Infectious Diseases

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Though many people remain on the fence about getting the latest COVID vaccine booster, new research suggests a strong argument for getting the shot this winter: It sharply reduces the risk for COVID. 

Researchers found that getting vaccinated led to a 69% reduction in long-COVID risk among adults who received three vaccines before being infected. The risk reduction was 37% for those who received two doses. Experts say the research provides a strong argument for getting the vaccine, noting that about 10% of people infected with COVID go on to have long COVID, which can be debilitating for one quarter of those with long-lasting symptoms.

The data come from a systematic literature review and meta-analysis published in October in Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology. Researchers examined 32 studies published between December 2019 and June 2023, involving 775,931 adults. Twenty-four studies, encompassing 620,221 individuals, were included in the meta-analysis. 

“The body of evidence from all these different studies converge on one single reality — that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID, and people who keep up to date on their vaccinations also fared better than people who got it once or twice and didn’t follow up,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, a clinical epidemiologist at Washington University in St Louis. 

Researchers have reported similar results for children. The National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative team found that vaccines are up to 42% effective in preventing long COVID in children, said Dr. Carlos Oliveira, MD, a pediatric infectious diseases specialist and Yale researcher who contributed to the study, which is in preprint. 

Vaccines also protect children from multisystem inflammatory syndrome, a condition that can happen after COVID, as well as protect against other COVID-related problems, such as missed school days, Oliveira said. “Even if the vaccine doesn’t completely stop long COVID, it’s still good for kids to get vaccinated for all these other reasons.” 

However, uptake for the latest boosters has been slow: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that by mid-November, less than 16% of people aged 18 years or older had received a shot. For children, the number was closer to 6%. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that booster rates for adults are similar to what it was 1 year ago. 

The survey results suggest that people are no longer as worried about COVID, which is why there is less concerned about keeping up with boosters. Though the current mutation of the virus is not as debilitating as its predecessors, long COVID continues to be a problem: as of January 2023, 28% of people who had contracted the virus had experienced long-COVID symptoms. And though the mechanisms are still not fully understood, and researchers have yet to agree on a definition of long COVID, they are certain about this much: The best way to avoid it is to avoid getting infected to begin with. 

The lack of a diagnostic test for long COVID and the fact that the symptoms mimic those of other diseases lead to inconsistency that can make studies hard to replicate. In the papers reviewed for the Antimicrobial Stewardship & Epidemiology study, long COVID was defined as having symptoms lasting from more than 4 weeks to more than 6 months. Alexandre Marra, MD, the lead author and a researcher at the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, in São Paulo, Brazil, and at the University of Iowa, said that a clear standard definition is needed to better understand the actual prevalence and evaluate vaccine effectiveness. 

Al-Aly noted that there is a logical explanation for one finding in the paper: The percentage of individuals who had COVID and reported that long-COVID symptoms declined from 19% in June 2022 to 11% in January 2023. 

Because a pandemic is a dynamic event, constantly producing different variants with different phenotypes, the prevalence of disease is naturally going to be affected. “People who got infected early in the pandemic may have a different long COVID profile and long COVID risk than people who got infected in the second or third year of the pandemic,” Al-Aly said. 

Most of the studies reported data from before the Omicron-variant era. Only eight reported data during that era. Omicron was not as lethal as previous variants, and consequently, fewer patients developed long COVID during that time. 

One of those who did is Yeng Chang, age 40 years, a family doctor who lives in Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. Chang developed long COVID during fall 2022 after getting the virus in June. By then, she’d been vaccinated three times, but she isn’t surprised that she got sick because each vaccine she had was developed before Omicron.

“When I had COVID I was really sick, but I was well enough to stay home,” she said. “I think if I didn’t have my immunizations, I might have been hospitalized, and I don’t know what would have happened.” 

Long COVID has left Chang with brain fog, fatigue, and a lack of physical stamina that forced her to pause her medical practice. For the past year and a half, she’s spent more time as a patient than a physician. 

Chang had her fifth COVID vaccination in the fall and recommends that others do the same. “The booster you got however many years ago was effective for the COVID of that time but there is a new COVID now. You can’t just say, ‘I had one and I’m fine forever.’” 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After years of declining vaccination coverage worldwide, measles deaths increased by 43% in 2022, compared with 2021. The number of total reported cases rose by 18% over the same period, accounting for approximately 9 million cases and 136,000 deaths globally, mostly among children. This information comes from a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO), published in partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More Measles Outbreaks

The report also notes an increase in the number of countries experiencing significant measles outbreaks. There were 37 such countries in 2022, compared with 22 the previous year. The most affected continents were Africa and Asia.

“The rise in measles outbreaks and deaths is impressive but, unfortunately, not surprising, given the decline in vaccination rates in recent years,” said John Vertefeuille, PhD, director of the CDC’s Global Immunization Division.

Vertefeuille emphasized that measles cases anywhere in the world pose a risk to “countries and communities where people are undervaccinated.” In recent years, several regions have fallen short of their immunization targets.

Vaccination Trends

In 2022, there was a slight increase in measles vaccination after a decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global healthcare systems. However, 33 million children did not receive at least one dose of the vaccine last year: 22 million missed the first dose, and 11 million missed the second.

For communities to be considered protected against outbreaks, immunization coverage with the full vaccine cycle should be at least 95%. The global coverage rate for the first dose was 83%, and for the second, it was 74%.

Nevertheless, immunization recovery has not reached the poorest countries, where the immunization rate stands at 66%. Brazil is among the top 10 countries where more children missed the first dose in 2022. These nations account for over half of the 22 million unadministered vaccines. According to the report, half a million children did not receive the vaccine in Brazil.

Measles in Brazil

Brazil’s results highlight setbacks in vaccination efforts. In 2016, the country was certified to have eliminated measles, but after experiencing outbreaks in 2018, the certification was lost in 2019. In 2018, Brazil confirmed 9325 cases. The situation worsened in 2019 with 20,901 diagnoses. Since then, numbers have been decreasing: 8100 in 2020, 676 in 2021, and 44 in 2022.

Last year, four Brazilian states reported confirmed virus cases: Rio de Janeiro, Pará, São Paulo, and Amapá. Ministry of Health data indicated no confirmed measles cases in Brazil as of June 15, 2023.

Vaccination in Brazil

Vaccination coverage in Brazil, which once reached 95%, has sharply declined in recent years. The rate of patients receiving the full immunization scheme was 59% in 2021.

Globally, although the COVID-19 pandemic affected measles vaccination, measures like social isolation and mask use potentially contributed to reducing measles cases. The incidence of the disease decreased in 2020 and 2021 but is now rising again.

“From 2021 to 2022, reported measles cases increased by 67% worldwide, and the number of countries experiencing large or disruptive outbreaks increased by 68%,” the report stated.

Because of these data, the WHO and the CDC urge increased efforts for vaccination, along with improvements in epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in developing nations. “Children everywhere have the right to be protected by the lifesaving measles vaccine, no matter where they live,” said Kate O’Brien, MD, director of immunization, vaccines, and biologicals at the WHO.

“Measles is called the virus of inequality for a good reason. It is the disease that will find and attack those who are not protected.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

After years of declining vaccination coverage worldwide, measles deaths increased by 43% in 2022, compared with 2021. The number of total reported cases rose by 18% over the same period, accounting for approximately 9 million cases and 136,000 deaths globally, mostly among children. This information comes from a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO), published in partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More Measles Outbreaks

The report also notes an increase in the number of countries experiencing significant measles outbreaks. There were 37 such countries in 2022, compared with 22 the previous year. The most affected continents were Africa and Asia.

“The rise in measles outbreaks and deaths is impressive but, unfortunately, not surprising, given the decline in vaccination rates in recent years,” said John Vertefeuille, PhD, director of the CDC’s Global Immunization Division.

