COVID-19 Updates

Vaccinated patients with cancer are more likely than those without cancer to contract a breakthrough COVID-19 infection, which puts them at a much higher risk for hospitalization and death, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The risks were highest among patients who had certain cancers and those who had received cancer treatment within the past year.

“These results emphasize the need for patients with cancer to maintain mitigation practice, especially with the emergence of different virus variants and the waning immunity of vaccines,” the study authors wrote.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland analyzed electronic health record data for more than 636,000 vaccinated patients, including more than 45,000 vaccinated patients with cancer. They looked for the time trends, risks, and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections for vaccinated cancer patients in the United States between December 2020 and November 2021.

Overall, the cumulative risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated cancer patients was 13.6%, with the highest risk for pancreatic (24.7%), liver (22.8%), lung (20.4%), and colorectal (17.5%) cancers and the lowest risk for thyroid (10.3%), endometrial (11.9%), and breast (11.9%) cancers, versus 4.9% in vaccinated patients without cancer.

Patients who had medical encounters for their cancer within the past year had a higher risk for a breakthrough infection, particularly those with breast cancer, blood cancers, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the overall risk for hospitalization after a breakthrough infection was 31.6%, as compared with 3.9% in those without a breakthrough infection. In addition, the risk of death was 6.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 1.3% in those without a breakthrough infection.

Among patients who didn’t have cancer, the overall hospitalization risk was 25.9% in patients with a breakthrough infection, as compared with 3% in those without a breakthrough infection. The overall risk of death was 2.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 0.5% in those without a breakthrough infection.

In addition, breakthrough infections continuously increased for all patients from December 2020 to November 2021, with the numbers consistently higher among patients with cancer.

“This increasing time trend may reflect waning immunity of vaccines, the emergence of different virus variants, and varied measures taken by individuals and communities over time during the pandemic,” the study authors wrote.

Vaccines are likely less protective against coronavirus infection in cancer patients, and in turn, cancer patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote. As breakthrough infections continue to increase for everyone, patients with cancer will face increased risks for severe breakthroughs, hospitalization, and death, they concluded.

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

Vaccinated patients with cancer are more likely than those without cancer to contract a breakthrough COVID-19 infection, which puts them at a much higher risk for hospitalization and death, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The risks were highest among patients who had certain cancers and those who had received cancer treatment within the past year.

“These results emphasize the need for patients with cancer to maintain mitigation practice, especially with the emergence of different virus variants and the waning immunity of vaccines,” the study authors wrote.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland analyzed electronic health record data for more than 636,000 vaccinated patients, including more than 45,000 vaccinated patients with cancer. They looked for the time trends, risks, and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections for vaccinated cancer patients in the United States between December 2020 and November 2021.

Overall, the cumulative risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated cancer patients was 13.6%, with the highest risk for pancreatic (24.7%), liver (22.8%), lung (20.4%), and colorectal (17.5%) cancers and the lowest risk for thyroid (10.3%), endometrial (11.9%), and breast (11.9%) cancers, versus 4.9% in vaccinated patients without cancer.

Patients who had medical encounters for their cancer within the past year had a higher risk for a breakthrough infection, particularly those with breast cancer, blood cancers, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the overall risk for hospitalization after a breakthrough infection was 31.6%, as compared with 3.9% in those without a breakthrough infection. In addition, the risk of death was 6.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 1.3% in those without a breakthrough infection.

Among patients who didn’t have cancer, the overall hospitalization risk was 25.9% in patients with a breakthrough infection, as compared with 3% in those without a breakthrough infection. The overall risk of death was 2.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 0.5% in those without a breakthrough infection.

In addition, breakthrough infections continuously increased for all patients from December 2020 to November 2021, with the numbers consistently higher among patients with cancer.

“This increasing time trend may reflect waning immunity of vaccines, the emergence of different virus variants, and varied measures taken by individuals and communities over time during the pandemic,” the study authors wrote.

Vaccines are likely less protective against coronavirus infection in cancer patients, and in turn, cancer patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote. As breakthrough infections continue to increase for everyone, patients with cancer will face increased risks for severe breakthroughs, hospitalization, and death, they concluded.

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

Vaccinated patients with cancer are more likely than those without cancer to contract a breakthrough COVID-19 infection, which puts them at a much higher risk for hospitalization and death, according to a study published in JAMA Oncology.

The risks were highest among patients who had certain cancers and those who had received cancer treatment within the past year.

“These results emphasize the need for patients with cancer to maintain mitigation practice, especially with the emergence of different virus variants and the waning immunity of vaccines,” the study authors wrote.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland analyzed electronic health record data for more than 636,000 vaccinated patients, including more than 45,000 vaccinated patients with cancer. They looked for the time trends, risks, and outcomes of breakthrough COVID-19 infections for vaccinated cancer patients in the United States between December 2020 and November 2021.

Overall, the cumulative risk of breakthrough infections in vaccinated cancer patients was 13.6%, with the highest risk for pancreatic (24.7%), liver (22.8%), lung (20.4%), and colorectal (17.5%) cancers and the lowest risk for thyroid (10.3%), endometrial (11.9%), and breast (11.9%) cancers, versus 4.9% in vaccinated patients without cancer.

Patients who had medical encounters for their cancer within the past year had a higher risk for a breakthrough infection, particularly those with breast cancer, blood cancers, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, and pancreatic cancer.

Among patients with cancer, the overall risk for hospitalization after a breakthrough infection was 31.6%, as compared with 3.9% in those without a breakthrough infection. In addition, the risk of death was 6.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 1.3% in those without a breakthrough infection.

Among patients who didn’t have cancer, the overall hospitalization risk was 25.9% in patients with a breakthrough infection, as compared with 3% in those without a breakthrough infection. The overall risk of death was 2.7% after a breakthrough infection, as compared with 0.5% in those without a breakthrough infection.

In addition, breakthrough infections continuously increased for all patients from December 2020 to November 2021, with the numbers consistently higher among patients with cancer.

“This increasing time trend may reflect waning immunity of vaccines, the emergence of different virus variants, and varied measures taken by individuals and communities over time during the pandemic,” the study authors wrote.

Vaccines are likely less protective against coronavirus infection in cancer patients, and in turn, cancer patients may be more susceptible to COVID-19 infections, the researchers wrote. As breakthrough infections continue to increase for everyone, patients with cancer will face increased risks for severe breakthroughs, hospitalization, and death, they concluded.

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

Patients with COVID-19, especially those with an altered sense of smell, have significantly more axon and microvasculopathy damage in the brain’s olfactory tissue versus non-COVID patients. These new findings from a postmortem study may explain long-term loss of smell in some patients with the virus.

“The striking axonal pathology in some cases indicates that olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 may be severe and permanent,” the investigators led by Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, write.

“The results show the damage caused by COVID can extend beyond the nasal cavity and involve the brain,” Dr. Ho told this news organization.

The study was published online April 11 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A more thorough investigation

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, present with a wide range of symptoms. In addition to respiratory illnesses, they may exhibit various nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19.

One of the most prevalent of these is olfactory dysfunction. Research shows such dysfunction, including anosmia (loss of smell), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), and parosmia (smells that are distorted or unpleasant), affects 30%-60% of patients with COVID-19, said Dr. Ho.

However, these statistics come from research before the advent of the Omicron variant, which evidence suggests causes less smell loss in patients with COVID, she said.

Previous studies in this area mainly focused on the lining of the nasal cavity. “We wanted to go a step beyond to see how the olfactory bulb was affected by COVID infection,” said Dr. Ho.

The study included 23 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 ranging in age from 28 to 93 years at death (median 62 years, 60.9% men). It also included 14 controls who tested negative for COVID-19, ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (median 53.5 years, 50% men).

Researchers collected postmortem tissue from the brain, lung, and other organs and reviewed pertinent clinical information.

Most patients with COVID died of COVID pneumonia or related complications, although some died from a different cause. Some had an active COVID infection and others were “post infection, meaning they were in the recovery stage,” said Dr. Ho.

Six patients with COVID-19 and eight controls had significant brain pathology.

Compared with controls, those with COVID-19 showed significantly worse olfactory axonal damage. The mean axon pathology score (range 1-3 with 3 the worst) was 1.921 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.198 in controls (95% confidence interval, 0.444-1.002; P < .001).

The mean axon density in the lateral olfactory tract was significantly less in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (P = .002), indicating a 23% loss of olfactory axons in the COVID group.

Comparing COVID patients with and without reported loss of smell, researchers found those with an altered sense of smell had significantly more severe olfactory axon pathology.
 

Vascular damage

Patients with COVID also had worse vascular damage. The mean microvasculopathy score (range, 1-3) was 1.907 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.405 in controls (95% CI, 0.259-0.745; P < .001).

There was no evidence of the virus in the olfactory tissue of most patients, suggesting the olfactory pathology was likely caused by vascular damage, said Dr. Ho.

What’s unique about SARS-CoV-2 is that, although it’s a respiratory virus, it’s capable of infecting endothelial cells lining vessels.

“Other respiratory viruses only attack the airways and won’t attack vessels, but vascular damage has been seen in the heart and lung in COVID patients, and our study showed the same findings in the olfactory bulb,” Dr. Ho explained.

The researchers divided patients with COVID by infection severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Interestingly, those with the most severe olfactory pathology were the ones with milder infections, said Dr. Ho.

She noted other studies have reported patients with mild infection are more likely to lose the sense of smell than those with severe infection, but she’s skeptical about this finding.

“Patients with severe COVID are usually hospitalized and intubated, so it’s hard to get them to tell you whether they’ve lost smell or not; they have other more important issues to deal with like respiratory failure,” said Dr. Ho.

Advanced age is associated with neuropathologic changes, such as tau deposits, so the researchers conducted an analysis factoring in age-related brain changes. They found a COVID-19 diagnosis remained associated with increased axonal pathology, reduced axonal density, and increased vascular pathology.

“This means that the COVID patients had more severe olfactory pathology not just because they had more tau pathology,” Dr. Ho added.
 

New guidance for patients

Commenting for this news organization, Davangere P. Devanand, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and director of geriatric psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings indicate the damage from COVID in the olfactory pathway may not be reversible as was previously thought.

“This has been suggested before as a possibility, but the autopsy findings in this case series indicate clearly that there may be permanent damage,” he said.

The results highlight the need to monitor patients with COVID for a smell deficit, said Dr. Devanand. 

“Assuring patients of a full recovery in smell and taste may not be sound advice, although recovery does occur in many patients,” he added.

He praised the study design, especially the blinding of raters, but noted a number of weaknesses, including the small sample size and the age and gender discrepancies between the groups.

Another possible limitation was inclusion of patients with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body pathology, said Dr. Devanand.

“These patients typically already have pathology in the olfactory pathways, which means we don’t know if it was COVID or the underlying brain pathology contributing to smell difficulties in these patients,” he said.

He noted that, unlike deceased COVID cases in the study, patients who survive COVID may not experience axonal and microvascular injury in olfactory neurons and pathways and their sense of smell may make a full return.

Dr. Devanand said he would have liked more detailed information on the clinical history and course of study participants and whether these factors affected the pathology findings.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Devanand have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients with COVID-19, especially those with an altered sense of smell, have significantly more axon and microvasculopathy damage in the brain’s olfactory tissue versus non-COVID patients. These new findings from a postmortem study may explain long-term loss of smell in some patients with the virus.

“The striking axonal pathology in some cases indicates that olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 may be severe and permanent,” the investigators led by Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, write.

“The results show the damage caused by COVID can extend beyond the nasal cavity and involve the brain,” Dr. Ho told this news organization.

The study was published online April 11 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A more thorough investigation

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, present with a wide range of symptoms. In addition to respiratory illnesses, they may exhibit various nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19.

One of the most prevalent of these is olfactory dysfunction. Research shows such dysfunction, including anosmia (loss of smell), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), and parosmia (smells that are distorted or unpleasant), affects 30%-60% of patients with COVID-19, said Dr. Ho.

However, these statistics come from research before the advent of the Omicron variant, which evidence suggests causes less smell loss in patients with COVID, she said.

Previous studies in this area mainly focused on the lining of the nasal cavity. “We wanted to go a step beyond to see how the olfactory bulb was affected by COVID infection,” said Dr. Ho.

The study included 23 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 ranging in age from 28 to 93 years at death (median 62 years, 60.9% men). It also included 14 controls who tested negative for COVID-19, ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (median 53.5 years, 50% men).

