHA count (88,629) for roughly the same period, but it is actually lower than the CDC’s figure (161,832) for the last 2 weeks of November.

The CDC data, in other words, suggest that new cases have gone down in the last 2 weeks, while the AAP and CHA, with their somewhat limited perspective, announced that new cases have gone up.

One COVID-related measure from the CDC that is not contradicted by other sources is hospitalization rates, which had climbed from 0.16 new admissions in children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID per 100,000 population on Oct. 22 to 0.29 per 100,000 on Dec. 9. Visits to the emergency department with diagnosed COVID, meanwhile, have been fairly steady so far through December in children, according to the CDC.

New COVID-19 cases in children jumped by 66% during the first 2 weeks of December after an 8-week steady period lasting through October and November, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

New cases reached close to 48,000 for the most recent reporting week, Dec. 9-15, after rising to just over 41,000 the previous week and totaling less than 29,000 for the week of Nov. 25 to Dec. 1. That increase of almost 19,000 cases is the largest over a 2-week period since late July, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report based on data collected from state and territorial health department websites.

[This publication has been following the AAP/CHA report since the summer of 2020 and continues to share the data for the sake of consistency, but it must be noted that a number of states are no longer updating their public COVID dashboards. As a result, there is now a considerable discrepancy between the AAP/CHA weekly figures and those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has no such limitations on state data.]

The situation involving new cases over the last 2 weeks is quite different from the CDC’s perspective. The agency does not publish a weekly count, instead offering cumulative cases, which stood at almost 16.1 million as of Dec. 14. Calculating a 2-week total puts the new-case count for Dec. 1-14 at 113,572 among children aged 0-17 years. That is higher than the AAP/CHA count (88,629) for roughly the same period, but it is actually lower than the CDC’s figure (161,832) for the last 2 weeks of November.

The CDC data, in other words, suggest that new cases have gone down in the last 2 weeks, while the AAP and CHA, with their somewhat limited perspective, announced that new cases have gone up.

One COVID-related measure from the CDC that is not contradicted by other sources is hospitalization rates, which had climbed from 0.16 new admissions in children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID per 100,000 population on Oct. 22 to 0.29 per 100,000 on Dec. 9. Visits to the emergency department with diagnosed COVID, meanwhile, have been fairly steady so far through December in children, according to the CDC.

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

Two years ago, when the first COVID-19 vaccines were administered, marked a game-changing moment in the fight against the pandemic. But it also was a significant moment for messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which up until then had shown promise but had never quite broken through. 

Now, scientists hope to use this technology to develop more vaccines, with those at the University of Pennsylvania hoping to use that technology to pioneer yet another first: a universal flu vaccine that can protect us against all flu types, not just a select few. 

It’s the latest advance in a new age of vaccinology, where vaccines are easier and faster to produce, as well as more flexible and customizable. 

“It’s all about covering the different flavors of flu in a way the current vaccines cannot do,” says Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, director of the Precision Vaccines Program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is not involved with the UPenn research. “The mRNA platform is attractive here given its scalability and modularity, where you can mix and match different mRNAs.” 

A recent paper, published in Science, reports successful animal tests of the experimental vaccine, which, like the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines, relies on mRNA. But the idea is not to replace the annual flu shot. It’s to develop a primer that could be administered in childhood, readying the body’s B cells and T cells to react quickly if faced with a flu virus. 

It’s all part of a National Institutes of Health–funded effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, with hopes of heading off future flu pandemics. Annual shots protect against flu subtypes known to spread in humans. But many subtypes circulate in animals, like birds and pigs, and occasionally jump to humans, causing pandemics. 

“The current vaccines provide very little protection against these other subtypes,” says lead study author Scott Hensley, PhD, a professor of microbiology at UPenn. “We set out to make a vaccine that would provide some level of immunity against essentially every influenza subtype we know about.” 

That’s 20 subtypes altogether. The unique properties of mRNA vaccines make immune responses against all those antigens possible, Dr. Hensley says. 

Old-school vaccines introduce a weakened or dead bacteria or virus into the body, but mRNA vaccines use mRNA encoded with a protein from the virus. That’s the “spike” protein for COVID, and for the experimental vaccine, it’s hemagglutinin, the major protein found on the surface of all flu viruses.