Vertefeuille emphasized that measles cases anywhere in the world pose a risk to “countries and communities where people are undervaccinated.” In recent years, several regions have fallen short of their immunization targets.

Vaccination Trends

In 2022, there was a slight increase in measles vaccination after a decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global healthcare systems. However, 33 million children did not receive at least one dose of the vaccine last year: 22 million missed the first dose, and 11 million missed the second.

For communities to be considered protected against outbreaks, immunization coverage with the full vaccine cycle should be at least 95%. The global coverage rate for the first dose was 83%, and for the second, it was 74%.

Nevertheless, immunization recovery has not reached the poorest countries, where the immunization rate stands at 66%. Brazil is among the top 10 countries where more children missed the first dose in 2022. These nations account for over half of the 22 million unadministered vaccines. According to the report, half a million children did not receive the vaccine in Brazil.

Measles in Brazil

Brazil’s results highlight setbacks in vaccination efforts. In 2016, the country was certified to have eliminated measles, but after experiencing outbreaks in 2018, the certification was lost in 2019. In 2018, Brazil confirmed 9325 cases. The situation worsened in 2019 with 20,901 diagnoses. Since then, numbers have been decreasing: 8100 in 2020, 676 in 2021, and 44 in 2022.

Last year, four Brazilian states reported confirmed virus cases: Rio de Janeiro, Pará, São Paulo, and Amapá. Ministry of Health data indicated no confirmed measles cases in Brazil as of June 15, 2023.

Vaccination in Brazil

Vaccination coverage in Brazil, which once reached 95%, has sharply declined in recent years. The rate of patients receiving the full immunization scheme was 59% in 2021.

Globally, although the COVID-19 pandemic affected measles vaccination, measures like social isolation and mask use potentially contributed to reducing measles cases. The incidence of the disease decreased in 2020 and 2021 but is now rising again.

“From 2021 to 2022, reported measles cases increased by 67% worldwide, and the number of countries experiencing large or disruptive outbreaks increased by 68%,” the report stated.

Because of these data, the WHO and the CDC urge increased efforts for vaccination, along with improvements in epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in developing nations. “Children everywhere have the right to be protected by the lifesaving measles vaccine, no matter where they live,” said Kate O’Brien, MD, director of immunization, vaccines, and biologicals at the WHO.

“Measles is called the virus of inequality for a good reason. It is the disease that will find and attack those who are not protected.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

After years of declining vaccination coverage worldwide, measles deaths increased by 43% in 2022, compared with 2021. The number of total reported cases rose by 18% over the same period, accounting for approximately 9 million cases and 136,000 deaths globally, mostly among children. This information comes from a new report by the World Health Organization (WHO), published in partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

More Measles Outbreaks

The report also notes an increase in the number of countries experiencing significant measles outbreaks. There were 37 such countries in 2022, compared with 22 the previous year. The most affected continents were Africa and Asia.

“The rise in measles outbreaks and deaths is impressive but, unfortunately, not surprising, given the decline in vaccination rates in recent years,” said John Vertefeuille, PhD, director of the CDC’s Global Immunization Division.

Vertefeuille emphasized that measles cases anywhere in the world pose a risk to “countries and communities where people are undervaccinated.” In recent years, several regions have fallen short of their immunization targets.

Vaccination Trends

In 2022, there was a slight increase in measles vaccination after a decline exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on global healthcare systems. However, 33 million children did not receive at least one dose of the vaccine last year: 22 million missed the first dose, and 11 million missed the second.

For communities to be considered protected against outbreaks, immunization coverage with the full vaccine cycle should be at least 95%. The global coverage rate for the first dose was 83%, and for the second, it was 74%.

Nevertheless, immunization recovery has not reached the poorest countries, where the immunization rate stands at 66%. Brazil is among the top 10 countries where more children missed the first dose in 2022. These nations account for over half of the 22 million unadministered vaccines. According to the report, half a million children did not receive the vaccine in Brazil.

Measles in Brazil

Brazil’s results highlight setbacks in vaccination efforts. In 2016, the country was certified to have eliminated measles, but after experiencing outbreaks in 2018, the certification was lost in 2019. In 2018, Brazil confirmed 9325 cases. The situation worsened in 2019 with 20,901 diagnoses. Since then, numbers have been decreasing: 8100 in 2020, 676 in 2021, and 44 in 2022.

Last year, four Brazilian states reported confirmed virus cases: Rio de Janeiro, Pará, São Paulo, and Amapá. Ministry of Health data indicated no confirmed measles cases in Brazil as of June 15, 2023.

Vaccination in Brazil

Vaccination coverage in Brazil, which once reached 95%, has sharply declined in recent years. The rate of patients receiving the full immunization scheme was 59% in 2021.

Globally, although the COVID-19 pandemic affected measles vaccination, measures like social isolation and mask use potentially contributed to reducing measles cases. The incidence of the disease decreased in 2020 and 2021 but is now rising again.

“From 2021 to 2022, reported measles cases increased by 67% worldwide, and the number of countries experiencing large or disruptive outbreaks increased by 68%,” the report stated.

Because of these data, the WHO and the CDC urge increased efforts for vaccination, along with improvements in epidemiological surveillance systems, especially in developing nations. “Children everywhere have the right to be protected by the lifesaving measles vaccine, no matter where they live,” said Kate O’Brien, MD, director of immunization, vaccines, and biologicals at the WHO.

“Measles is called the virus of inequality for a good reason. It is the disease that will find and attack those who are not protected.”
 

This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese edition.

TOPLINE:

Two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine slashes COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 6 months to 4 years by 40%, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2 infection can severely affect children who have certain chronic conditions.
• Researchers assessed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing emergency ED visits and hospitalizations associated with the illness from July 2022 to September 2023.
• They drew data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness in children at seven pediatric medical centers.
• The period assessed was the first year vaccines were authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years; during that period, several Omicron subvariants arose.
• Researchers used data from 7,434 infants and children; data included patients’ vaccine status and their test results for SARS-CoV-2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 7,434 infants and children who had an acute respiratory illness and were hospitalized or visited the ED, 387 had COVID-19.
• Children who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 40% less likely to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization or ED visit compared with unvaccinated youth.
• One dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced ED visits and hospitalizations by 31%.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings in this report support the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged ≥6 months and highlight the importance of completion of a primary series for young children,” the researchers reported.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Heidi L. Moline, MD, of the CDC.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the number of children with antibodies and immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has grown, vaccine effectiveness rates in the study may no longer be as relevant. Children with preexisting chronic conditions may be more likely to be vaccinated and receive medical attention. The low rates of vaccination may have prevented researchers from conducting a more detailed analysis. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires three doses, whereas Moderna’s requires two doses; this may have skewed the estimated efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report a variety of potential conflicts of interest, which are detailed in the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine slashes COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 6 months to 4 years by 40%, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2 infection can severely affect children who have certain chronic conditions.
• Researchers assessed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing emergency ED visits and hospitalizations associated with the illness from July 2022 to September 2023.
• They drew data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness in children at seven pediatric medical centers.
• The period assessed was the first year vaccines were authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years; during that period, several Omicron subvariants arose.
• Researchers used data from 7,434 infants and children; data included patients’ vaccine status and their test results for SARS-CoV-2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 7,434 infants and children who had an acute respiratory illness and were hospitalized or visited the ED, 387 had COVID-19.
• Children who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 40% less likely to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization or ED visit compared with unvaccinated youth.
• One dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced ED visits and hospitalizations by 31%.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings in this report support the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged ≥6 months and highlight the importance of completion of a primary series for young children,” the researchers reported.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Heidi L. Moline, MD, of the CDC.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the number of children with antibodies and immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has grown, vaccine effectiveness rates in the study may no longer be as relevant. Children with preexisting chronic conditions may be more likely to be vaccinated and receive medical attention. The low rates of vaccination may have prevented researchers from conducting a more detailed analysis. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires three doses, whereas Moderna’s requires two doses; this may have skewed the estimated efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report a variety of potential conflicts of interest, which are detailed in the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine slashes COVID-19-related hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits in children aged 6 months to 4 years by 40%, according to a new study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