Researchers collected postmortem tissue from the brain, lung, and other organs and reviewed pertinent clinical information.

Most patients with COVID died of COVID pneumonia or related complications, although some died from a different cause. Some had an active COVID infection and others were “post infection, meaning they were in the recovery stage,” said Dr. Ho.

Six patients with COVID-19 and eight controls had significant brain pathology.

Compared with controls, those with COVID-19 showed significantly worse olfactory axonal damage. The mean axon pathology score (range 1-3 with 3 the worst) was 1.921 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.198 in controls (95% confidence interval, 0.444-1.002; P < .001).

The mean axon density in the lateral olfactory tract was significantly less in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (P = .002), indicating a 23% loss of olfactory axons in the COVID group.

Comparing COVID patients with and without reported loss of smell, researchers found those with an altered sense of smell had significantly more severe olfactory axon pathology.
 

Vascular damage

Patients with COVID also had worse vascular damage. The mean microvasculopathy score (range, 1-3) was 1.907 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.405 in controls (95% CI, 0.259-0.745; P < .001).

There was no evidence of the virus in the olfactory tissue of most patients, suggesting the olfactory pathology was likely caused by vascular damage, said Dr. Ho.

What’s unique about SARS-CoV-2 is that, although it’s a respiratory virus, it’s capable of infecting endothelial cells lining vessels.

“Other respiratory viruses only attack the airways and won’t attack vessels, but vascular damage has been seen in the heart and lung in COVID patients, and our study showed the same findings in the olfactory bulb,” Dr. Ho explained.

The researchers divided patients with COVID by infection severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Interestingly, those with the most severe olfactory pathology were the ones with milder infections, said Dr. Ho.

She noted other studies have reported patients with mild infection are more likely to lose the sense of smell than those with severe infection, but she’s skeptical about this finding.

“Patients with severe COVID are usually hospitalized and intubated, so it’s hard to get them to tell you whether they’ve lost smell or not; they have other more important issues to deal with like respiratory failure,” said Dr. Ho.

Advanced age is associated with neuropathologic changes, such as tau deposits, so the researchers conducted an analysis factoring in age-related brain changes. They found a COVID-19 diagnosis remained associated with increased axonal pathology, reduced axonal density, and increased vascular pathology.

“This means that the COVID patients had more severe olfactory pathology not just because they had more tau pathology,” Dr. Ho added.
 

New guidance for patients

Commenting for this news organization, Davangere P. Devanand, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and director of geriatric psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings indicate the damage from COVID in the olfactory pathway may not be reversible as was previously thought.

“This has been suggested before as a possibility, but the autopsy findings in this case series indicate clearly that there may be permanent damage,” he said.

The results highlight the need to monitor patients with COVID for a smell deficit, said Dr. Devanand. 

“Assuring patients of a full recovery in smell and taste may not be sound advice, although recovery does occur in many patients,” he added.

He praised the study design, especially the blinding of raters, but noted a number of weaknesses, including the small sample size and the age and gender discrepancies between the groups.

Another possible limitation was inclusion of patients with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body pathology, said Dr. Devanand.

“These patients typically already have pathology in the olfactory pathways, which means we don’t know if it was COVID or the underlying brain pathology contributing to smell difficulties in these patients,” he said.

He noted that, unlike deceased COVID cases in the study, patients who survive COVID may not experience axonal and microvascular injury in olfactory neurons and pathways and their sense of smell may make a full return.

Dr. Devanand said he would have liked more detailed information on the clinical history and course of study participants and whether these factors affected the pathology findings.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Devanand have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Patients with COVID-19, especially those with an altered sense of smell, have significantly more axon and microvasculopathy damage in the brain’s olfactory tissue versus non-COVID patients. These new findings from a postmortem study may explain long-term loss of smell in some patients with the virus.

“The striking axonal pathology in some cases indicates that olfactory dysfunction in COVID-19 may be severe and permanent,” the investigators led by Cheng-Ying Ho, MD, PhD, associate professor, department of pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, write.

“The results show the damage caused by COVID can extend beyond the nasal cavity and involve the brain,” Dr. Ho told this news organization.

The study was published online April 11 in JAMA Neurology.
 

A more thorough investigation

Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, present with a wide range of symptoms. In addition to respiratory illnesses, they may exhibit various nonrespiratory manifestations of COVID-19.

One of the most prevalent of these is olfactory dysfunction. Research shows such dysfunction, including anosmia (loss of smell), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), and parosmia (smells that are distorted or unpleasant), affects 30%-60% of patients with COVID-19, said Dr. Ho.

However, these statistics come from research before the advent of the Omicron variant, which evidence suggests causes less smell loss in patients with COVID, she said.

Previous studies in this area mainly focused on the lining of the nasal cavity. “We wanted to go a step beyond to see how the olfactory bulb was affected by COVID infection,” said Dr. Ho.

The study included 23 deceased patients with confirmed COVID-19 ranging in age from 28 to 93 years at death (median 62 years, 60.9% men). It also included 14 controls who tested negative for COVID-19, ranging in age from 20 to 77 years (median 53.5 years, 50% men).

Researchers collected postmortem tissue from the brain, lung, and other organs and reviewed pertinent clinical information.

Most patients with COVID died of COVID pneumonia or related complications, although some died from a different cause. Some had an active COVID infection and others were “post infection, meaning they were in the recovery stage,” said Dr. Ho.

Six patients with COVID-19 and eight controls had significant brain pathology.

Compared with controls, those with COVID-19 showed significantly worse olfactory axonal damage. The mean axon pathology score (range 1-3 with 3 the worst) was 1.921 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.198 in controls (95% confidence interval, 0.444-1.002; P < .001).

The mean axon density in the lateral olfactory tract was significantly less in patients with COVID-19 than in controls (P = .002), indicating a 23% loss of olfactory axons in the COVID group.

Comparing COVID patients with and without reported loss of smell, researchers found those with an altered sense of smell had significantly more severe olfactory axon pathology.
 

Vascular damage

Patients with COVID also had worse vascular damage. The mean microvasculopathy score (range, 1-3) was 1.907 in patients with COVID-19 and 1.405 in controls (95% CI, 0.259-0.745; P < .001).

There was no evidence of the virus in the olfactory tissue of most patients, suggesting the olfactory pathology was likely caused by vascular damage, said Dr. Ho.

What’s unique about SARS-CoV-2 is that, although it’s a respiratory virus, it’s capable of infecting endothelial cells lining vessels.

“Other respiratory viruses only attack the airways and won’t attack vessels, but vascular damage has been seen in the heart and lung in COVID patients, and our study showed the same findings in the olfactory bulb,” Dr. Ho explained.

The researchers divided patients with COVID by infection severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical. Interestingly, those with the most severe olfactory pathology were the ones with milder infections, said Dr. Ho.

She noted other studies have reported patients with mild infection are more likely to lose the sense of smell than those with severe infection, but she’s skeptical about this finding.

“Patients with severe COVID are usually hospitalized and intubated, so it’s hard to get them to tell you whether they’ve lost smell or not; they have other more important issues to deal with like respiratory failure,” said Dr. Ho.

Advanced age is associated with neuropathologic changes, such as tau deposits, so the researchers conducted an analysis factoring in age-related brain changes. They found a COVID-19 diagnosis remained associated with increased axonal pathology, reduced axonal density, and increased vascular pathology.

“This means that the COVID patients had more severe olfactory pathology not just because they had more tau pathology,” Dr. Ho added.
 

New guidance for patients

Commenting for this news organization, Davangere P. Devanand, MD, professor of psychiatry and neurology and director of geriatric psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the findings indicate the damage from COVID in the olfactory pathway may not be reversible as was previously thought.

“This has been suggested before as a possibility, but the autopsy findings in this case series indicate clearly that there may be permanent damage,” he said.

The results highlight the need to monitor patients with COVID for a smell deficit, said Dr. Devanand. 

“Assuring patients of a full recovery in smell and taste may not be sound advice, although recovery does occur in many patients,” he added.

He praised the study design, especially the blinding of raters, but noted a number of weaknesses, including the small sample size and the age and gender discrepancies between the groups.

Another possible limitation was inclusion of patients with Alzheimer’s and Lewy body pathology, said Dr. Devanand.

“These patients typically already have pathology in the olfactory pathways, which means we don’t know if it was COVID or the underlying brain pathology contributing to smell difficulties in these patients,” he said.

He noted that, unlike deceased COVID cases in the study, patients who survive COVID may not experience axonal and microvascular injury in olfactory neurons and pathways and their sense of smell may make a full return.

Dr. Devanand said he would have liked more detailed information on the clinical history and course of study participants and whether these factors affected the pathology findings.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Dr. Ho and Dr. Devanand have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The vast majority of children and young people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and COVID-19 are not hospitalized, according to the most significant global investigation of short-term COVID-19 outcomes in this patient group to date.

In the study, only 1 in 15 (7%) children and young people (younger than 19 years) with RMDs and COVID-19 were hospitalized, and even then, they experienced only mild symptoms; 4 of 5 of those hospitalized did not require supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support.

The study also found that those with severe systemic RMDs and obesity were more likely to be hospitalized than children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).

Treatment with biologics, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, did not appear to be associated with more severe COVID-19; however, the study found that children and young people with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30) were more likely to be hospitalized, although only 6% of patients in this study had a BMI in this category. Three patients died – two from areas of lower resources who were diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) at approximately the same time they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and one with a preexisting autoinflammatory syndrome who was being treated with low-dose glucocorticoids and methotrexate.

Published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, the study was led by Kimme L. Hyrich, MD, PhD, and Lianne Kearsley-Fleet, PhD, both from the University of Manchester (England). Dr. Hyrich is also a consultant rheumatologist at Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

In an interview, Dr. Hyrich explained that overall these data are reassuring and show that the majority of children and young people with RMDs are not at high risk of severe COVID-19.

“Many parents and families with children who have RMDs have lived with great fear over the pandemic about whether or not their children are at an increased risk of severe COVID-19,” said Dr. Hyrich. “Many are immunosuppressed or take other immunomodulatory medications. This has also had a great impact on schooling and children’s well-being.”

In the study, children with SLE, mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD), or vasculitis were more likely to have severe COVID-19. “[This] is not surprising given the typically greater systemic involvement and need for more aggressive immunosuppressive therapy than the majority of individuals with JIA,” the researchers wrote.

Dr. Hyrich added: “There may be times when children are on particularly high doses of immunosuppression or their disease is particularly active, when they may need more protection, and rheumatology teams can advise parents and young people about this.”

Studies such as those by Zimmerman and Curtis and Viner and colleagues have found that generally, children with no underlying disease are less susceptible to symptomatic COVID-19 and that reports of death are rare. Findings show that the younger the child, the less likely they will be symptomatic.

Adult data suggest a higher risk of COVID-related death among patients with arthritis, lupus, or psoriasis. A recent systematic review of the literature suggested that increased risk of COVID-related death only applies to subgroups of people with RMDs.

However, whether children and young people with RMDs are likely to have more severe COVID-19 and whether there is additional risk attributable to either their underlying disease or its therapy remain unknown. The goal of the study by Dr. Hyrich and colleagues was to address these questions.

The global analysis aimed to describe characteristics of those children and young people (younger than 19 years) with preexisting RMDs who also had COVID-19; to describe outcomes following COVID-19; and to identify characteristics associated with more severe COVID-19 outcomes.

Data were drawn from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology COVID-19 Registry, the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance Registry, and the CARRA-sponsored COVID-19 Global Paediatric Rheumatology Database.

Demographic information included primary RMD diagnosis; RMD disease activity (remission, low, moderate, high, or unknown); RMD treatments, including glucocorticoid use and which disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) the patient was taking at the time of COVID-19; and comorbidities (none, ocular inflammation, interstitial lung disease, asthma, diabetes, obesity, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, renal disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and heart disease).

With respect to COVID-19, information collected included diagnosis date, whether the case was presumptive or confirmed, clinical symptoms, hospitalization and/or death because of COVID-19, and whether the patient stopped receiving rheumatic therapies.

Rheumatology diagnoses were categorized into four groups: JIA; SLE, MCTD, vasculitis, or other RMD; autoinflammatory syndromes; and “other,” including chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis, sarcoidosis, or ocular inflammation.