Mice and ferrets that had never been exposed to the flu were given the vaccine and produced high levels of antibodies against all 20 flu subtypes. Vaccinated mice exposed to the exact strains in the vaccine stayed pretty healthy, while those exposed to strains not found in the vaccine got sick but recovered quickly and survived. Unvaccinated mice exposed to the flu strain died. 

The vaccine seems to be able to “induce broad immunity against all the different influenza subtypes,” Dr. Hensley says, preventing severe illness if not infection overall. 

Still, whether it could truly stave off a pandemic that hasn’t happened yet is hard to say, Dr. Levy cautions. 

“We are going to need to better learn the molecular rules by which these vaccines protect,” he says.

But the UPenn team is forging ahead, with plans to test their vaccine in human adults in 2023 to determine safety, dosing, and antibody response.

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

The percentage of people in the U.S. getting the latest COVID-19 booster shot has crept up by single digits in the past couple months, despite health officials pleading for people to do so before the Christmas holiday. 

Now, a new poll shows why so few people are willing to roll up their sleeves again.

The most common reasons people give for not getting the latest booster shot is that they “don’t think they need one” (44%) and they “don’t think the benefits are worth it” (37%), according to poll results from the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

The data comes amid announcements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that boosters reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations by up to 57% for U.S. adults and by up to 84% for people age 65 and older. Those figures are just the latest in a mountain of research reporting the public health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines.

Despite all of the statistical data, health officials’ recent vaccination campaigns have proven far from compelling. 

So far, just 15% of people age 12 and older have gotten the latest booster, and 36% of people age 65 and older have gotten it, the CDC’s vaccination trackershows.

Since the start of the pandemic, 1.1 million people in the U.S. have died from COVID-19, with the number of deaths currently rising by 400 per day, The New York Times COVID tracker shows.

Many experts continue to note the need for everyone to get booster shots regularly, but some advocate that perhaps a change in strategy is in order.

“What the administration should do is push for vaccinating people in high-risk groups, including those who are older, those who are immunocompromised and those who have comorbidities,” Paul Offitt, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN.

Federal regulators have announced they will meet Jan. 26 with a panel of vaccine advisors to examine the current recommended vaccination schedule as well as look at the effectiveness and composition of current vaccines and boosters, with an eye toward the make-up of next-generation shots.

Vaccines are the “best available protection” against hospitalization and death caused by COVID-19, said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in a statement announcing the planned meeting.

“Since the initial authorizations of these vaccines, we have learned that protection wanes over time, especially as the virus rapidly mutates and new variants and subvariants emerge,” he said. “Therefore, it’s important to continue discussions about the optimal composition of COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster vaccination, as well as the optimal interval for booster vaccination.”

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

In this issue, Mayo and colleagues¹ summarize what we know about patients with long COVID. The report made me pause and realize that it has been 3 years since we heard the very first reports of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which would eventually cause the COVID-19 pandemic. I suspect that I am not alone in having been fascinated by the rapid communication of information (of variable quality and veracity) via peer-reviewed papers, pre-print servers, the media, and social media.

The early studies were largely descriptive, focusing on symptom constellations and outbreak data. Much of what we had by way of treatment was supportive and “let’s try anything”—whether reasonable or, in some cases, not. In relatively short order, though, we developed effective vaccines to help protect people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying; we also identified targeted therapies for those who became ill.² But variants continued—or rather, continue—to emerge, and we remain committed to meeting the demands of the day.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 98 million Americans have contracted COVID, and more than 1 million have died.³ Besides the astonishingly high total mortality, the ravages of COVID-19 include new-onset respiratory, cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychiatric illnesses.^4,5 As many as half of adults hospitalized for COVID report having persistent symptoms.⁶

As described in this issue, what we know about long COVID appears to be following the early course of its parent illness. As was true then, we are learning about the symptoms, etiology, and best ways to manage our patients. As in the early days of the pandemic, treatment is supportive, and we await definitive therapies.

I am optimistic, though. Why? Because shortly after the first reports of ­COVID-19, the virus’ DNA sequence was shared online. Based on that information, diagnostic assays were developed. Within 2 years of the outbreak, we had effective vaccines and specific therapies.