METHODOLOGY:

• SARS-CoV-2 infection can severely affect children who have certain chronic conditions.
• Researchers assessed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing emergency ED visits and hospitalizations associated with the illness from July 2022 to September 2023.
• They drew data from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, which conducts population-based, prospective surveillance for acute respiratory illness in children at seven pediatric medical centers.
• The period assessed was the first year vaccines were authorized for children aged 6 months to 4 years; during that period, several Omicron subvariants arose.
• Researchers used data from 7,434 infants and children; data included patients’ vaccine status and their test results for SARS-CoV-2.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 7,434 infants and children who had an acute respiratory illness and were hospitalized or visited the ED, 387 had COVID-19.
• Children who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were 40% less likely to have a COVID-19-associated hospitalization or ED visit compared with unvaccinated youth.
• One dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reduced ED visits and hospitalizations by 31%.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings in this report support the recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination for all children aged ≥6 months and highlight the importance of completion of a primary series for young children,” the researchers reported.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Heidi L. Moline, MD, of the CDC.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the number of children with antibodies and immunity against SARS-CoV-2 has grown, vaccine effectiveness rates in the study may no longer be as relevant. Children with preexisting chronic conditions may be more likely to be vaccinated and receive medical attention. The low rates of vaccination may have prevented researchers from conducting a more detailed analysis. The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine requires three doses, whereas Moderna’s requires two doses; this may have skewed the estimated efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors report a variety of potential conflicts of interest, which are detailed in the article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A class action lawsuit against Mass General Brigham, Salem Hospital, and 10 unnamed employees has been filed after at least 450 patients were notified of their possible exposure to HIV and hepatitis.

The negligent administration of intravenous medications during endoscopy procedures performed between June 14, 2021, and April 19, 2023, at Salem Hospital, located about 20 miles northeast of Boston, has caused a “heightened risk of exposure to these harmful life-altering and life-threatening infections,” according to the lawsuit filed at Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston by Keches Law Group on behalf of plaintiff Melinda Cashman and others.

Although patients were notified in early November of their potential exposure, it could take months or even years to determine if infection has occurred. Attorneys for Ms. Cashman claim that the plaintiff “suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress and anguish” as a result of the associated risks.

The lawyers argue that Ms. Cashman and others like her may “suffer permanent injuries,” along with “extreme anxiety and decreased quality of life.” They are seeking monetary damages to offset disruptions to relationships, increased medical bills, and any mental health therapy required.

Outreach to potentially affected patients began after the hospital was made aware, earlier this year, of an “isolated practice” that could have led to viral transmission, according to a statement from Mass General Brigham, but there is no evidence to date of any infections resulting from this incident. “We sincerely apologize to those who have been impacted and we remain committed to delivering high-quality, compassionate healthcare to our community.”

Hepatitis B and C are both treatable with antiviral mediations, and hepatitis C is curable in 95% of cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV, although not curable, can be managed with antiretroviral therapy.

Mass General Brigham is working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which will conduct an onsite investigation into quality-control practices. Affected patients can reach out to a clinician-staffed hotline with questions and receive free screening for the viruses, hospital officials report.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A class action lawsuit against Mass General Brigham, Salem Hospital, and 10 unnamed employees has been filed after at least 450 patients were notified of their possible exposure to HIV and hepatitis.

The negligent administration of intravenous medications during endoscopy procedures performed between June 14, 2021, and April 19, 2023, at Salem Hospital, located about 20 miles northeast of Boston, has caused a “heightened risk of exposure to these harmful life-altering and life-threatening infections,” according to the lawsuit filed at Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston by Keches Law Group on behalf of plaintiff Melinda Cashman and others.

Although patients were notified in early November of their potential exposure, it could take months or even years to determine if infection has occurred. Attorneys for Ms. Cashman claim that the plaintiff “suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress and anguish” as a result of the associated risks.

The lawyers argue that Ms. Cashman and others like her may “suffer permanent injuries,” along with “extreme anxiety and decreased quality of life.” They are seeking monetary damages to offset disruptions to relationships, increased medical bills, and any mental health therapy required.

Outreach to potentially affected patients began after the hospital was made aware, earlier this year, of an “isolated practice” that could have led to viral transmission, according to a statement from Mass General Brigham, but there is no evidence to date of any infections resulting from this incident. “We sincerely apologize to those who have been impacted and we remain committed to delivering high-quality, compassionate healthcare to our community.”

Hepatitis B and C are both treatable with antiviral mediations, and hepatitis C is curable in 95% of cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV, although not curable, can be managed with antiretroviral therapy.

Mass General Brigham is working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which will conduct an onsite investigation into quality-control practices. Affected patients can reach out to a clinician-staffed hotline with questions and receive free screening for the viruses, hospital officials report.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A class action lawsuit against Mass General Brigham, Salem Hospital, and 10 unnamed employees has been filed after at least 450 patients were notified of their possible exposure to HIV and hepatitis.

The negligent administration of intravenous medications during endoscopy procedures performed between June 14, 2021, and April 19, 2023, at Salem Hospital, located about 20 miles northeast of Boston, has caused a “heightened risk of exposure to these harmful life-altering and life-threatening infections,” according to the lawsuit filed at Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston by Keches Law Group on behalf of plaintiff Melinda Cashman and others.

Although patients were notified in early November of their potential exposure, it could take months or even years to determine if infection has occurred. Attorneys for Ms. Cashman claim that the plaintiff “suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress and anguish” as a result of the associated risks.

The lawyers argue that Ms. Cashman and others like her may “suffer permanent injuries,” along with “extreme anxiety and decreased quality of life.” They are seeking monetary damages to offset disruptions to relationships, increased medical bills, and any mental health therapy required.

Outreach to potentially affected patients began after the hospital was made aware, earlier this year, of an “isolated practice” that could have led to viral transmission, according to a statement from Mass General Brigham, but there is no evidence to date of any infections resulting from this incident. “We sincerely apologize to those who have been impacted and we remain committed to delivering high-quality, compassionate healthcare to our community.”

Hepatitis B and C are both treatable with antiviral mediations, and hepatitis C is curable in 95% of cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV, although not curable, can be managed with antiretroviral therapy.

Mass General Brigham is working with the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which will conduct an onsite investigation into quality-control practices. Affected patients can reach out to a clinician-staffed hotline with questions and receive free screening for the viruses, hospital officials report.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In individuals with low B-cell counts, T cells have enhanced responses to COVID-19 vaccination and may help prevent severe disease after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• How the immune systems of B cell–deficient patients respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is not fully understood.
• Researchers evaluated anti–SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in 33 patients treated with rituximab (RTX), 12 patients with common variable immune deficiency, and 44 controls.
• The study analyzed effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination.

TAKEAWAY: 

• All B cell–deficient individuals (those treated with RTX or those with a diagnosis of common variable immune deficiency) had increased effector and memory T-cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, compared with controls.
• Patients treated with RTX who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had 4.8-fold reduced odds of moderate or severe disease. (These data were not available for patients with common variable immune deficiency.)
• RTX treatment was associated with a decrease in preexisting T-cell immunity in unvaccinated patients, regardless of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.
• This association was not found in vaccinated patients treated with RTX.