Of the 607 children and young people with reported SARS-CoV-2 infection from 25 different countries (464 from the EULAR COVID-19 Registry), 499 (82%) cases were polymerase chain reaction confirmed, and 399 (66%) patients were female (median age, 14 years). Most (62%) had JIA: 37%, polyarticular JIA; 30%, oligoarticular JIA; 12%, enthesitis-related JIA; 9%, systemic JIA; 4%, psoriatic JIA; and 9%, JIA of unknown subcategory. Furthermore, 13% of patients had autoinflammatory syndromes, 8% with SLE or MCTD, 3% with vasculitis, and 2% with inflammatory myopathy.

No associations were seen between DMARD treatment (conventional-synthetic, biologic/targeted-synthetic, or combination therapy), compared with no DMARD treatment, glucocorticoid use, and hospitalization.

Owing to substantial differences in reporting of race and ethnicity between data sources, the researchers were unable to analyze whether Black, Asian, and minority ethnic groups with pediatric RMDs are at higher risk of COVID-19–related death, compared with those of White ethnicity, as has been reported for the general population.

The study also did not account for variants of SARS-CoV-2 other than to note that data were collected prior to the spread of the Omicron variant. Also, the registries did not capture vaccination status (though very few children had received vaccines at the time of data collection) or information on long COVID or multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

Dr. Hyrich and Dr. Kearsley-Fleet have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The decline in new cases of child COVID-19 in the last week continued at about the same, somewhat slower pace as the week before, but admissions have moved upward slightly, according to the most recent data.

The total number of new cases came to 25,915 for the week of April 1-7, down by 5.8% from the previous week’s 27,521, which, in turn, was 5.2% lower than a week earlier, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, which have been collecting COVID-related data from state and territorial health departments since the early stages of the pandemic. New case declines in previous weeks had ranged from 9.3% to 46%.

The nearly 26,000 cases reported during the first week of April represent a fall of 97.7% from the peak of the Omicron surge in mid-January, when weekly cases hit 1.15 million, and they represent the lowest weekly count since mid-July of 2021. Cumulative cases in children now number close to 12.9 million over the course of the pandemic, which is 19.0% of cases among all ages, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data on new-case rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the same continued decline, but the CDC acknowledges the possibility of reporting delays in recent weeks. The numbers for the latest week, April 3-9, maintain the larger overall decline, but there have been a couple of small, temporary increases over the last month, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Daily new admissions of children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID were right around 0.14 per 100,000 population for April 3-9, compared with 0.13 per 100,000 during the week ending April 2, the CDC said, with reporting delays making it possible that the 0.14 figure could be revised upward in the near future. The highest admission rate, 1.25 children per 100,000 population, occurred on Jan. 15 and 16.

The latest on vaccination

New vaccinations slipped a bit in the last week, with the drop slightly larger among those aged 12-17 years – from 47,000 for the week of March 24-30 to 43,000 during March 31 to April 6 – than in children aged 5-11, who went from 70,000 initial doses to 69,000 over the same 2-week period, the AAP said in its weekly report on vaccination trends.

Among the states, Vermont has fully vaccinated more children aged 5-11 (58%) than any other state, while Hawaii is the leader in fully vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds at 86%. The lowest comparable figures for both groups can be found in Alabama, where 10% of children aged 5-11 are fully vaccinated and 34% of those aged 12-17 have received both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the AAP said.

National figures show equally large COVID vaccination gaps between the two age groups. As of April 11, 68% of all children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose, compared with 34.6% of those aged 5-11, and 58.5% of the older group was fully vaccinated, versus 28.0% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The decline in new cases of child COVID-19 in the last week continued at about the same, somewhat slower pace as the week before, but admissions have moved upward slightly, according to the most recent data.

The total number of new cases came to 25,915 for the week of April 1-7, down by 5.8% from the previous week’s 27,521, which, in turn, was 5.2% lower than a week earlier, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, which have been collecting COVID-related data from state and territorial health departments since the early stages of the pandemic. New case declines in previous weeks had ranged from 9.3% to 46%.

The nearly 26,000 cases reported during the first week of April represent a fall of 97.7% from the peak of the Omicron surge in mid-January, when weekly cases hit 1.15 million, and they represent the lowest weekly count since mid-July of 2021. Cumulative cases in children now number close to 12.9 million over the course of the pandemic, which is 19.0% of cases among all ages, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data on new-case rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the same continued decline, but the CDC acknowledges the possibility of reporting delays in recent weeks. The numbers for the latest week, April 3-9, maintain the larger overall decline, but there have been a couple of small, temporary increases over the last month, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Daily new admissions of children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID were right around 0.14 per 100,000 population for April 3-9, compared with 0.13 per 100,000 during the week ending April 2, the CDC said, with reporting delays making it possible that the 0.14 figure could be revised upward in the near future. The highest admission rate, 1.25 children per 100,000 population, occurred on Jan. 15 and 16.

The latest on vaccination

New vaccinations slipped a bit in the last week, with the drop slightly larger among those aged 12-17 years – from 47,000 for the week of March 24-30 to 43,000 during March 31 to April 6 – than in children aged 5-11, who went from 70,000 initial doses to 69,000 over the same 2-week period, the AAP said in its weekly report on vaccination trends.

Among the states, Vermont has fully vaccinated more children aged 5-11 (58%) than any other state, while Hawaii is the leader in fully vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds at 86%. The lowest comparable figures for both groups can be found in Alabama, where 10% of children aged 5-11 are fully vaccinated and 34% of those aged 12-17 have received both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the AAP said.

National figures show equally large COVID vaccination gaps between the two age groups. As of April 11, 68% of all children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose, compared with 34.6% of those aged 5-11, and 58.5% of the older group was fully vaccinated, versus 28.0% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

The decline in new cases of child COVID-19 in the last week continued at about the same, somewhat slower pace as the week before, but admissions have moved upward slightly, according to the most recent data.

The total number of new cases came to 25,915 for the week of April 1-7, down by 5.8% from the previous week’s 27,521, which, in turn, was 5.2% lower than a week earlier, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, which have been collecting COVID-related data from state and territorial health departments since the early stages of the pandemic. New case declines in previous weeks had ranged from 9.3% to 46%.

The nearly 26,000 cases reported during the first week of April represent a fall of 97.7% from the peak of the Omicron surge in mid-January, when weekly cases hit 1.15 million, and they represent the lowest weekly count since mid-July of 2021. Cumulative cases in children now number close to 12.9 million over the course of the pandemic, which is 19.0% of cases among all ages, the AAP and CHA said in their weekly COVID report.

Data on new-case rates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the same continued decline, but the CDC acknowledges the possibility of reporting delays in recent weeks. The numbers for the latest week, April 3-9, maintain the larger overall decline, but there have been a couple of small, temporary increases over the last month, the CDC reported on its COVID Data Tracker.

Daily new admissions of children aged 0-17 years with confirmed COVID were right around 0.14 per 100,000 population for April 3-9, compared with 0.13 per 100,000 during the week ending April 2, the CDC said, with reporting delays making it possible that the 0.14 figure could be revised upward in the near future. The highest admission rate, 1.25 children per 100,000 population, occurred on Jan. 15 and 16.

The latest on vaccination

New vaccinations slipped a bit in the last week, with the drop slightly larger among those aged 12-17 years – from 47,000 for the week of March 24-30 to 43,000 during March 31 to April 6 – than in children aged 5-11, who went from 70,000 initial doses to 69,000 over the same 2-week period, the AAP said in its weekly report on vaccination trends.

Among the states, Vermont has fully vaccinated more children aged 5-11 (58%) than any other state, while Hawaii is the leader in fully vaccinated 12- to 17-year-olds at 86%. The lowest comparable figures for both groups can be found in Alabama, where 10% of children aged 5-11 are fully vaccinated and 34% of those aged 12-17 have received both doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the AAP said.

National figures show equally large COVID vaccination gaps between the two age groups. As of April 11, 68% of all children aged 12-17 years had received at least one dose, compared with 34.6% of those aged 5-11, and 58.5% of the older group was fully vaccinated, versus 28.0% of the 5- to 11-year-olds, the CDC reported.

[email protected]

There’s a strong likelihood that the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may moderately lower rates of hospitalization caused by COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients, a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.

The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.

“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”

According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.

A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”

For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.

Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.

All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.

“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I², 0.2%).”

Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.

Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”

Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”

The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”

In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”

He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”

Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”

He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”

Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”

No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s a strong likelihood that the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may moderately lower rates of hospitalization caused by COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients, a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.

The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.

“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”

According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.

A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”

For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.

Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.

All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.

“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I², 0.2%).”

Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.

Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”

Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”

The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”

In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”

He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”

Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”

He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”

Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”

No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s a strong likelihood that the antidepressant fluvoxamine (Luvox) may moderately lower rates of hospitalization caused by COVID-19 in unvaccinated patients, a new systematic review and meta-analysis has found. But outside experts differ over whether the evidence from just three studies is strong enough to warrant adding the drug to the COVID-19 armamentarium.

The report, published online in JAMA Network Open, looked at three studies and estimated that the drug could reduce the relative risk of hospitalization by around 25% (likelihood of moderate effect, 81.6%-91.8%), depending on the type of analysis used.

“This research might be valuable, but the jury remains out until several other adequately powered and designed trials are completed,” said infectious disease specialist Carl J. Fichtenbaum, MD, of the University of Cincinnati, who’s familiar with the findings. “I’m not sure how useful this is given we have several antiviral agents available. Why would we choose this over Paxlovid, remdesivir, or molnupiravir?”

According to Dr. Fichtenbaum, researchers began focusing on fluvoxamine after case reports about patients improving while on the medication. This led to further interest, he said, boosted by the drug’s known ability to dampen the immune system.

A Silicon Valley investor and antivaccine activist named Steve Kirsch has been pushing the drug along with the debunked treatment hydroxychloroquine. He’s accused the government of a cover-up of fluvoxamine’s worth, according to MIT Technology Review, and he wrote a commentary that referred to the drug as “the fast, easy, safe, simple, low-cost solution to COVID that works 100% of the time that nobody wants to talk about.”

For the new analysis, researchers examined three randomized clinical trials with a total of 2,196 participants. The most extensive trial, the TOGETHER study in Brazil (n = 1,497), focused on an unusual outcome: It linked the drug to a 32% reduction in relative risk of patients with COVID-19 being hospitalized in an ED for fewer than 6 hours or transferred to a tertiary hospital because of the disease.

Another study, the STOP COVID 2 trial in the United States and Canada (n = 547), was stopped because too few patients could be recruited to provide useful results. The initial phase of this trial, STOP COVID 1 (n = 152), was also included in the analysis.

All participants in the three studies were unvaccinated. Their median age was 46-50 years, 55%-72% were women, and 44%-56% were obese. Most were multiracial due to the high number of participants from Brazil.

“In the Bayesian analyses, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.78 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.08) for the weakly neutral prior and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.53-1.01) for the moderately optimistic prior,” the researchers reported, referring to a reduction in risk of hospitalization. “In the frequentist meta-analysis, the pooled risk ratio in favor of fluvoxamine was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58-0.97; I², 0.2%).”

Two of the authors of the new analysis were also coauthors of the TOGETHER trial and both STOP COVID trials.

Corresponding author Emily G. McDonald, MD, division of experimental medicine at McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview that the findings show fluvoxamine “very likely reduces hospitalization in high-risk outpatient adults with COVID-19. This effect varies depending on your baseline risk of developing complications in the first place.”

Dr. McDonald added that “fluvoxamine is an option to reduce hospitalizations in high-risk adults. It is likely effective, is inexpensive, and has a long safety track record.” She also noted that “not all countries have access to Paxlovid, and some people have drug interactions that preclude its use. Existing monoclonals are not effective with newer variants.”

The drug’s apparent anti-inflammatory properties seem to be key, she said. According to her, the next steps should be “testing lower doses to see if they remain effective, following patients long term to see what impact there is on long COVID symptoms, testing related medications in the drug class to see if they also show an effect, and testing in vaccinated people and with newer variants.”

In an interview, biostatistician James Watson, PhD, of the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok, Thailand, and Nuffield department of medicine, University of Oxford, England, said the findings of the analysis are “not overwhelming data.”

He noted the TOGETHER study’s unusual focus on ED visits that latest fewer than 6 hours, which he described as “not a very objective endpoint.” The new meta-analysis focused instead on “outcome data on emergency department visits lasting more than 24 hours and used this as a more representative proxy for hospital admission than an ED visit alone.”