Another call to action. If 5% of patients contracting COVID (a very low estimate) develop long COVID, that would translate to 4.9 million people with long ­COVID in the United States. That is an astounding burden of suffering that I have no doubt will motivate innovation.

Innovation is a strength of the US health care system. I believe we will rise to the next challenge that COVID-19 has put before us. We have reason to be hopeful.

In this issue, Mayo and colleagues¹ summarize what we know about patients with long COVID. The report made me pause and realize that it has been 3 years since we heard the very first reports of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which would eventually cause the COVID-19 pandemic. I suspect that I am not alone in having been fascinated by the rapid communication of information (of variable quality and veracity) via peer-reviewed papers, pre-print servers, the media, and social media.

The early studies were largely descriptive, focusing on symptom constellations and outbreak data. Much of what we had by way of treatment was supportive and “let’s try anything”—whether reasonable or, in some cases, not. In relatively short order, though, we developed effective vaccines to help protect people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying; we also identified targeted therapies for those who became ill.² But variants continued—or rather, continue—to emerge, and we remain committed to meeting the demands of the day.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 98 million Americans have contracted COVID, and more than 1 million have died.³ Besides the astonishingly high total mortality, the ravages of COVID-19 include new-onset respiratory, cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychiatric illnesses.^4,5 As many as half of adults hospitalized for COVID report having persistent symptoms.⁶

As described in this issue, what we know about long COVID appears to be following the early course of its parent illness. As was true then, we are learning about the symptoms, etiology, and best ways to manage our patients. As in the early days of the pandemic, treatment is supportive, and we await definitive therapies.

I am optimistic, though. Why? Because shortly after the first reports of ­COVID-19, the virus’ DNA sequence was shared online. Based on that information, diagnostic assays were developed. Within 2 years of the outbreak, we had effective vaccines and specific therapies.

Another call to action. If 5% of patients contracting COVID (a very low estimate) develop long COVID, that would translate to 4.9 million people with long ­COVID in the United States. That is an astounding burden of suffering that I have no doubt will motivate innovation.

Innovation is a strength of the US health care system. I believe we will rise to the next challenge that COVID-19 has put before us. We have reason to be hopeful.

In this issue, Mayo and colleagues¹ summarize what we know about patients with long COVID. The report made me pause and realize that it has been 3 years since we heard the very first reports of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which would eventually cause the COVID-19 pandemic. I suspect that I am not alone in having been fascinated by the rapid communication of information (of variable quality and veracity) via peer-reviewed papers, pre-print servers, the media, and social media.

The early studies were largely descriptive, focusing on symptom constellations and outbreak data. Much of what we had by way of treatment was supportive and “let’s try anything”—whether reasonable or, in some cases, not. In relatively short order, though, we developed effective vaccines to help protect people from getting seriously ill, being hospitalized, and dying; we also identified targeted therapies for those who became ill.² But variants continued—or rather, continue—to emerge, and we remain committed to meeting the demands of the day.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that more than 98 million Americans have contracted COVID, and more than 1 million have died.³ Besides the astonishingly high total mortality, the ravages of COVID-19 include new-onset respiratory, cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychiatric illnesses.^4,5 As many as half of adults hospitalized for COVID report having persistent symptoms.⁶

As described in this issue, what we know about long COVID appears to be following the early course of its parent illness. As was true then, we are learning about the symptoms, etiology, and best ways to manage our patients. As in the early days of the pandemic, treatment is supportive, and we await definitive therapies.

I am optimistic, though. Why? Because shortly after the first reports of ­COVID-19, the virus’ DNA sequence was shared online. Based on that information, diagnostic assays were developed. Within 2 years of the outbreak, we had effective vaccines and specific therapies.

Another call to action. If 5% of patients contracting COVID (a very low estimate) develop long COVID, that would translate to 4.9 million people with long ­COVID in the United States. That is an astounding burden of suffering that I have no doubt will motivate innovation.

Innovation is a strength of the US health care system. I believe we will rise to the next challenge that COVID-19 has put before us. We have reason to be hopeful.