IN PRACTICE:

“[These findings] provide support for vaccination in this vulnerable population and demonstrate the potential benefit of vaccine-induced CD8+ T-cell responses on reducing disease severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the absence of spike protein–specific antibodies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was published online on November 29 in Science Translational Medicine. The first author is Reza Zonozi, MD, who conducted the research while at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is now in private practice in northern Virginia. 

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers did not obtain specimens from patients with common variable immune deficiency after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small subset of immunophenotyped participants had subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and E. Schwartz; the Lambertus Family Foundation; and S. Edgerly and P. Edgerly. Four authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

TOPLINE:

In individuals with low B-cell counts, T cells have enhanced responses to COVID-19 vaccination and may help prevent severe disease after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• How the immune systems of B cell–deficient patients respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is not fully understood.
• Researchers evaluated anti–SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in 33 patients treated with rituximab (RTX), 12 patients with common variable immune deficiency, and 44 controls.
• The study analyzed effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination.

TAKEAWAY: 

• All B cell–deficient individuals (those treated with RTX or those with a diagnosis of common variable immune deficiency) had increased effector and memory T-cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, compared with controls.
• Patients treated with RTX who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had 4.8-fold reduced odds of moderate or severe disease. (These data were not available for patients with common variable immune deficiency.)
• RTX treatment was associated with a decrease in preexisting T-cell immunity in unvaccinated patients, regardless of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.
• This association was not found in vaccinated patients treated with RTX.

IN PRACTICE:

“[These findings] provide support for vaccination in this vulnerable population and demonstrate the potential benefit of vaccine-induced CD8+ T-cell responses on reducing disease severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the absence of spike protein–specific antibodies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was published online on November 29 in Science Translational Medicine. The first author is Reza Zonozi, MD, who conducted the research while at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is now in private practice in northern Virginia. 

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers did not obtain specimens from patients with common variable immune deficiency after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small subset of immunophenotyped participants had subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and E. Schwartz; the Lambertus Family Foundation; and S. Edgerly and P. Edgerly. Four authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

TOPLINE:

In individuals with low B-cell counts, T cells have enhanced responses to COVID-19 vaccination and may help prevent severe disease after infection.

METHODOLOGY:

• How the immune systems of B cell–deficient patients respond to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination is not fully understood.
• Researchers evaluated anti–SARS-CoV-2 T-cell responses in 33 patients treated with rituximab (RTX), 12 patients with common variable immune deficiency, and 44 controls.
• The study analyzed effector and memory CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 after infection and vaccination.

TAKEAWAY: 

• All B cell–deficient individuals (those treated with RTX or those with a diagnosis of common variable immune deficiency) had increased effector and memory T-cell responses after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, compared with controls.
• Patients treated with RTX who were vaccinated against COVID-19 had 4.8-fold reduced odds of moderate or severe disease. (These data were not available for patients with common variable immune deficiency.)
• RTX treatment was associated with a decrease in preexisting T-cell immunity in unvaccinated patients, regardless of prior infection with SARS-CoV-2.
• This association was not found in vaccinated patients treated with RTX.

IN PRACTICE:

“[These findings] provide support for vaccination in this vulnerable population and demonstrate the potential benefit of vaccine-induced CD8+ T-cell responses on reducing disease severity from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the absence of spike protein–specific antibodies,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was published online on November 29 in Science Translational Medicine. The first author is Reza Zonozi, MD, who conducted the research while at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and is now in private practice in northern Virginia. 

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers did not obtain specimens from patients with common variable immune deficiency after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Only a small subset of immunophenotyped participants had subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DISCLOSURES:

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard Medical School, the Mark and Lisa Schwartz Foundation and E. Schwartz; the Lambertus Family Foundation; and S. Edgerly and P. Edgerly. Four authors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Pfizer.

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

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

To the Editor:

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand (NDDH) is an uncommon reactive neutrophilic dermatosis that presents as a painful, enlarging, ulcerative nodule. It often is misdiagnosed and initially treated as an infection. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, it is associated with underlying infections, inflammatory conditions, and malignancies. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is considered a subset of Sweet syndrome (SS); we highlight similarities and differences between NDDH and SS, reporting the case of a 66-year-old man without systemic symptoms who developed NDDH on the right hand.

A 66-year-old man presented with a progressively enlarging, painful, ulcerative, 2-cm nodule on the right hand following mechanical trauma 2 weeks prior (Figure 1). He was afebrile with no remarkable medical history. Laboratory evaluation revealed an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) of 20 mm/h (reference range, 0-10 mm/h) and C-reactive protein (CRP) level of 3.52 mg/dL (reference range, 0-0.5 mg/dL) without leukocytosis; both were not remarkably elevated when adjusted for age.^1,2 The clinical differential diagnosis was broad and included pyoderma with evolving cellulitis, neutrophilic dermatosis, atypical mycobacterial infection, subcutaneous or deep fungal infection, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous lymphoma, and metastasis. Due to the rapid development of the lesion, initial treatment focused on a bacterial infection, but there was no improvement on antibiotics and wound cultures were negative. The ulcerative nodule was biopsied, and histopathology demonstrated abundant neutrophilic inflammation, endothelial swelling, and leukocytoclasis without microorganisms (Figure 2). Tissue cultures for bacteria, fungi, and atypical mycobacteria were negative. A diagnosis of NDDH was made based on clinical and histologic findings. The wound improved with a 3-week course of oral prednisone.

Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand is a subset of reactive neutrophilic dermatoses, which includes SS (acute febrile neutrophilic dermatosis) and pyoderma gangrenosum. It is described as a localized variant of SS, with similar associated underlying inflammatory, neoplastic conditions and laboratory findings.³ However, NDDH has characteristic features that differ from classic SS. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand typically presents as painful papules, pustules, or ulcers that progress to become larger ulcers, plaques, and nodules. The clinical appearance may more closely resemble pyoderma gangrenosum or atypical SS, with ulceration frequently present. Pathergy also may be demonstrated in NDDH, similar to our patient. The average age of presentation for NDDH is 60 years, which is older than the average age for SS or pyoderma gangrenosum.³ Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, NDDH responds well to oral steroids or steroid-sparing immunosuppressants such as dapsone, colchicine, azathioprine, or tetracycline antibiotics.⁴

The criteria for SS are well established^5,6 and may be used for the diagnosis of NDDH, taking into account the localization of lesions to the dorsal aspect of the hands. The diagnostic criteria for SS include fulfillment of both major and at least 2 of 4 minor criteria. The 2 major criteria include rapid presentation of skin lesions and neutrophilic dermal infiltrate on biopsy. Minor criteria are defined as the following: (1) preceding nonspecific respiratory or gastrointestinal tract infection, inflammatory conditions, underlying malignancy, or pregnancy; (2) fever; (3) excellent response to steroids; and (4) 3 of the 4 of the following laboratory abnormalities: elevated CRP, ESR, leukocytosis, or left shift in complete blood cell count. Our patient met both major criteria and only 1 minor criterion—excellent response to systemic corticosteroids. Nofal et al⁷ advocated for revised diagnostic criteria for SS, with one suggestion utilizing only the 2 major criteria being necessary for diagnosis. Given that serum inflammatory markers may not be as elevated in NDDH compared to SS,^3,7,8 meeting the major criteria alone may be a better way to diagnose NDDH, as in our patient.

Our patient presented with an expanding ulcerating nodule on the hand that elicited a wide list of differential diagnoses to include infections and neoplasms. Rapid development, localization to the dorsal aspect of the hand, and treatment resistance to antibiotics may help the clinician consider a diagnosis of NDDH, which should be confirmed by a biopsy. Similar to other neutrophilic dermatoses, an underlying malignancy or inflammatory condition should be sought out. Neutrophilic dermatosis of the dorsal hand responds well to systemic steroids, though recurrences may occur.

A combination oral-only therapy of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid was significantly more effective than standard care in preventing unfavorable outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant tuberculosis, based on data from more than 500 individuals.

Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis affects approximately 500,000 people worldwide each year, but current treatments are associated with toxicity and limited effectiveness, and data on the use of new and repurposed drug combinations are lacking, wrote Bern-Thomas Nyang’wa, MBBS, of Médecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, and colleagues.

In a study known as the TB-PRACTECAL trial, the researchers enrolled 552 pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis patients aged 15 years and older to examine several new and repurposed drug combinations. The participants were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to treatment with 36-80 weeks of standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) . This was followed by stage two of the trial, in which participants were randomized 1:1 to receive standard care or BPaLM. The current study, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, reported the stage two findings; the primary outcome was a composite of unfavorable outcomes at 72 weeks including death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, recurrence of tuberculosis, or loss to follow-up.

The modified intent-to-treat population included 138 patients in the BPaLM group and 137 patients in the standard care group. In this population, 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group and 16 (12%) of 137 participants in the BPaLM group met criteria for the unfavorable outcome at 72 weeks; noninferiority and superiority were significantly greater in the BPaLM group (P < .0001).

Early discontinuation was the main reason patients met the unfavorable outcome criteria (89% of standard care patients and 69% of BPaLM patients); adverse events accounted for 23% of discontinuations in the standard care group and 64% of discontinuations in the BPaLM group.

However, fewer patients in the BPaLM group experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events compared with the standard care group (23% vs. 48%). The most common adverse events included hepatic disorders, cardiac disorders, and anemia.

In addition, all subgroup analyses favored BPaLM over standard care at 72 weeks including subgroups based on sex, age, disease severity, re-treatment status, and smoking status.

The findings were limited by several factors including the changes to standard of care over the course of the study, potential bias because the study was stopped for efficacy, and inclusion of loss to follow-up as part of the composite unfavorable outcome, the researchers noted.

Remaining research questions include the optimal dose of linezolid, whether use of alternative fluoroquinolones would yield similar results, and whether the results would generalize to populations including children, pregnant women, and patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, they added.

However, the results support BPaLM as the preferred treatment for adults and adolescents with pulmonary rifampin-resistant TB, the researchers concluded.
 

BPaLM poised to improve TB care

Before 2020, treatment for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis was 9-20 months in duration, toxic, and inadequately effective, and new treatment regimens are urgently needed, Mary Jo Farmer, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Massachusetts Baystate Health Regional Campus, Springfield, said in an interview.

“The BPaL-based regimens perform better than the 9- to 20-month standard of care, are shorter in duration, have a lower pill burden, improve quality of life, and are cost-effective,” she said. “The BPaL regimens have the potential to improve outcomes for thousands of patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.”

“The 24-week oral regimen consisting of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid and moxifloxacin is noninferior to standard of care for treatment of patients with pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, and this BPaLM regimen was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022,” said Dr. Farmer, who was not involved in the study. “It remains to be seen if BPaLM will become the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis,” she said.

Dr. Farmer agreed with the study authors that the optimal dose of linezolid, optimal duration of treatment, and the role of dose reduction remain unknown, and pharmacokinetic studies are needed to identify these parameters. 

The study was supported by Médecins Sans Frontières. TB Alliance donated pretomanid to the study prior to its commercialization. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Farmer had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of CHEST Physician.

A combination oral-only therapy of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid was significantly more effective than standard care in preventing unfavorable outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant tuberculosis, based on data from more than 500 individuals.

Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis affects approximately 500,000 people worldwide each year, but current treatments are associated with toxicity and limited effectiveness, and data on the use of new and repurposed drug combinations are lacking, wrote Bern-Thomas Nyang’wa, MBBS, of Médecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, and colleagues.

In a study known as the TB-PRACTECAL trial, the researchers enrolled 552 pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis patients aged 15 years and older to examine several new and repurposed drug combinations. The participants were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to treatment with 36-80 weeks of standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) . This was followed by stage two of the trial, in which participants were randomized 1:1 to receive standard care or BPaLM. The current study, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, reported the stage two findings; the primary outcome was a composite of unfavorable outcomes at 72 weeks including death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, recurrence of tuberculosis, or loss to follow-up.

The modified intent-to-treat population included 138 patients in the BPaLM group and 137 patients in the standard care group. In this population, 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group and 16 (12%) of 137 participants in the BPaLM group met criteria for the unfavorable outcome at 72 weeks; noninferiority and superiority were significantly greater in the BPaLM group (P < .0001).

Early discontinuation was the main reason patients met the unfavorable outcome criteria (89% of standard care patients and 69% of BPaLM patients); adverse events accounted for 23% of discontinuations in the standard care group and 64% of discontinuations in the BPaLM group.

However, fewer patients in the BPaLM group experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events compared with the standard care group (23% vs. 48%). The most common adverse events included hepatic disorders, cardiac disorders, and anemia.

In addition, all subgroup analyses favored BPaLM over standard care at 72 weeks including subgroups based on sex, age, disease severity, re-treatment status, and smoking status.

The findings were limited by several factors including the changes to standard of care over the course of the study, potential bias because the study was stopped for efficacy, and inclusion of loss to follow-up as part of the composite unfavorable outcome, the researchers noted.

Remaining research questions include the optimal dose of linezolid, whether use of alternative fluoroquinolones would yield similar results, and whether the results would generalize to populations including children, pregnant women, and patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, they added.

However, the results support BPaLM as the preferred treatment for adults and adolescents with pulmonary rifampin-resistant TB, the researchers concluded.
 

BPaLM poised to improve TB care

Before 2020, treatment for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis was 9-20 months in duration, toxic, and inadequately effective, and new treatment regimens are urgently needed, Mary Jo Farmer, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Massachusetts Baystate Health Regional Campus, Springfield, said in an interview.

“The BPaL-based regimens perform better than the 9- to 20-month standard of care, are shorter in duration, have a lower pill burden, improve quality of life, and are cost-effective,” she said. “The BPaL regimens have the potential to improve outcomes for thousands of patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.”

“The 24-week oral regimen consisting of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid and moxifloxacin is noninferior to standard of care for treatment of patients with pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, and this BPaLM regimen was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022,” said Dr. Farmer, who was not involved in the study. “It remains to be seen if BPaLM will become the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis,” she said.

Dr. Farmer agreed with the study authors that the optimal dose of linezolid, optimal duration of treatment, and the role of dose reduction remain unknown, and pharmacokinetic studies are needed to identify these parameters. 

The study was supported by Médecins Sans Frontières. TB Alliance donated pretomanid to the study prior to its commercialization. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Farmer had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of CHEST Physician.

A combination oral-only therapy of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid was significantly more effective than standard care in preventing unfavorable outcomes in patients with treatment-resistant tuberculosis, based on data from more than 500 individuals.

Rifampin-resistant tuberculosis affects approximately 500,000 people worldwide each year, but current treatments are associated with toxicity and limited effectiveness, and data on the use of new and repurposed drug combinations are lacking, wrote Bern-Thomas Nyang’wa, MBBS, of Médecins Sans Frontières, Amsterdam, and colleagues.

In a study known as the TB-PRACTECAL trial, the researchers enrolled 552 pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis patients aged 15 years and older to examine several new and repurposed drug combinations. The participants were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to treatment with 36-80 weeks of standard care; 24-week oral bedaquiline, pretomanid, and linezolid (BPaL); BPaL plus clofazimine (BPaLC); or BPaL plus moxifloxacin (BPaLM) . This was followed by stage two of the trial, in which participants were randomized 1:1 to receive standard care or BPaLM. The current study, published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, reported the stage two findings; the primary outcome was a composite of unfavorable outcomes at 72 weeks including death, treatment failure, treatment discontinuation, recurrence of tuberculosis, or loss to follow-up.