Dr. Fichtenbaum also highlighted the odd endpoint. “Most of us would have chosen something like use of oxygen, requirement for ventilation, or death,” he said. “There are many reasons why people go to the ED. This endpoint is not very strong.”

He also noted that the three studies “are very different in design and endpoints.”

Jeffrey S. Morris, PhD, a biostatistician at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, offered a different perspective about the findings in an interview. “There’s good evidence that it helps some,” he said, and may reduce hospitalizations by 10%. “If the pill is super cheap and toxicity is very acceptable, it’s not adding additional risk. Most clinicians would say that: ‘If I’m reducing risk by 10%, it’s worthwhile.’ ”

No funding was reported. Two authors report having a patent application filed by Washington University for methods of treating COVID-19 during the conduct of the study. Dr. Watson is an investigator for studies analyzing antiviral drugs and Prozac as COVID-19 treatments. Dr. Fichtenbaum and Dr. Morris disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Though overall COVID-19 case counts continue to drop nationally, that’s not the story in every U.S. state.

About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.

Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.

National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.

“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.

“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.

If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.

The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.

“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.

“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

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

Though overall COVID-19 case counts continue to drop nationally, that’s not the story in every U.S. state.

About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.

Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.

National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.

“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.

“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.

If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.

The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.

“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.

“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

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

Though overall COVID-19 case counts continue to drop nationally, that’s not the story in every U.S. state.

About half the states have reported increases in COVID cases fueled by the Omicron subvariant, Axios reported. Alaska, Vermont, and Rhode Island had the highest increases, with more than 20 new cases per 100,000 people.

Nationally, the statistics are encouraging, with the 7-day average of daily cases around 26,000 on April 6, down from around 41,000 on March 6, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of deaths has dropped to an average of around 600 a day, down 34% from 2 weeks ago.

National health officials have said some spots would have a lot of COVID cases.

“Looking across the country, we see that 95% of counties are reporting low COVID-19 community levels, which represent over 97% of the U.S. population,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said April 5 at a White House news briefing.

“If we look more closely at the local level, we find a handful of counties where we are seeing increases in both cases and markers of more severe disease, like hospitalizations and in-patient bed capacity, which have resulted in an increased COVID-19 community level in some areas.”

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth Fund issued a report April 8 saying the U.S. vaccine program had prevented an estimated 2.2 million deaths and 17 million hospitalizations.

If the vaccine program didn’t exist, the United States would have had another 66 million COVID infections and spent about $900 billion more on health care, the foundation said.

The United States has reported about 982,000 COVID-related deaths so far with about 80 million COVID cases, according to the CDC.

“Our findings highlight the profound and ongoing impact of the vaccination program in reducing infections, hospitalizations, and deaths,” the Commonwealth Fund said.

“Investing in vaccination programs also has produced substantial cost savings – approximately the size of one-fifth of annual national health expenditures – by dramatically reducing the amount spent on COVID-19 hospitalizations.”

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

Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.

The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
 

Long-term evolution unknown

Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.

Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.

Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
 

Persistent headache common

In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.

“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.

“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”

Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
 

Secondary tension headaches

On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”

He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
 

Primary headache exacerbation

Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.

“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.

This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.

As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”

Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.

“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
 

Providing prognosis and treatment

Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).

When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”

In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.

In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.

“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.

Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.

The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
 

Long-term evolution unknown

Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.

Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.

Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
 

Persistent headache common

In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.

“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.

“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”

Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
 

Secondary tension headaches

On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”

He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
 

Primary headache exacerbation

Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.

“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.

This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.

As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”

Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.

“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
 

Providing prognosis and treatment

Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).

When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”

In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.

In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.

“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.

Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Approximately one in five patients who presented with headache during the acute phase of COVID-19 developed chronic daily headache, according to a study published in Cephalalgia. The greater the headache’s intensity during the acute phase, the greater the likelihood that it would persist.

The research, carried out by members of the Headache Study Group of the Spanish Society of Neurology, evaluated the evolution of headache in more than 900 Spanish patients. Because they found that headache intensity during the acute phase was associated with a more prolonged duration of headache, the team stressed the importance of promptly evaluating patients who have had COVID-19 and who then experience persistent headache.
 

Long-term evolution unknown

Headache is a common symptom of COVID-19, but its long-term evolution remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term duration of headache in patients who presented with this symptom during the acute phase of the disease.

Recruitment for this multicenter study took place in March and April 2020. The 905 patients who were enrolled came from six level 3 hospitals in Spain. All completed 9 months of neurologic follow-up.

Their median age was 51 years, 66.5% were women, and more than half (52.7%) had a history of primary headache. About half of the patients required hospitalization (50.5%); the rest were treated as outpatients. The most common headache phenotype was holocranial (67.8%) of severe intensity (50.6%).
 

Persistent headache common

In the 96.6% cases for which data were available, the median duration of headache was 14 days. The headache persisted at 1 month in 31.1% of patients, at 2 months in 21.5%, at 3 months in 19%, at 6 months in 16.8%, and at 9 months in 16.0%.

“The median duration of COVID-19 headache is around 2 weeks,” David García Azorín, MD, PhD, a member of the Spanish Society of Neurology and one of the coauthors of the study, said in an interview. “However, almost 20% of patients experience it for longer than that. When still present at 2 months, the headache is more likely to follow a chronic daily pattern.” Dr. García Azorín is a neurologist and clinical researcher at the headache unit of the Hospital Clínico Universitario in Valladolid, Spain.

“So, if the headache isn’t letting up, it’s important to make the most of that window of opportunity and provide treatment in that period of 6-12 weeks,” he continued. “To do this, the best option is to carry out preventive treatment so that the patient will have a better chance of recovering.”

Study participants whose headache persisted at 9 months were older and were mostly women. They were less likely to have had pneumonia or to have experienced stabbing pain, photophobia, or phonophobia. They reported that the headache got worse when they engaged in physical activity but less frequently manifested as a throbbing headache.
 

Secondary tension headaches

On the other hand, Jaime Rodríguez Vico, MD, head of the headache unit at the Jiménez Díaz Foundation Hospital in Madrid, said in an interview that, according to his case studies, the most striking characteristics of post–COVID-19 headaches “in general are secondary, with similarities to tension headaches that patients are able to differentiate from other clinical types of headache. In patients with migraine, very often we see that we’re dealing with a trigger. In other words, more migraines – and more intense ones at that – are brought about.”

He added: “Generally, post–COVID-19 headache usually lasts 1-2 weeks, but we have cases of it lasting several months and even over a year with persistent daily headache. These more persistent cases are probably connected to another type of pathology that makes them more susceptible to becoming chronic, something that occurs in another type of primary headache known as new daily persistent headache.”
 

Primary headache exacerbation

Dr. García Azorín pointed out that it’s not uncommon that among people who already have primary headache, their condition worsens after they become infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, many people differentiate the headache associated with the infection from their usual headache because after becoming infected, their headache is predominantly frontal, oppressive, and chronic.

“Having a prior history of headache is one of the factors that can increase the likelihood that a headache experienced while suffering from COVID-19 will become chronic,” he noted.

This study also found that, more often than not, patients with persistent headache at 9 months had migraine-like pain.

As for headaches in these patients beyond 9 months, “based on our research, the evolution is quite variable,” said Dr. Rodríguez Vico. “Our unit’s numbers are skewed due to the high number of migraine cases that we follow, and therefore our high volume of migraine patients who’ve gotten worse. The same thing happens with COVID-19 vaccines. Migraine is a polygenic disorder with multiple variants and a pathophysiology that we are just beginning to describe. This is why one patient is completely different from another. It’s a real challenge.”

Infections are a common cause of acute and chronic headache. The persistence of a headache after an infection may be caused by the infection becoming chronic, as happens in some types of chronic meningitis, such as tuberculous meningitis. It may also be caused by the persistence of a certain response and activation of the immune system or to the uncovering or worsening of a primary headache coincident with the infection, added Dr. García Azorín.

“Likewise, there are other people who have a biological predisposition to headache as a multifactorial disorder and polygenic disorder, such that a particular stimulus – from trauma or an infection to alcohol consumption – can cause them to develop a headache very similar to a migraine,” he said.
 

Providing prognosis and treatment

Certain factors can give an idea of how long the headache might last. The study’s univariate analysis showed that age, female sex, headache intensity, pressure-like quality, the presence of photophobia/phonophobia, and worsening with physical activity were associated with headache of longer duration. But in the multivariate analysis, only headache intensity during the acute phase remained statistically significant (hazard ratio, 0.655; 95% confidence interval, 0.582-0.737; P < .001).

When asked whether they planned to continue the study, Dr. García Azorín commented, “The main questions that have arisen from this study have been, above all: ‘Why does this headache happen?’ and ‘How can it be treated or avoided?’ To answer them, we’re looking into pain: which factors could predispose a person to it and which changes may be associated with its presence.”

In addition, different treatments that may improve patient outcomes are being evaluated, because to date, treatment has been empirical and based on the predominant pain phenotype.

In any case, most doctors currently treat post–COVID-19 headache on the basis of how similar the symptoms are to those of other primary headaches. “Given the impact that headache has on patients’ quality of life, there’s a pressing need for controlled studies on possible treatments and their effectiveness,” noted Patricia Pozo Rosich, MD, PhD, one of the coauthors of the study.

“We at the Spanish Society of Neurology truly believe that if these patients were to have this symptom correctly addressed from the start, they could avoid many of the problems that arise in the situation becoming chronic,” she concluded.

Dr. García Azorín and Dr. Rodríguez Vico disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) teledermatology platforms have gained popularity as telehealth business models, allowing patients to directly initiate visits with physicians and purchase medications from single platforms. A shortage of dermatologists, improved technology, drug patent expirations, and rising health care costs accelerated the growth of DTC dermatology.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology adoption surged due to the need to provide care while social distancing and minimizing viral exposure. These needs prompted additional federal funding and loosened regulatory provisions.² As the userbase of these companies has grown, so have their valuations.³ Although the DTC model has attracted the attention of patients and investors, its rise provokes many questions about patients acting as consumers in health care. Indeed, DTC telemedicine offers greater autonomy and convenience for patients, but it may impact the quality of care and the nature of physician-patient relationships, perhaps making them more transactional.

Evolution of DTC in Health Care

The DTC model emphasizes individual choice and accessible health care. Although the definition has evolved, the core idea is not new.⁴ Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars on DTC advertising, circumventing physicians by directly reaching patients with campaigns on prescription drugs and laboratory tests and shaping public definitions of diseases.⁵

The DTC model of care is fundamentally different from traditional care models in that it changes the roles of the patient and physician. Whereas early telehealth models required a health care provider to initiate teleconsultations with specialists, DTC telemedicine bypasses this step (eg, the patient can consult a dermatologist without needing a primary care provider’s input first). This care can then be provided by dermatologists with whom patients may or may not have pre-established relationships.^4,6

Dermatology was an early adopter of DTC telemedicine. The shortage of dermatologists in the United States created demand for increasing accessibility to dermatologic care. Additionally, the visual nature of diagnosing dermatologic disease was ideal for platforms supporting image sharing.⁷ Early DTC providers were primarily individual companies offering teledermatology. However, many dermatologists can now offer DTC capabilities via companies such as Amwell and Teladoc Health.⁸

Over the last 2 decades, start-ups such as Warby Parker (eyeglasses) and Casper (mattresses) defined the DTC industry using borrowed supply chains, cohesive branding, heavy social media marketing, and web-only retail. Scalability, lack of competition, and abundant venture capital created competition across numerous markets.⁹ Health care capitalized on this DTC model, creating a $700 billion market for products ranging from hearing aids to over-the-counter medications.¹⁰

Borrowing from this DTC playbook, platforms were created to offer delivery of generic prescription drugs to patients’ doorsteps. However, unlike with other products bought online, a consumer cannot simply add prescription drugs to their shopping cart and check out. In all models of American medical practice, physicians still serve as gatekeepers, providing a safeguard for patients to ensure appropriate prescription and avoid negative consequences of unnecessary drug use. This new model effectively streamlines diagnosis, prescription, and drug delivery without the patient ever having to leave home. Combining the prescribing and selling of medications (2 tasks that traditionally have been separated) potentially creates financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Additionally, high utilization of health care, including more prescriptions and visits, does not necessarily equal high quality of care. The companies stand to benefit from extra care regardless of need, and thus these models must be scrutinized for any incentives driving unnecessary care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, DTC has evolved to encompass multiple definitions in health care (Table 1). Although all models provide health care, each offers a different modality of delivery. The primary service may be the sale of prescription drugs or simply telemedicine visits. This review primarily discusses DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine platforms that sell private-label drugs and also offer telemedicine services to streamline care. However, the history, risks, and benefits discussed may apply to all models.

The DTC Landscape

Most DTC companies employ variations on a model with the same 3 main components: a triage questionnaire, telehealth services, and prescription/drug delivery (Figure). The triage questionnaire elicits a history of the patient’s presentation and medical history. Some companies may use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to tailor questions to patient needs. There are 2 modalities for patient-provider communication: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication entails real-time patient-physician conversations via audio only or video call. Asynchronous (or store-and-forward) communication refers to consultations provided via messaging or text-based modality, where a provider may respond to a patient within 24 hours.⁶ Direct-to-consumer platforms primarily use asynchronous visits (Table 2). However, some also use synchronous modalities if the provider deems it necessary or if state laws require it.

Once a provider has consulted with the patient, they can prescribe medication as needed. In certain cases, with adequate history, a prescription may be issued without a full physician visit. Furthermore, DTC companies require purchase of their custom-branded generic drugs. Prescriptions are fulfilled by the company’s pharmacy network and directly shipped to patients; few will allow patients to transfer a prescription to a pharmacy of their choice. Some platforms also sell supplements and over-the-counter medications.

Payment models vary among these companies, and most do not accept insurance (Table 2). Select models may provide free consultations and only require payment for pharmaceuticals. Others charge for consultations but reallocate payment to the cost of medication if prescribed. Another model involves flat rates for consultations and additional charges for drugs but unlimited messaging with providers for the duration of the prescription. Moreover, patients can subscribe to monthly deliveries of their medications.

Foundation of DTC

Technological advances have enabled patients to receive remote treatment from a single platform offering video calls, AI, electronic medical record interoperability, and integration of drug supply chains. Even in its simplest form, AI is increasingly used, as it allows for programs and chatbots to screen and triage patients.¹¹ Technology also has improved at targeted mass marketing through social media platforms and search engines (eg, companies can use age, interests, location, and other parameters to target individuals likely needing acne treatment).

Drug patent expirations are a key catalyst for the rise of DTC companies, creating an attractive business model with generic drugs as the core product. Since 2008, patents for medications treating chronic conditions, such as erectile dysfunction, have expired. These patent expirations are responsible for $198 billion in projected prescription sales between 2019 and 2024.¹ Thus, it follows that DTC companies have seized this opportunity to act as middlemen, taking advantage of these generic medications’ lower costs to create platforms focused on personalization and accessibility.

Rising deductibles have led patients to consider cheaper out-of-pocket alternatives that are not covered by insurance.¹ For example, insurers typically do not cover finasteride treatment for conditions deemed cosmetic, such as androgenetic alopecia.¹² The low cost of generic drugs creates an attractive business model for patients and investors. According to GoodRx, the average retail price for a 30-day supply of brand-name finasteride (Propecia [Merck]) is $135.92, whereas generic finasteride is $75.24.¹³ Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical companies offer a 30-day supply of generic finasteride ranging from $8.33 to $30.¹⁴ The average wholesale cost for retailers is an estimated $2.31 for 30 days.¹⁵ Although profit margins on generic medications may be lower, more affordable drugs increase the size of the total market. These prescriptions are available as subscription plans, resulting in recurring revenue.

Lax US pharmaceutical marketing regulations allow direct advertising to the general public.¹⁶ In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration allowed DTC advertisements to replace summaries of serious and common adverse effects with short statements covering important risks or referrals to other sources for complete information. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines preventing encouragement of self-diagnosis and self-treatment were withdrawn.⁵ These changes enable DTC companies to launch large advertising campaigns and to accelerate customer acquisition, as the industry often describes it, with ease.

Rapid Growth and Implications

Increasing generic drug availability and improving telemedicine capabilities have the potential to reduce costs and barriers but also have the potential for financial gain. Venture capital funds have recognized this opportunity, reflected by millions of dollars of investments, and accelerated the growth of DTC health care start-ups. For example, Ro has raised $376 million from venture capital, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.³

Direct-to-consumer companies require a heavy focus on marketing campaigns for customer acquisition. Their aesthetically pleasing websites and aggressive campaigns target specific audiences based on demographics, digital use habits, and purchasing behavior.⁴ Some campaigns celebrate the ease of obtaining prescriptions.¹⁷ Companies have been effective in recruiting so-called millennial and Generation Z patients, known to search the internet for remedies prior to seeking physician consultations.¹⁸ Recognizing these needs, some platforms offer guides on diseases they treat, creating effective customer-acquisition funnels. Recruitment of these technology-friendly patients has proven effective, especially given the largely positive media coverage of DTC platforms––potentially serving as a surrogate for medical credibility for patients.¹⁸

Some DTC companies also market physically; skin care ads may be strategically placed in social media feeds, or even found near mirrors in public bathrooms.¹⁹ Marketing campaigns also involve disease awareness; such efforts serve to increase diagnoses and prescribed treatments while destigmatizing diseases. Although DTC companies argue this strategy empowers patients, these marketing habits have the potential to take advantage of uninformed patients. Campaigns could potentially medicalize normal experiences and expand disease definitions resulting in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and wasted resources.⁵ For example, off-label propranolol use has been advertised to attract patients who might have “nerves that come creeping before an important presentation.”¹⁷ Disease awareness campaigns also may lead people to falsely believe unproven drug benefits.⁵ According to studies, DTC pharmaceutical advertisements are low in informational quality and result in increased patient visits and prescriptions despite cost-effective alternatives.^5,20-22

Fragmentation of the health care system is another possible complication of DTC teledermatology. These companies operate as for-profit organizations separated from the rest of the health care system, raising concerns about care coordination.⁸ Vital health data may not be conveyed as patients move among different providers and pharmacies. One study found DTC teledermatology rarely offered to provide medical records or facilitate a referral to a local physician.²³ Such a lack of communication is concerning, as medication errors are the leading cause of avoidable harm in health care.²⁴

Direct-to-consumer care models also seemingly redefine the physician-patient relationship by turning patients into consumers. Patient interactions may seem transactional and streamlined toward sales. For these platforms, a visit often is set up as an evaluation of a patient’s suitability for a prescription, not necessarily for the best treatment modality for the problem. These companies primarily make money through the sale of prescription drugs, creating a potential COI that may undermine the patient-physician relationship. Although some companies have made it clear that medical care and pharmaceutical sales are provided by legally separate business entities and that they do not pay physicians on commission, a conflict may still exist given the financial importance of physicians prescribing medication to the success of the business.¹⁶

Even as DTC models advertise upon expanded access and choice, the companies largely prohibit patients from choosing their own pharmacy. Instead, they encourage patients to fill prescriptions with the company’s pharmacy network by claiming lower costs compared with competitors. One DTC company, Hims, is launching a prescription-fulfillment center to further consolidate their business.^17,19,25 The inherent COI of issuing and fulfilling prescriptions raises concerns of patient harm.²⁶ For example, when Dermatology.com launched as a DTC prescription skin medication shop backed by Bausch Health Companies Inc, its model included telemedicine consultation. Although consultations were provided by RxDefine, a third party, only Dermatology.com drugs were prescribed. Given the poor quality of care and obvious financial COI, an uproar in the dermatology community and advocacy by the American Academy of Dermatology led to the shutdown of Dermatology.com’s online prescription services.²⁶

The quality of care among DTC telemedicine platforms has been equivocal. Some studies have reported equivalent care in person and online, while others have reported poor adherence to guidelines, overuse of antibiotics, and misdiagnosis.^8,23 A vital portion of the DTC experience is the history questionnaire, which is geared to diagnosis and risk assessment.²⁵ Resneck et al²³ found diagnostic quality to be adequate for simple dermatologic clinical scenarios but poor for scenarios requiring more than basic histories. Although Ro has reported leveraging data from millions of interactions to ask the right questions and streamline visits, it is still unclear whether history questionnaires are adequate.^17,27 Additionally, consultations may lack sufficient counseling on adverse effects, risks, or pregnancy warnings, as well as discussions on alternative treatments and preventative care.^17,23 Finally, patients often are limited in their choice of dermatologist; the lack of a fully developed relationship increases concerns of follow-up and monitoring practices. Although some DTC platforms offer unlimited interactions with physicians for the duration of a prescription, it is unknown how often these services are utilized or how adequate the quality of these interactions is. This potential for lax follow-up is especially concerning for prescriptions that autorenew on a monthly basis and could result in unnecessary overtreatment.

Postpandemic and Future Outlook

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the use of telemedicine. To minimize COVID-19 transmission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and private payers expanded telehealth coverage and eliminated reimbursement and licensing barriers.²⁸ A decade’s worth of regulatory changes and consumer adoption was accelerated to weeks, resulting in telemedicine companies reaching record-high visit numbers.²⁹ McKinsey & Company estimated that telehealth visit numbers surged 50- to 175-fold compared with pre–COVID-19 numbers. Additionally, 76% of patients were interested in future telehealth use, and 64% of providers were more comfortable using telehealth than before the pandemic.³⁰ For their part, US dermatologists reported an increase in telemedicine use from 14.1% to 96.9% since COVID-19.³¹

Exactly how much DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine companies are growing is unclear, but private investments may be an indication. A record $14.7 billion was invested in the digital health sector in the first half of 2021; the majority went to telehealth companies.³⁰ Ro, which reported $230 million in revenue in 2020 and has served 6 million visits, raised $200 milllion in July 2020 and $500 million in March 2021.³² Although post–COVID-19 health care will certainly involve increased telemedicine, the extent remains unclear, as telehealth vendors saw decreased usage upon reopening of state economies. Ultimately, the postpandemic regulatory landscape is hard to predict.³⁰

Although COVID-19 appears to have caused rapid growth for DTC platforms, it also may have spurred competition. Telemedicine providers have given independent dermatologists and health care systems the infrastructure to implement custom DTC services.³³ Although systems do not directly sell prescription drugs, the target market is essentially the same: patients looking for instant virtual dermatologic care. Therefore, sustained telemedicine services offered by traditional practices and systems may prove detrimental to DTC companies. However, unlike most telemedicine services, DTC models are less affected by certain changes in regulation since they do not rely on insurance. If regulations are tightened and reimbursements for telehealth are not attractive for dermatologists, teledermatology services may see an overall decrease. If so, patients who appreciate teledermatology may shift to using DTC platforms, even if their insurance does not cover them. Still, a nationwide survey found 56% of respondents felt an established relationship with a physician prior to a telemedicine visit is important, which may create a barrier for DTC adoption.³⁴

Conclusion

Direct-to-consumer teledermatology represents a growing for-profit model of health care that provides patients with seemingly affordable and convenient care. However, there is potential for overtreatment, misdiagnosis, and fragmentation of health care. It will be important to monitor and evaluate the quality of care that DTC teledermatology offers and advocate for appropriate regulations and oversight. Eventually, more patients will have medications prescribed and dermatologic care administered through DTC companies. Dermatologists will benefit from this knowledge of DTC models to properly counsel patients on the risks and benefits of their use.

In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) teledermatology platforms have gained popularity as telehealth business models, allowing patients to directly initiate visits with physicians and purchase medications from single platforms. A shortage of dermatologists, improved technology, drug patent expirations, and rising health care costs accelerated the growth of DTC dermatology.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology adoption surged due to the need to provide care while social distancing and minimizing viral exposure. These needs prompted additional federal funding and loosened regulatory provisions.² As the userbase of these companies has grown, so have their valuations.³ Although the DTC model has attracted the attention of patients and investors, its rise provokes many questions about patients acting as consumers in health care. Indeed, DTC telemedicine offers greater autonomy and convenience for patients, but it may impact the quality of care and the nature of physician-patient relationships, perhaps making them more transactional.