The modified intent-to-treat population included 138 patients in the BPaLM group and 137 patients in the standard care group. In this population, 56 (41%) of 137 participants in the standard care group and 16 (12%) of 137 participants in the BPaLM group met criteria for the unfavorable outcome at 72 weeks; noninferiority and superiority were significantly greater in the BPaLM group (P < .0001).

Early discontinuation was the main reason patients met the unfavorable outcome criteria (89% of standard care patients and 69% of BPaLM patients); adverse events accounted for 23% of discontinuations in the standard care group and 64% of discontinuations in the BPaLM group.

However, fewer patients in the BPaLM group experienced grade 3 or higher adverse events compared with the standard care group (23% vs. 48%). The most common adverse events included hepatic disorders, cardiac disorders, and anemia.

In addition, all subgroup analyses favored BPaLM over standard care at 72 weeks including subgroups based on sex, age, disease severity, re-treatment status, and smoking status.

The findings were limited by several factors including the changes to standard of care over the course of the study, potential bias because the study was stopped for efficacy, and inclusion of loss to follow-up as part of the composite unfavorable outcome, the researchers noted.

Remaining research questions include the optimal dose of linezolid, whether use of alternative fluoroquinolones would yield similar results, and whether the results would generalize to populations including children, pregnant women, and patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, they added.

However, the results support BPaLM as the preferred treatment for adults and adolescents with pulmonary rifampin-resistant TB, the researchers concluded.
 

BPaLM poised to improve TB care

Before 2020, treatment for rifampin-resistant tuberculosis was 9-20 months in duration, toxic, and inadequately effective, and new treatment regimens are urgently needed, Mary Jo Farmer, MD, a pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Massachusetts Baystate Health Regional Campus, Springfield, said in an interview.

“The BPaL-based regimens perform better than the 9- to 20-month standard of care, are shorter in duration, have a lower pill burden, improve quality of life, and are cost-effective,” she said. “The BPaL regimens have the potential to improve outcomes for thousands of patients with rifampin-resistant tuberculosis.”

“The 24-week oral regimen consisting of bedaquiline, pretomanid, linezolid and moxifloxacin is noninferior to standard of care for treatment of patients with pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis, and this BPaLM regimen was added to the WHO guidance for treatment of this condition in 2022,” said Dr. Farmer, who was not involved in the study. “It remains to be seen if BPaLM will become the preferred regimen for adolescents and adults with pulmonary rifampin-resistant tuberculosis,” she said.

Dr. Farmer agreed with the study authors that the optimal dose of linezolid, optimal duration of treatment, and the role of dose reduction remain unknown, and pharmacokinetic studies are needed to identify these parameters. 

The study was supported by Médecins Sans Frontières. TB Alliance donated pretomanid to the study prior to its commercialization. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Farmer had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of CHEST Physician.

An emerging variant of COVID-19 called BA.2.86 that caused alarm in the summer of 2023 has landed on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s radar again.

The variant accounted for nearly 9% of cases during the 2-week period ending Nov. 25, up from 3% during the previous 2 weeks, according to data published Nov. 27 by the CDC. The estimates are not exact, and the CDC indicated the actual percentage of cases may range from 5% to 15%.

The CDC took the unusual step of publishing a specific statement about the rise in BA.2.86 cases. The variant drew worldwide attention during the summer because of how different its makeup is, compared with other prominent variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, raising the potential for the new variant to be more capable of causing infection. But after a flurry of interest in BA.2.86, it didn’t end up being as widespread as expected, so for months it wasn’t listed as a standalone variant on the CDC’s variant tracker list.

“At this time, BA.2.86 does not appear to be driving increases in infections or hospitalizations in the United States,” the CDC wrote in its advisory. “It is not possible at this time to know whether BA.2.86 infection produces different symptoms from other variants. In general, symptoms of COVID-19 tend to be similar across variants. The types of symptoms and how severe they are usually depend more on a person’s immunity than which variant causes the infection.”

BA.2.86 is now the third-most prominent variant circulating the United States, behind HV.1 and EG.5, which combined account for about 45% of all U.S. COVID-19 cases. All three are from the Omicron lineage of the virus.

About 8% of all COVID tests reported to the CDC were positive for the week ending Nov. 18, which is a decline, compared with recent weeks. But indicators for severe cases of the illness have ticked up lately, including rises among ED visits for COVID, hospitalizations, and deaths.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An emerging variant of COVID-19 called BA.2.86 that caused alarm in the summer of 2023 has landed on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s radar again.

The variant accounted for nearly 9% of cases during the 2-week period ending Nov. 25, up from 3% during the previous 2 weeks, according to data published Nov. 27 by the CDC. The estimates are not exact, and the CDC indicated the actual percentage of cases may range from 5% to 15%.

The CDC took the unusual step of publishing a specific statement about the rise in BA.2.86 cases. The variant drew worldwide attention during the summer because of how different its makeup is, compared with other prominent variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, raising the potential for the new variant to be more capable of causing infection. But after a flurry of interest in BA.2.86, it didn’t end up being as widespread as expected, so for months it wasn’t listed as a standalone variant on the CDC’s variant tracker list.

“At this time, BA.2.86 does not appear to be driving increases in infections or hospitalizations in the United States,” the CDC wrote in its advisory. “It is not possible at this time to know whether BA.2.86 infection produces different symptoms from other variants. In general, symptoms of COVID-19 tend to be similar across variants. The types of symptoms and how severe they are usually depend more on a person’s immunity than which variant causes the infection.”

BA.2.86 is now the third-most prominent variant circulating the United States, behind HV.1 and EG.5, which combined account for about 45% of all U.S. COVID-19 cases. All three are from the Omicron lineage of the virus.

About 8% of all COVID tests reported to the CDC were positive for the week ending Nov. 18, which is a decline, compared with recent weeks. But indicators for severe cases of the illness have ticked up lately, including rises among ED visits for COVID, hospitalizations, and deaths.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An emerging variant of COVID-19 called BA.2.86 that caused alarm in the summer of 2023 has landed on the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s radar again.

The variant accounted for nearly 9% of cases during the 2-week period ending Nov. 25, up from 3% during the previous 2 weeks, according to data published Nov. 27 by the CDC. The estimates are not exact, and the CDC indicated the actual percentage of cases may range from 5% to 15%.

The CDC took the unusual step of publishing a specific statement about the rise in BA.2.86 cases. The variant drew worldwide attention during the summer because of how different its makeup is, compared with other prominent variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, raising the potential for the new variant to be more capable of causing infection. But after a flurry of interest in BA.2.86, it didn’t end up being as widespread as expected, so for months it wasn’t listed as a standalone variant on the CDC’s variant tracker list.

“At this time, BA.2.86 does not appear to be driving increases in infections or hospitalizations in the United States,” the CDC wrote in its advisory. “It is not possible at this time to know whether BA.2.86 infection produces different symptoms from other variants. In general, symptoms of COVID-19 tend to be similar across variants. The types of symptoms and how severe they are usually depend more on a person’s immunity than which variant causes the infection.”

BA.2.86 is now the third-most prominent variant circulating the United States, behind HV.1 and EG.5, which combined account for about 45% of all U.S. COVID-19 cases. All three are from the Omicron lineage of the virus.

About 8% of all COVID tests reported to the CDC were positive for the week ending Nov. 18, which is a decline, compared with recent weeks. But indicators for severe cases of the illness have ticked up lately, including rises among ED visits for COVID, hospitalizations, and deaths.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the public health fight against respiratory viruses – COVID, flu, RSV,  and so on – it has always struck me as strange how staunchly basically any intervention is opposed. Masking was, of course, the prototypical entrenched warfare of opposing ideologies, with advocates pointing to studies suggesting the efficacy of masking to prevent transmission and advocating for broad masking recommendations, and detractors citing studies that suggested masks were ineffective and characterizing masking policies as fascist overreach. I’ll admit that I was always perplexed by this a bit, as that particular intervention seemed so benign – a bit annoying, I guess, but not crazy.