Evolution of DTC in Health Care

The DTC model emphasizes individual choice and accessible health care. Although the definition has evolved, the core idea is not new.⁴ Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars on DTC advertising, circumventing physicians by directly reaching patients with campaigns on prescription drugs and laboratory tests and shaping public definitions of diseases.⁵

The DTC model of care is fundamentally different from traditional care models in that it changes the roles of the patient and physician. Whereas early telehealth models required a health care provider to initiate teleconsultations with specialists, DTC telemedicine bypasses this step (eg, the patient can consult a dermatologist without needing a primary care provider’s input first). This care can then be provided by dermatologists with whom patients may or may not have pre-established relationships.^4,6

Dermatology was an early adopter of DTC telemedicine. The shortage of dermatologists in the United States created demand for increasing accessibility to dermatologic care. Additionally, the visual nature of diagnosing dermatologic disease was ideal for platforms supporting image sharing.⁷ Early DTC providers were primarily individual companies offering teledermatology. However, many dermatologists can now offer DTC capabilities via companies such as Amwell and Teladoc Health.⁸

Over the last 2 decades, start-ups such as Warby Parker (eyeglasses) and Casper (mattresses) defined the DTC industry using borrowed supply chains, cohesive branding, heavy social media marketing, and web-only retail. Scalability, lack of competition, and abundant venture capital created competition across numerous markets.⁹ Health care capitalized on this DTC model, creating a $700 billion market for products ranging from hearing aids to over-the-counter medications.¹⁰

Borrowing from this DTC playbook, platforms were created to offer delivery of generic prescription drugs to patients’ doorsteps. However, unlike with other products bought online, a consumer cannot simply add prescription drugs to their shopping cart and check out. In all models of American medical practice, physicians still serve as gatekeepers, providing a safeguard for patients to ensure appropriate prescription and avoid negative consequences of unnecessary drug use. This new model effectively streamlines diagnosis, prescription, and drug delivery without the patient ever having to leave home. Combining the prescribing and selling of medications (2 tasks that traditionally have been separated) potentially creates financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Additionally, high utilization of health care, including more prescriptions and visits, does not necessarily equal high quality of care. The companies stand to benefit from extra care regardless of need, and thus these models must be scrutinized for any incentives driving unnecessary care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, DTC has evolved to encompass multiple definitions in health care (Table 1). Although all models provide health care, each offers a different modality of delivery. The primary service may be the sale of prescription drugs or simply telemedicine visits. This review primarily discusses DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine platforms that sell private-label drugs and also offer telemedicine services to streamline care. However, the history, risks, and benefits discussed may apply to all models.

The DTC Landscape

Most DTC companies employ variations on a model with the same 3 main components: a triage questionnaire, telehealth services, and prescription/drug delivery (Figure). The triage questionnaire elicits a history of the patient’s presentation and medical history. Some companies may use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to tailor questions to patient needs. There are 2 modalities for patient-provider communication: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication entails real-time patient-physician conversations via audio only or video call. Asynchronous (or store-and-forward) communication refers to consultations provided via messaging or text-based modality, where a provider may respond to a patient within 24 hours.⁶ Direct-to-consumer platforms primarily use asynchronous visits (Table 2). However, some also use synchronous modalities if the provider deems it necessary or if state laws require it.

Once a provider has consulted with the patient, they can prescribe medication as needed. In certain cases, with adequate history, a prescription may be issued without a full physician visit. Furthermore, DTC companies require purchase of their custom-branded generic drugs. Prescriptions are fulfilled by the company’s pharmacy network and directly shipped to patients; few will allow patients to transfer a prescription to a pharmacy of their choice. Some platforms also sell supplements and over-the-counter medications.

Payment models vary among these companies, and most do not accept insurance (Table 2). Select models may provide free consultations and only require payment for pharmaceuticals. Others charge for consultations but reallocate payment to the cost of medication if prescribed. Another model involves flat rates for consultations and additional charges for drugs but unlimited messaging with providers for the duration of the prescription. Moreover, patients can subscribe to monthly deliveries of their medications.

Foundation of DTC

Technological advances have enabled patients to receive remote treatment from a single platform offering video calls, AI, electronic medical record interoperability, and integration of drug supply chains. Even in its simplest form, AI is increasingly used, as it allows for programs and chatbots to screen and triage patients.¹¹ Technology also has improved at targeted mass marketing through social media platforms and search engines (eg, companies can use age, interests, location, and other parameters to target individuals likely needing acne treatment).

Drug patent expirations are a key catalyst for the rise of DTC companies, creating an attractive business model with generic drugs as the core product. Since 2008, patents for medications treating chronic conditions, such as erectile dysfunction, have expired. These patent expirations are responsible for $198 billion in projected prescription sales between 2019 and 2024.¹ Thus, it follows that DTC companies have seized this opportunity to act as middlemen, taking advantage of these generic medications’ lower costs to create platforms focused on personalization and accessibility.

Rising deductibles have led patients to consider cheaper out-of-pocket alternatives that are not covered by insurance.¹ For example, insurers typically do not cover finasteride treatment for conditions deemed cosmetic, such as androgenetic alopecia.¹² The low cost of generic drugs creates an attractive business model for patients and investors. According to GoodRx, the average retail price for a 30-day supply of brand-name finasteride (Propecia [Merck]) is $135.92, whereas generic finasteride is $75.24.¹³ Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical companies offer a 30-day supply of generic finasteride ranging from $8.33 to $30.¹⁴ The average wholesale cost for retailers is an estimated $2.31 for 30 days.¹⁵ Although profit margins on generic medications may be lower, more affordable drugs increase the size of the total market. These prescriptions are available as subscription plans, resulting in recurring revenue.

Lax US pharmaceutical marketing regulations allow direct advertising to the general public.¹⁶ In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration allowed DTC advertisements to replace summaries of serious and common adverse effects with short statements covering important risks or referrals to other sources for complete information. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines preventing encouragement of self-diagnosis and self-treatment were withdrawn.⁵ These changes enable DTC companies to launch large advertising campaigns and to accelerate customer acquisition, as the industry often describes it, with ease.

Rapid Growth and Implications

Increasing generic drug availability and improving telemedicine capabilities have the potential to reduce costs and barriers but also have the potential for financial gain. Venture capital funds have recognized this opportunity, reflected by millions of dollars of investments, and accelerated the growth of DTC health care start-ups. For example, Ro has raised $376 million from venture capital, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.³

Direct-to-consumer companies require a heavy focus on marketing campaigns for customer acquisition. Their aesthetically pleasing websites and aggressive campaigns target specific audiences based on demographics, digital use habits, and purchasing behavior.⁴ Some campaigns celebrate the ease of obtaining prescriptions.¹⁷ Companies have been effective in recruiting so-called millennial and Generation Z patients, known to search the internet for remedies prior to seeking physician consultations.¹⁸ Recognizing these needs, some platforms offer guides on diseases they treat, creating effective customer-acquisition funnels. Recruitment of these technology-friendly patients has proven effective, especially given the largely positive media coverage of DTC platforms––potentially serving as a surrogate for medical credibility for patients.¹⁸

Some DTC companies also market physically; skin care ads may be strategically placed in social media feeds, or even found near mirrors in public bathrooms.¹⁹ Marketing campaigns also involve disease awareness; such efforts serve to increase diagnoses and prescribed treatments while destigmatizing diseases. Although DTC companies argue this strategy empowers patients, these marketing habits have the potential to take advantage of uninformed patients. Campaigns could potentially medicalize normal experiences and expand disease definitions resulting in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and wasted resources.⁵ For example, off-label propranolol use has been advertised to attract patients who might have “nerves that come creeping before an important presentation.”¹⁷ Disease awareness campaigns also may lead people to falsely believe unproven drug benefits.⁵ According to studies, DTC pharmaceutical advertisements are low in informational quality and result in increased patient visits and prescriptions despite cost-effective alternatives.^5,20-22

Fragmentation of the health care system is another possible complication of DTC teledermatology. These companies operate as for-profit organizations separated from the rest of the health care system, raising concerns about care coordination.⁸ Vital health data may not be conveyed as patients move among different providers and pharmacies. One study found DTC teledermatology rarely offered to provide medical records or facilitate a referral to a local physician.²³ Such a lack of communication is concerning, as medication errors are the leading cause of avoidable harm in health care.²⁴

Direct-to-consumer care models also seemingly redefine the physician-patient relationship by turning patients into consumers. Patient interactions may seem transactional and streamlined toward sales. For these platforms, a visit often is set up as an evaluation of a patient’s suitability for a prescription, not necessarily for the best treatment modality for the problem. These companies primarily make money through the sale of prescription drugs, creating a potential COI that may undermine the patient-physician relationship. Although some companies have made it clear that medical care and pharmaceutical sales are provided by legally separate business entities and that they do not pay physicians on commission, a conflict may still exist given the financial importance of physicians prescribing medication to the success of the business.¹⁶

Even as DTC models advertise upon expanded access and choice, the companies largely prohibit patients from choosing their own pharmacy. Instead, they encourage patients to fill prescriptions with the company’s pharmacy network by claiming lower costs compared with competitors. One DTC company, Hims, is launching a prescription-fulfillment center to further consolidate their business.^17,19,25 The inherent COI of issuing and fulfilling prescriptions raises concerns of patient harm.²⁶ For example, when Dermatology.com launched as a DTC prescription skin medication shop backed by Bausch Health Companies Inc, its model included telemedicine consultation. Although consultations were provided by RxDefine, a third party, only Dermatology.com drugs were prescribed. Given the poor quality of care and obvious financial COI, an uproar in the dermatology community and advocacy by the American Academy of Dermatology led to the shutdown of Dermatology.com’s online prescription services.²⁶

The quality of care among DTC telemedicine platforms has been equivocal. Some studies have reported equivalent care in person and online, while others have reported poor adherence to guidelines, overuse of antibiotics, and misdiagnosis.^8,23 A vital portion of the DTC experience is the history questionnaire, which is geared to diagnosis and risk assessment.²⁵ Resneck et al²³ found diagnostic quality to be adequate for simple dermatologic clinical scenarios but poor for scenarios requiring more than basic histories. Although Ro has reported leveraging data from millions of interactions to ask the right questions and streamline visits, it is still unclear whether history questionnaires are adequate.^17,27 Additionally, consultations may lack sufficient counseling on adverse effects, risks, or pregnancy warnings, as well as discussions on alternative treatments and preventative care.^17,23 Finally, patients often are limited in their choice of dermatologist; the lack of a fully developed relationship increases concerns of follow-up and monitoring practices. Although some DTC platforms offer unlimited interactions with physicians for the duration of a prescription, it is unknown how often these services are utilized or how adequate the quality of these interactions is. This potential for lax follow-up is especially concerning for prescriptions that autorenew on a monthly basis and could result in unnecessary overtreatment.

Postpandemic and Future Outlook

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the use of telemedicine. To minimize COVID-19 transmission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and private payers expanded telehealth coverage and eliminated reimbursement and licensing barriers.²⁸ A decade’s worth of regulatory changes and consumer adoption was accelerated to weeks, resulting in telemedicine companies reaching record-high visit numbers.²⁹ McKinsey & Company estimated that telehealth visit numbers surged 50- to 175-fold compared with pre–COVID-19 numbers. Additionally, 76% of patients were interested in future telehealth use, and 64% of providers were more comfortable using telehealth than before the pandemic.³⁰ For their part, US dermatologists reported an increase in telemedicine use from 14.1% to 96.9% since COVID-19.³¹

Exactly how much DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine companies are growing is unclear, but private investments may be an indication. A record $14.7 billion was invested in the digital health sector in the first half of 2021; the majority went to telehealth companies.³⁰ Ro, which reported $230 million in revenue in 2020 and has served 6 million visits, raised $200 milllion in July 2020 and $500 million in March 2021.³² Although post–COVID-19 health care will certainly involve increased telemedicine, the extent remains unclear, as telehealth vendors saw decreased usage upon reopening of state economies. Ultimately, the postpandemic regulatory landscape is hard to predict.³⁰

Although COVID-19 appears to have caused rapid growth for DTC platforms, it also may have spurred competition. Telemedicine providers have given independent dermatologists and health care systems the infrastructure to implement custom DTC services.³³ Although systems do not directly sell prescription drugs, the target market is essentially the same: patients looking for instant virtual dermatologic care. Therefore, sustained telemedicine services offered by traditional practices and systems may prove detrimental to DTC companies. However, unlike most telemedicine services, DTC models are less affected by certain changes in regulation since they do not rely on insurance. If regulations are tightened and reimbursements for telehealth are not attractive for dermatologists, teledermatology services may see an overall decrease. If so, patients who appreciate teledermatology may shift to using DTC platforms, even if their insurance does not cover them. Still, a nationwide survey found 56% of respondents felt an established relationship with a physician prior to a telemedicine visit is important, which may create a barrier for DTC adoption.³⁴

Conclusion

Direct-to-consumer teledermatology represents a growing for-profit model of health care that provides patients with seemingly affordable and convenient care. However, there is potential for overtreatment, misdiagnosis, and fragmentation of health care. It will be important to monitor and evaluate the quality of care that DTC teledermatology offers and advocate for appropriate regulations and oversight. Eventually, more patients will have medications prescribed and dermatologic care administered through DTC companies. Dermatologists will benefit from this knowledge of DTC models to properly counsel patients on the risks and benefits of their use.