I have come to appreciate what I call status quo bias, which is the tendency to reject any policy, advice, or intervention that would force you, as an individual, to change your usual behavior. We just don’t like to do that. It has made me think that the most successful public health interventions might be the ones that take the individual out of the loop. And air quality control seems an ideal fit here. Here is a potential intervention where you, the individual, have to do precisely nothing. The status quo is preserved. We just, you know, have cleaner indoor air.

But even the suggestion of air treatment systems as a bulwark against respiratory virus transmission has been met with not just skepticism but cynicism, and perhaps even defeatism. It seems that there are those out there who think there really is nothing we can do. Sickness is interpreted in a Calvinistic framework: You become ill because it is your pre-destiny. But maybe air treatment could actually work. It seems like it might, if a new paper from PLOS One is to be believed.

What we’re talking about is a study titled “Bipolar Ionization Rapidly Inactivates Real-World, Airborne Concentrations of Infective Respiratory Viruses” – a highly controlled, laboratory-based analysis of a bipolar ionization system which seems to rapidly reduce viral counts in the air.

The proposed mechanism of action is pretty simple. The ionization system – which, don’t worry, has been shown not to produce ozone – spits out positively and negatively charged particles, which float around the test chamber, designed to look like a pretty standard room that you might find in an office or a school.

courtesy PLOS One

courtesy PLOS One

courtesy PLOS One

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the public health fight against respiratory viruses – COVID, flu, RSV,  and so on – it has always struck me as strange how staunchly basically any intervention is opposed. Masking was, of course, the prototypical entrenched warfare of opposing ideologies, with advocates pointing to studies suggesting the efficacy of masking to prevent transmission and advocating for broad masking recommendations, and detractors citing studies that suggested masks were ineffective and characterizing masking policies as fascist overreach. I’ll admit that I was always perplexed by this a bit, as that particular intervention seemed so benign – a bit annoying, I guess, but not crazy.

I have come to appreciate what I call status quo bias, which is the tendency to reject any policy, advice, or intervention that would force you, as an individual, to change your usual behavior. We just don’t like to do that. It has made me think that the most successful public health interventions might be the ones that take the individual out of the loop. And air quality control seems an ideal fit here. Here is a potential intervention where you, the individual, have to do precisely nothing. The status quo is preserved. We just, you know, have cleaner indoor air.

But even the suggestion of air treatment systems as a bulwark against respiratory virus transmission has been met with not just skepticism but cynicism, and perhaps even defeatism. It seems that there are those out there who think there really is nothing we can do. Sickness is interpreted in a Calvinistic framework: You become ill because it is your pre-destiny. But maybe air treatment could actually work. It seems like it might, if a new paper from PLOS One is to be believed.

What we’re talking about is a study titled “Bipolar Ionization Rapidly Inactivates Real-World, Airborne Concentrations of Infective Respiratory Viruses” – a highly controlled, laboratory-based analysis of a bipolar ionization system which seems to rapidly reduce viral counts in the air.

The proposed mechanism of action is pretty simple. The ionization system – which, don’t worry, has been shown not to produce ozone – spits out positively and negatively charged particles, which float around the test chamber, designed to look like a pretty standard room that you might find in an office or a school.

courtesy PLOS One

courtesy PLOS One

courtesy PLOS One

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

When it comes to the public health fight against respiratory viruses – COVID, flu, RSV,  and so on – it has always struck me as strange how staunchly basically any intervention is opposed. Masking was, of course, the prototypical entrenched warfare of opposing ideologies, with advocates pointing to studies suggesting the efficacy of masking to prevent transmission and advocating for broad masking recommendations, and detractors citing studies that suggested masks were ineffective and characterizing masking policies as fascist overreach. I’ll admit that I was always perplexed by this a bit, as that particular intervention seemed so benign – a bit annoying, I guess, but not crazy.

I have come to appreciate what I call status quo bias, which is the tendency to reject any policy, advice, or intervention that would force you, as an individual, to change your usual behavior. We just don’t like to do that. It has made me think that the most successful public health interventions might be the ones that take the individual out of the loop. And air quality control seems an ideal fit here. Here is a potential intervention where you, the individual, have to do precisely nothing. The status quo is preserved. We just, you know, have cleaner indoor air.

But even the suggestion of air treatment systems as a bulwark against respiratory virus transmission has been met with not just skepticism but cynicism, and perhaps even defeatism. It seems that there are those out there who think there really is nothing we can do. Sickness is interpreted in a Calvinistic framework: You become ill because it is your pre-destiny. But maybe air treatment could actually work. It seems like it might, if a new paper from PLOS One is to be believed.

What we’re talking about is a study titled “Bipolar Ionization Rapidly Inactivates Real-World, Airborne Concentrations of Infective Respiratory Viruses” – a highly controlled, laboratory-based analysis of a bipolar ionization system which seems to rapidly reduce viral counts in the air.

The proposed mechanism of action is pretty simple. The ionization system – which, don’t worry, has been shown not to produce ozone – spits out positively and negatively charged particles, which float around the test chamber, designed to look like a pretty standard room that you might find in an office or a school.

courtesy PLOS One

courtesy PLOS One

courtesy PLOS One

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

As many as 87% of patients experience symptoms after COVID-19 infection that last 2 months or more, one of the most common being chest pain. And chronic chest discomfort may persist in some individuals for years after COVID, warranting future studies of reliable treatments and pain management in this population, a new study shows.

“Recent studies have shown that chest pain occurs in as many as 89% of patients who qualify as having long COVID,” said Ansley Poole, an undergraduate student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who conducted the research under the supervision of Christine Hunt, DO, and her colleagues at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla.

The findings, though preliminary, shed light on the prevalence, current treatments, and ongoing challenges in managing symptoms of long COVID, said Ms. Poole, who presented the research at the annual Pain Medicine Meeting sponsored by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

Long COVID, which affects an estimated 18 million Americans, manifests approximately 12 weeks after the initial infection and can persist for 2 months or more. Ms. Poole and her team set out to identify risk factors, treatment options, and outcomes for patients dealing with post-COVID chest discomfort.

The study involved a retrospective chart review of 520 patients from the Mayo Clinic network, narrowed down to a final sample of 104. To be included, patients had to report chest discomfort 3-6 months post COVID that continued for 3-6 months after presentation, with no history of chronic chest pain before the infection.

The researchers identified no standardized method for the treatment or management of chest pain linked to long COVID. “Patients were prescribed multiple different treatments, including opioids, post-COVID treatment programs, anticoagulants, steroids, and even psychological programs,” Ms. Poole said.

The median age of the patients was around 50 years; more than 65% were female and over 90% identified as White. More than half (55%) had received one or more vaccine doses at the time of infection. The majority were classified as overweight or obese at the time of their SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Of the 104 patients analyzed, 30 were referred to one or more subspecialties within the pain medicine department, 23 were hospitalized, and 9 were admitted to the intensive care unit or critical care.

“Fifty-three of our patients visited the ER one or more times after COVID because of chest discomfort; however, only six were admitted for over 24 hours, indicating possible overuse of emergency services,” Ms. Poole noted.

Overall, chest pain was described as intermittent instead of constant, which may have been a barrier to providing adequate and timely treatment. The inconsistent presence of pain contributed to the prolonged suffering some patients experienced, Ms. Poole noted.

The study identified several comorbidities, potentially complicating the treatment and etiology of chest pain. These comorbidities – when combined with COVID-related chest pain – contributed to the wide array of prescribed treatments, including steroids, anticoagulants, beta blockers, and physical therapy. Chest pain also seldom stood alone; it was often accompanied by other long COVID–related symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

“Our current analysis indicates that chest pain continues on for years in many individuals, suggesting that COVID-related chest pain may be resistant to treatment,” Ms. Poole reported.

The observed heterogeneity in treatments and outcomes in patients experiencing long-term chest discomfort after COVID infection underscores the need for future studies to establish reliable treatment and management protocols for this population, said Dalia Elmofty, MD, an associate professor of anesthesia and critical care at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the study. “There are things about COVID that we don’t fully understand. As we’re seeing its consequences and trying to understand its etiology, we recognize the need for further research,” Dr. Elmofty said.

“So many different disease pathologies came out of COVID, whether it’s organ pathology, myofascial pathology, or autoimmune pathology, and all of that is obviously linked to pain,” Dr. Elmofty told this news organization. “It’s an area of research that we are going to have to devote a lot of time to in order to understand, but I think we’re still in the very early phases, trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.”

Ms. Poole and Dr. Elmofty report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As many as 87% of patients experience symptoms after COVID-19 infection that last 2 months or more, one of the most common being chest pain. And chronic chest discomfort may persist in some individuals for years after COVID, warranting future studies of reliable treatments and pain management in this population, a new study shows.

“Recent studies have shown that chest pain occurs in as many as 89% of patients who qualify as having long COVID,” said Ansley Poole, an undergraduate student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who conducted the research under the supervision of Christine Hunt, DO, and her colleagues at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla.

The findings, though preliminary, shed light on the prevalence, current treatments, and ongoing challenges in managing symptoms of long COVID, said Ms. Poole, who presented the research at the annual Pain Medicine Meeting sponsored by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

Long COVID, which affects an estimated 18 million Americans, manifests approximately 12 weeks after the initial infection and can persist for 2 months or more. Ms. Poole and her team set out to identify risk factors, treatment options, and outcomes for patients dealing with post-COVID chest discomfort.

The study involved a retrospective chart review of 520 patients from the Mayo Clinic network, narrowed down to a final sample of 104. To be included, patients had to report chest discomfort 3-6 months post COVID that continued for 3-6 months after presentation, with no history of chronic chest pain before the infection.

The researchers identified no standardized method for the treatment or management of chest pain linked to long COVID. “Patients were prescribed multiple different treatments, including opioids, post-COVID treatment programs, anticoagulants, steroids, and even psychological programs,” Ms. Poole said.

The median age of the patients was around 50 years; more than 65% were female and over 90% identified as White. More than half (55%) had received one or more vaccine doses at the time of infection. The majority were classified as overweight or obese at the time of their SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Of the 104 patients analyzed, 30 were referred to one or more subspecialties within the pain medicine department, 23 were hospitalized, and 9 were admitted to the intensive care unit or critical care.

“Fifty-three of our patients visited the ER one or more times after COVID because of chest discomfort; however, only six were admitted for over 24 hours, indicating possible overuse of emergency services,” Ms. Poole noted.

Overall, chest pain was described as intermittent instead of constant, which may have been a barrier to providing adequate and timely treatment. The inconsistent presence of pain contributed to the prolonged suffering some patients experienced, Ms. Poole noted.

The study identified several comorbidities, potentially complicating the treatment and etiology of chest pain. These comorbidities – when combined with COVID-related chest pain – contributed to the wide array of prescribed treatments, including steroids, anticoagulants, beta blockers, and physical therapy. Chest pain also seldom stood alone; it was often accompanied by other long COVID–related symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

“Our current analysis indicates that chest pain continues on for years in many individuals, suggesting that COVID-related chest pain may be resistant to treatment,” Ms. Poole reported.

The observed heterogeneity in treatments and outcomes in patients experiencing long-term chest discomfort after COVID infection underscores the need for future studies to establish reliable treatment and management protocols for this population, said Dalia Elmofty, MD, an associate professor of anesthesia and critical care at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the study. “There are things about COVID that we don’t fully understand. As we’re seeing its consequences and trying to understand its etiology, we recognize the need for further research,” Dr. Elmofty said.

“So many different disease pathologies came out of COVID, whether it’s organ pathology, myofascial pathology, or autoimmune pathology, and all of that is obviously linked to pain,” Dr. Elmofty told this news organization. “It’s an area of research that we are going to have to devote a lot of time to in order to understand, but I think we’re still in the very early phases, trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.”

Ms. Poole and Dr. Elmofty report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As many as 87% of patients experience symptoms after COVID-19 infection that last 2 months or more, one of the most common being chest pain. And chronic chest discomfort may persist in some individuals for years after COVID, warranting future studies of reliable treatments and pain management in this population, a new study shows.

“Recent studies have shown that chest pain occurs in as many as 89% of patients who qualify as having long COVID,” said Ansley Poole, an undergraduate student at the University of South Florida, Tampa, who conducted the research under the supervision of Christine Hunt, DO, and her colleagues at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla.

The findings, though preliminary, shed light on the prevalence, current treatments, and ongoing challenges in managing symptoms of long COVID, said Ms. Poole, who presented the research at the annual Pain Medicine Meeting sponsored by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.

Long COVID, which affects an estimated 18 million Americans, manifests approximately 12 weeks after the initial infection and can persist for 2 months or more. Ms. Poole and her team set out to identify risk factors, treatment options, and outcomes for patients dealing with post-COVID chest discomfort.

The study involved a retrospective chart review of 520 patients from the Mayo Clinic network, narrowed down to a final sample of 104. To be included, patients had to report chest discomfort 3-6 months post COVID that continued for 3-6 months after presentation, with no history of chronic chest pain before the infection.

The researchers identified no standardized method for the treatment or management of chest pain linked to long COVID. “Patients were prescribed multiple different treatments, including opioids, post-COVID treatment programs, anticoagulants, steroids, and even psychological programs,” Ms. Poole said.

The median age of the patients was around 50 years; more than 65% were female and over 90% identified as White. More than half (55%) had received one or more vaccine doses at the time of infection. The majority were classified as overweight or obese at the time of their SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Of the 104 patients analyzed, 30 were referred to one or more subspecialties within the pain medicine department, 23 were hospitalized, and 9 were admitted to the intensive care unit or critical care.

“Fifty-three of our patients visited the ER one or more times after COVID because of chest discomfort; however, only six were admitted for over 24 hours, indicating possible overuse of emergency services,” Ms. Poole noted.

Overall, chest pain was described as intermittent instead of constant, which may have been a barrier to providing adequate and timely treatment. The inconsistent presence of pain contributed to the prolonged suffering some patients experienced, Ms. Poole noted.

The study identified several comorbidities, potentially complicating the treatment and etiology of chest pain. These comorbidities – when combined with COVID-related chest pain – contributed to the wide array of prescribed treatments, including steroids, anticoagulants, beta blockers, and physical therapy. Chest pain also seldom stood alone; it was often accompanied by other long COVID–related symptoms, such as shortness of breath.

“Our current analysis indicates that chest pain continues on for years in many individuals, suggesting that COVID-related chest pain may be resistant to treatment,” Ms. Poole reported.

The observed heterogeneity in treatments and outcomes in patients experiencing long-term chest discomfort after COVID infection underscores the need for future studies to establish reliable treatment and management protocols for this population, said Dalia Elmofty, MD, an associate professor of anesthesia and critical care at the University of Chicago, who was not involved in the study. “There are things about COVID that we don’t fully understand. As we’re seeing its consequences and trying to understand its etiology, we recognize the need for further research,” Dr. Elmofty said.

“So many different disease pathologies came out of COVID, whether it’s organ pathology, myofascial pathology, or autoimmune pathology, and all of that is obviously linked to pain,” Dr. Elmofty told this news organization. “It’s an area of research that we are going to have to devote a lot of time to in order to understand, but I think we’re still in the very early phases, trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.”

Ms. Poole and Dr. Elmofty report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.