In recent years, direct-to-consumer (DTC) teledermatology platforms have gained popularity as telehealth business models, allowing patients to directly initiate visits with physicians and purchase medications from single platforms. A shortage of dermatologists, improved technology, drug patent expirations, and rising health care costs accelerated the growth of DTC dermatology.¹ During the COVID-19 pandemic, teledermatology adoption surged due to the need to provide care while social distancing and minimizing viral exposure. These needs prompted additional federal funding and loosened regulatory provisions.² As the userbase of these companies has grown, so have their valuations.³ Although the DTC model has attracted the attention of patients and investors, its rise provokes many questions about patients acting as consumers in health care. Indeed, DTC telemedicine offers greater autonomy and convenience for patients, but it may impact the quality of care and the nature of physician-patient relationships, perhaps making them more transactional.

Evolution of DTC in Health Care

The DTC model emphasizes individual choice and accessible health care. Although the definition has evolved, the core idea is not new.⁴ Over decades, pharmaceutical companies have spent billions of dollars on DTC advertising, circumventing physicians by directly reaching patients with campaigns on prescription drugs and laboratory tests and shaping public definitions of diseases.⁵

The DTC model of care is fundamentally different from traditional care models in that it changes the roles of the patient and physician. Whereas early telehealth models required a health care provider to initiate teleconsultations with specialists, DTC telemedicine bypasses this step (eg, the patient can consult a dermatologist without needing a primary care provider’s input first). This care can then be provided by dermatologists with whom patients may or may not have pre-established relationships.^4,6

Dermatology was an early adopter of DTC telemedicine. The shortage of dermatologists in the United States created demand for increasing accessibility to dermatologic care. Additionally, the visual nature of diagnosing dermatologic disease was ideal for platforms supporting image sharing.⁷ Early DTC providers were primarily individual companies offering teledermatology. However, many dermatologists can now offer DTC capabilities via companies such as Amwell and Teladoc Health.⁸

Over the last 2 decades, start-ups such as Warby Parker (eyeglasses) and Casper (mattresses) defined the DTC industry using borrowed supply chains, cohesive branding, heavy social media marketing, and web-only retail. Scalability, lack of competition, and abundant venture capital created competition across numerous markets.⁹ Health care capitalized on this DTC model, creating a $700 billion market for products ranging from hearing aids to over-the-counter medications.¹⁰

Borrowing from this DTC playbook, platforms were created to offer delivery of generic prescription drugs to patients’ doorsteps. However, unlike with other products bought online, a consumer cannot simply add prescription drugs to their shopping cart and check out. In all models of American medical practice, physicians still serve as gatekeepers, providing a safeguard for patients to ensure appropriate prescription and avoid negative consequences of unnecessary drug use. This new model effectively streamlines diagnosis, prescription, and drug delivery without the patient ever having to leave home. Combining the prescribing and selling of medications (2 tasks that traditionally have been separated) potentially creates financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Additionally, high utilization of health care, including more prescriptions and visits, does not necessarily equal high quality of care. The companies stand to benefit from extra care regardless of need, and thus these models must be scrutinized for any incentives driving unnecessary care and prescriptions.

Ultimately, DTC has evolved to encompass multiple definitions in health care (Table 1). Although all models provide health care, each offers a different modality of delivery. The primary service may be the sale of prescription drugs or simply telemedicine visits. This review primarily discusses DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine platforms that sell private-label drugs and also offer telemedicine services to streamline care. However, the history, risks, and benefits discussed may apply to all models.

The DTC Landscape

Most DTC companies employ variations on a model with the same 3 main components: a triage questionnaire, telehealth services, and prescription/drug delivery (Figure). The triage questionnaire elicits a history of the patient’s presentation and medical history. Some companies may use artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to tailor questions to patient needs. There are 2 modalities for patient-provider communication: synchronous and asynchronous. Synchronous communication entails real-time patient-physician conversations via audio only or video call. Asynchronous (or store-and-forward) communication refers to consultations provided via messaging or text-based modality, where a provider may respond to a patient within 24 hours.⁶ Direct-to-consumer platforms primarily use asynchronous visits (Table 2). However, some also use synchronous modalities if the provider deems it necessary or if state laws require it.

Once a provider has consulted with the patient, they can prescribe medication as needed. In certain cases, with adequate history, a prescription may be issued without a full physician visit. Furthermore, DTC companies require purchase of their custom-branded generic drugs. Prescriptions are fulfilled by the company’s pharmacy network and directly shipped to patients; few will allow patients to transfer a prescription to a pharmacy of their choice. Some platforms also sell supplements and over-the-counter medications.

Payment models vary among these companies, and most do not accept insurance (Table 2). Select models may provide free consultations and only require payment for pharmaceuticals. Others charge for consultations but reallocate payment to the cost of medication if prescribed. Another model involves flat rates for consultations and additional charges for drugs but unlimited messaging with providers for the duration of the prescription. Moreover, patients can subscribe to monthly deliveries of their medications.

Foundation of DTC

Technological advances have enabled patients to receive remote treatment from a single platform offering video calls, AI, electronic medical record interoperability, and integration of drug supply chains. Even in its simplest form, AI is increasingly used, as it allows for programs and chatbots to screen and triage patients.¹¹ Technology also has improved at targeted mass marketing through social media platforms and search engines (eg, companies can use age, interests, location, and other parameters to target individuals likely needing acne treatment).

Drug patent expirations are a key catalyst for the rise of DTC companies, creating an attractive business model with generic drugs as the core product. Since 2008, patents for medications treating chronic conditions, such as erectile dysfunction, have expired. These patent expirations are responsible for $198 billion in projected prescription sales between 2019 and 2024.¹ Thus, it follows that DTC companies have seized this opportunity to act as middlemen, taking advantage of these generic medications’ lower costs to create platforms focused on personalization and accessibility.

Rising deductibles have led patients to consider cheaper out-of-pocket alternatives that are not covered by insurance.¹ For example, insurers typically do not cover finasteride treatment for conditions deemed cosmetic, such as androgenetic alopecia.¹² The low cost of generic drugs creates an attractive business model for patients and investors. According to GoodRx, the average retail price for a 30-day supply of brand-name finasteride (Propecia [Merck]) is $135.92, whereas generic finasteride is $75.24.¹³ Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical companies offer a 30-day supply of generic finasteride ranging from $8.33 to $30.¹⁴ The average wholesale cost for retailers is an estimated $2.31 for 30 days.¹⁵ Although profit margins on generic medications may be lower, more affordable drugs increase the size of the total market. These prescriptions are available as subscription plans, resulting in recurring revenue.

Lax US pharmaceutical marketing regulations allow direct advertising to the general public.¹⁶ In 1997, the US Food and Drug Administration allowed DTC advertisements to replace summaries of serious and common adverse effects with short statements covering important risks or referrals to other sources for complete information. In 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines preventing encouragement of self-diagnosis and self-treatment were withdrawn.⁵ These changes enable DTC companies to launch large advertising campaigns and to accelerate customer acquisition, as the industry often describes it, with ease.

Rapid Growth and Implications

Increasing generic drug availability and improving telemedicine capabilities have the potential to reduce costs and barriers but also have the potential for financial gain. Venture capital funds have recognized this opportunity, reflected by millions of dollars of investments, and accelerated the growth of DTC health care start-ups. For example, Ro has raised $376 million from venture capital, valuing the company at $1.5 billion.³

Direct-to-consumer companies require a heavy focus on marketing campaigns for customer acquisition. Their aesthetically pleasing websites and aggressive campaigns target specific audiences based on demographics, digital use habits, and purchasing behavior.⁴ Some campaigns celebrate the ease of obtaining prescriptions.¹⁷ Companies have been effective in recruiting so-called millennial and Generation Z patients, known to search the internet for remedies prior to seeking physician consultations.¹⁸ Recognizing these needs, some platforms offer guides on diseases they treat, creating effective customer-acquisition funnels. Recruitment of these technology-friendly patients has proven effective, especially given the largely positive media coverage of DTC platforms––potentially serving as a surrogate for medical credibility for patients.¹⁸

Some DTC companies also market physically; skin care ads may be strategically placed in social media feeds, or even found near mirrors in public bathrooms.¹⁹ Marketing campaigns also involve disease awareness; such efforts serve to increase diagnoses and prescribed treatments while destigmatizing diseases. Although DTC companies argue this strategy empowers patients, these marketing habits have the potential to take advantage of uninformed patients. Campaigns could potentially medicalize normal experiences and expand disease definitions resulting in overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and wasted resources.⁵ For example, off-label propranolol use has been advertised to attract patients who might have “nerves that come creeping before an important presentation.”¹⁷ Disease awareness campaigns also may lead people to falsely believe unproven drug benefits.⁵ According to studies, DTC pharmaceutical advertisements are low in informational quality and result in increased patient visits and prescriptions despite cost-effective alternatives.^5,20-22

Fragmentation of the health care system is another possible complication of DTC teledermatology. These companies operate as for-profit organizations separated from the rest of the health care system, raising concerns about care coordination.⁸ Vital health data may not be conveyed as patients move among different providers and pharmacies. One study found DTC teledermatology rarely offered to provide medical records or facilitate a referral to a local physician.²³ Such a lack of communication is concerning, as medication errors are the leading cause of avoidable harm in health care.²⁴

Direct-to-consumer care models also seemingly redefine the physician-patient relationship by turning patients into consumers. Patient interactions may seem transactional and streamlined toward sales. For these platforms, a visit often is set up as an evaluation of a patient’s suitability for a prescription, not necessarily for the best treatment modality for the problem. These companies primarily make money through the sale of prescription drugs, creating a potential COI that may undermine the patient-physician relationship. Although some companies have made it clear that medical care and pharmaceutical sales are provided by legally separate business entities and that they do not pay physicians on commission, a conflict may still exist given the financial importance of physicians prescribing medication to the success of the business.¹⁶

Even as DTC models advertise upon expanded access and choice, the companies largely prohibit patients from choosing their own pharmacy. Instead, they encourage patients to fill prescriptions with the company’s pharmacy network by claiming lower costs compared with competitors. One DTC company, Hims, is launching a prescription-fulfillment center to further consolidate their business.^17,19,25 The inherent COI of issuing and fulfilling prescriptions raises concerns of patient harm.²⁶ For example, when Dermatology.com launched as a DTC prescription skin medication shop backed by Bausch Health Companies Inc, its model included telemedicine consultation. Although consultations were provided by RxDefine, a third party, only Dermatology.com drugs were prescribed. Given the poor quality of care and obvious financial COI, an uproar in the dermatology community and advocacy by the American Academy of Dermatology led to the shutdown of Dermatology.com’s online prescription services.²⁶

The quality of care among DTC telemedicine platforms has been equivocal. Some studies have reported equivalent care in person and online, while others have reported poor adherence to guidelines, overuse of antibiotics, and misdiagnosis.^8,23 A vital portion of the DTC experience is the history questionnaire, which is geared to diagnosis and risk assessment.²⁵ Resneck et al²³ found diagnostic quality to be adequate for simple dermatologic clinical scenarios but poor for scenarios requiring more than basic histories. Although Ro has reported leveraging data from millions of interactions to ask the right questions and streamline visits, it is still unclear whether history questionnaires are adequate.^17,27 Additionally, consultations may lack sufficient counseling on adverse effects, risks, or pregnancy warnings, as well as discussions on alternative treatments and preventative care.^17,23 Finally, patients often are limited in their choice of dermatologist; the lack of a fully developed relationship increases concerns of follow-up and monitoring practices. Although some DTC platforms offer unlimited interactions with physicians for the duration of a prescription, it is unknown how often these services are utilized or how adequate the quality of these interactions is. This potential for lax follow-up is especially concerning for prescriptions that autorenew on a monthly basis and could result in unnecessary overtreatment.

Postpandemic and Future Outlook

The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically impacted the use of telemedicine. To minimize COVID-19 transmission, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and private payers expanded telehealth coverage and eliminated reimbursement and licensing barriers.²⁸ A decade’s worth of regulatory changes and consumer adoption was accelerated to weeks, resulting in telemedicine companies reaching record-high visit numbers.²⁹ McKinsey & Company estimated that telehealth visit numbers surged 50- to 175-fold compared with pre–COVID-19 numbers. Additionally, 76% of patients were interested in future telehealth use, and 64% of providers were more comfortable using telehealth than before the pandemic.³⁰ For their part, US dermatologists reported an increase in telemedicine use from 14.1% to 96.9% since COVID-19.³¹

Exactly how much DTC pharmaceutical telemedicine companies are growing is unclear, but private investments may be an indication. A record $14.7 billion was invested in the digital health sector in the first half of 2021; the majority went to telehealth companies.³⁰ Ro, which reported $230 million in revenue in 2020 and has served 6 million visits, raised $200 milllion in July 2020 and $500 million in March 2021.³² Although post–COVID-19 health care will certainly involve increased telemedicine, the extent remains unclear, as telehealth vendors saw decreased usage upon reopening of state economies. Ultimately, the postpandemic regulatory landscape is hard to predict.³⁰

Although COVID-19 appears to have caused rapid growth for DTC platforms, it also may have spurred competition. Telemedicine providers have given independent dermatologists and health care systems the infrastructure to implement custom DTC services.³³ Although systems do not directly sell prescription drugs, the target market is essentially the same: patients looking for instant virtual dermatologic care. Therefore, sustained telemedicine services offered by traditional practices and systems may prove detrimental to DTC companies. However, unlike most telemedicine services, DTC models are less affected by certain changes in regulation since they do not rely on insurance. If regulations are tightened and reimbursements for telehealth are not attractive for dermatologists, teledermatology services may see an overall decrease. If so, patients who appreciate teledermatology may shift to using DTC platforms, even if their insurance does not cover them. Still, a nationwide survey found 56% of respondents felt an established relationship with a physician prior to a telemedicine visit is important, which may create a barrier for DTC adoption.³⁴

Conclusion

Direct-to-consumer teledermatology represents a growing for-profit model of health care that provides patients with seemingly affordable and convenient care. However, there is potential for overtreatment, misdiagnosis, and fragmentation of health care. It will be important to monitor and evaluate the quality of care that DTC teledermatology offers and advocate for appropriate regulations and oversight. Eventually, more patients will have medications prescribed and dermatologic care administered through DTC companies. Dermatologists will benefit from this knowledge of DTC models to properly counsel patients on the risks and benefits of their use.

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

The next generation of COVID-19 vaccines should be able to fight off a new strain and be given each year, a panel of experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration said April 6.

But members of the panel also acknowledged that it will be an uphill battle to reach that goal, especially given how quickly the virus continues to change.

The members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee said they want to find the balance that makes sure Americans are protected against severe illness and death but doesn’t wear them out with constant recommendations for boosters.

“We don’t feel comfortable with multiple boosters every 8 weeks,” said committee chairman Arnold Monto, MD, professor emeritus of public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “We’d love to see an annual vaccination similar to influenza but realize that the evolution of the virus will dictate how we respond in terms of additional vaccine doses.”

The virus itself will dictate vaccination plans, he said.

The government must also keep its focus on convincing Americans who haven’t been vaccinated to join the club, said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, given that “it seems quite obvious that those who are vaccinated do better than those who aren’t vaccinated.”

The government should clearly communicate to the public the goals of vaccination, he said.

“I would suggest that our overall aim is to prevent severe disease, hospitalization, and death more than just infection prevention,” said Dr. Bernstein, professor of pediatrics at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

The FDA called the meeting of its advisers to discuss overall booster and vaccine strategy, even though it already authorized a fourth dose of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for certain immune compromised adults and for everyone over age 50.

Early in the all-day meeting, temporary committee member James Hildreth, MD, the president of Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tenn., asked why that authorization was given without the panel’s input. Peter Marks, MD, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the decision was based on data from the United Kingdom and Israel that suggested immunity from a third shot was already waning.

Dr. Marks later said the fourth dose was “authorized as a stopgap measure until we could get something else in place,” because the aim was to protect older Americans who had died at a higher rate than younger individuals.

“I think we’re very much on board that we simply can’t be boosting people as frequently as we are,” said Dr. Marks.
 

Not enough information to make broader plan

The meeting was meant to be a larger conversation about how to keep pace with the evolving virus and to set up a vaccine selection and development process to better and more quickly respond to changes, such as new variants.

But committee members said they felt stymied by a lack of information. They wanted more data from vaccine manufacturers’ clinical trials. And they noted that so far, there’s no objective, reliable lab-based measurement of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness – known as a correlate of immunity. Instead, public health officials have looked at rates of hospitalizations and deaths to measure whether the vaccine is still offering protection.

“The question is, what is insufficient protection?” asked H. Cody Meissner, MD, director of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. “At what point will we say the vaccine isn’t working well enough?”

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials presented data showing that a third shot has been more effective than a two-shot regimen in preventing serious disease and death, and that the three shots were significantly more protective than being unvaccinated.

In February, as the Omicron variant continued to rage, unvaccinated Americans aged 5 years and older had an almost three times higher risk of testing positive, and nine times higher risk of dying, compared with those who were considered fully vaccinated, said Heather Scobie, PhD, MPH, a member of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response team.

But only 98 million Americans – about half of those aged 12 years or older – have received a third dose, Dr. Scobie said.

It’s also still not clear how much more protection a fourth shot adds, or how long it will last. The committee heard data on a just-published study of a fourth dose of the Pfizer vaccine given to some 600,000 Israelis during the Omicron wave from January to March. The rate of severe COVID-19 was 3.5 times lower in the group that received a fourth dose, compared with those who had gotten only three shots, and protection lasted for at least 12 weeks.

Still, study authors said, any protection against infection itself was “short lived.”


 

More like flu vaccine?

The advisers discussed the possibility of making COVID-19 vaccine development similar to the process for the flu vaccine but acknowledged many difficulties.

The flu predictably hits during the winter in each hemisphere and a global surveillance network helps the World Health Organization decide on the vaccine strains each year. Then each nation’s regulatory and public health officials choose the strains for their shot and vaccine makers begin what is typically a 6-month-long manufacturing process.

COVID outbreaks have happened during all seasons and new variants haven’t always hit every country in a similar fashion. The COVID virus has mutated at five times the speed of the flu virus – producing a new dominant strain in a year, compared with the 3-5 years it takes for the flu virus to do so, said Trevor Bedford, PhD, a professor in the vaccine and infectious disease division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Global COVID surveillance is patchy and the WHO has not yet created a program to help select strains for a COVID-19 vaccine but is working on a process. Currently, vaccine makers seem to be driving vaccine strain selection, said panelist Paul Offit, MD, professor of paediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “I feel like to some extent the companies dictate the conversation. It shouldn’t come from them. It should come from us.”

“The important thing is that the public understands how complex this is,” said temporary committee member Oveta A. Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan. “We didn’t get to understand influenza in 2 years. It’s taken years to get an imperfect but useful process to deal with flu.”

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

Federal regulators have announced that GlaxoSmithKline’s COVID-19 drug should no longer be used because it’s likely ineffective against BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that now accounts for most new cases in the United States, The Associated Press reports.

The Food and Drug Administration announced that the antibody drug sotrovimab is no longer authorized to treat patients in U.S. states or territories. The decision was expected, as the FDA restricted the drug’s use across the country throughout March as BA.2 became dominant in certain regions, the AP reported.

The BA.2 subvariant now accounts for 72% of new COVID-19 cases sequenced by health authorities, according to the latest CDC data updated April 5. The FDA cited the CDC data in its reason for pulling back on the authorization of the drug.

The GlaxoSmithKline drug is the latest antibody medication to be pulled due to coronavirus mutations. In January, the FDA halted the use of antibody drugs from Regeneron and Eli Lilly because they didn’t work against the Omicron variant.

The FDA’s decision means that one antibody drug is still authorized for use against routine COVID-19 cases, the AP reported. A different Eli Lilly drug – bebtelovimab – still appears to work against BA.2.

Doctors can also prescribe antiviral pills, which typically affect the coronavirus spike protein and aren’t affected by mutations, to treat mild to moderate COVID-19, the AP reported. The authorized pills from Pfizer and Merck – Paxlovid and Lagevrio – have been shipped to pharmacy chains and medical clinics in hopes of getting them to patients early enough to work.

The federal government purchased nearly $2 billion worth of the GlaxoSmithKline drug and shipped more than 900,000 doses to states last fall, the AP reported. In March, the company announced that it was studying a higher dose that could be effective against BA.2, which would require FDA approval before resuming use in the United States.

The antibody drugs mimic the virus-blocking proteins found in the human body, the AP reported. They’re designed to attack a specific virus and need to be updated as the coronavirus mutates.

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

Federal regulators have announced that GlaxoSmithKline’s COVID-19 drug should no longer be used because it’s likely ineffective against BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that now accounts for most new cases in the United States, The Associated Press reports.

The Food and Drug Administration announced that the antibody drug sotrovimab is no longer authorized to treat patients in U.S. states or territories. The decision was expected, as the FDA restricted the drug’s use across the country throughout March as BA.2 became dominant in certain regions, the AP reported.

The BA.2 subvariant now accounts for 72% of new COVID-19 cases sequenced by health authorities, according to the latest CDC data updated April 5. The FDA cited the CDC data in its reason for pulling back on the authorization of the drug.

The GlaxoSmithKline drug is the latest antibody medication to be pulled due to coronavirus mutations. In January, the FDA halted the use of antibody drugs from Regeneron and Eli Lilly because they didn’t work against the Omicron variant.

The FDA’s decision means that one antibody drug is still authorized for use against routine COVID-19 cases, the AP reported. A different Eli Lilly drug – bebtelovimab – still appears to work against BA.2.

Doctors can also prescribe antiviral pills, which typically affect the coronavirus spike protein and aren’t affected by mutations, to treat mild to moderate COVID-19, the AP reported. The authorized pills from Pfizer and Merck – Paxlovid and Lagevrio – have been shipped to pharmacy chains and medical clinics in hopes of getting them to patients early enough to work.

The federal government purchased nearly $2 billion worth of the GlaxoSmithKline drug and shipped more than 900,000 doses to states last fall, the AP reported. In March, the company announced that it was studying a higher dose that could be effective against BA.2, which would require FDA approval before resuming use in the United States.

The antibody drugs mimic the virus-blocking proteins found in the human body, the AP reported. They’re designed to attack a specific virus and need to be updated as the coronavirus mutates.

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

Federal regulators have announced that GlaxoSmithKline’s COVID-19 drug should no longer be used because it’s likely ineffective against BA.2, the Omicron subvariant that now accounts for most new cases in the United States, The Associated Press reports.

The Food and Drug Administration announced that the antibody drug sotrovimab is no longer authorized to treat patients in U.S. states or territories. The decision was expected, as the FDA restricted the drug’s use across the country throughout March as BA.2 became dominant in certain regions, the AP reported.

The BA.2 subvariant now accounts for 72% of new COVID-19 cases sequenced by health authorities, according to the latest CDC data updated April 5. The FDA cited the CDC data in its reason for pulling back on the authorization of the drug.

The GlaxoSmithKline drug is the latest antibody medication to be pulled due to coronavirus mutations. In January, the FDA halted the use of antibody drugs from Regeneron and Eli Lilly because they didn’t work against the Omicron variant.

The FDA’s decision means that one antibody drug is still authorized for use against routine COVID-19 cases, the AP reported. A different Eli Lilly drug – bebtelovimab – still appears to work against BA.2.

Doctors can also prescribe antiviral pills, which typically affect the coronavirus spike protein and aren’t affected by mutations, to treat mild to moderate COVID-19, the AP reported. The authorized pills from Pfizer and Merck – Paxlovid and Lagevrio – have been shipped to pharmacy chains and medical clinics in hopes of getting them to patients early enough to work.

The federal government purchased nearly $2 billion worth of the GlaxoSmithKline drug and shipped more than 900,000 doses to states last fall, the AP reported. In March, the company announced that it was studying a higher dose that could be effective against BA.2, which would require FDA approval before resuming use in the United States.

The antibody drugs mimic the virus-blocking proteins found in the human body, the AP reported. They’re designed to attack a specific virus and need to be updated as the coronavirus mutates.

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