Pulmonology

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

“We are concerned about the number of patients we have seen with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations who have been prescribed sedative medications,” write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.

The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.

Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.

Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.

Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.

“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.

Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.

Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.

The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – was associated with a 69% greater risk of having a myocardial infarction than among adults without insomnia, according to new research.

Those who slept 5 or fewer hours per night had the highest risk for MI, and those with both diabetes and insomnia had double the risk for MI, compared with patients without these comorbidities.

amenic181/Getty Images

The findings are from a meta-analysis of studies in more than 1 million patients, almost all without prior MI who were, on average, in their early 50s and followed for 9 years.

Yomna E. Dean, a medical student at Alexandria (Egypt) University, reported these results in a press briefing, and the study was simultaneously published in Clinical Cardiology. It will be presented at the upcoming at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Insomnia and ]at least] 5 hours of sleep are highly associated with increased incidence of MI, an association comparable to that of other MI risk factors and as such, it should be considered as a risk factor for MI and to be incorporated into MI prevention guidelines,” the researchers concluded.

“We believe that [insomnia] should be screened and patients should be educated about the importance of sleep because nowadays insomnia is no longer a disease – sleep deprivation could also be a life choice,” Ms, Dean told a press conference prior to the meeting.

“Clinicians must educate the patients about the importance of sleep in maintaining a healthy heart and encourage proper sleep hygiene,” Ms. Dean reiterated in an email. “And if a patient still has insomnia, other methods should be considered such as cognitive-behavior[al] therapy for insomnia [CBT-I].”
 

Adds to growing evidence

This study does not allow any conclusion about whether treating insomnia will reduce heart attack risk, Jennifer L. Martin, PhD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, noted in a comment. Nor does it report the diversity of study participants, since insomnia is also a health equity issue, she noted, and insomnia symptoms and comorbidities were self-reported.

However, this analysis “adds to the growing evidence that poor quality or insufficient sleep is associated with poor health,” said Dr. Martin, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this research.

The study reinforces the recommendation from the American Heart Association, which includes “Get Healthy Sleep” as one of “Life’s Essential 8” for heart health, Dr. Martin noted.

“Particularly in primary care where disease prevention and health promotion are important, clinicians should be asking all patients about their sleep – just like they ask about diet and exercise – as a key aspect of maintaining heart health,” she said.

Advice about basic sleep hygiene advice is a first step, she noted.

When improved sleep hygiene is not enough to address chronic insomnia, the AASM’s clinical practice guidelines and the guidelines of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, recommend first-line treatment with CBT-I, typically offered by a sleep specialist or mental health clinician.

Similarly, the American College of Physicians suggests that sleeping pills should be reserved for short-term use in patients who may not benefit sufficiently from CBT-I.
 

Sleeping too little, too much, equally harmful

“Studies have found that insomnia and subsequent sleep deprivation puts the body under stress,” Ms. Dean said. “This triggers cortisol release which could accelerate atherosclerosis,” and increase risk of MI.

For this analysis, the researchers identified nine observational studies, published from 1998 to 2019, with data on incident MI in adults who had insomnia.

The diagnosis of insomnia was based on ICD diagnostic codes or on the DSM‐5, which defines insomnia as the presence of any of the following three symptoms: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, or early morning awakening with inability to return to sleep. Patients with sleep apnea were excluded.

The studies were in populations in China, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States, in 1.1 million adults aged 18 and older. The patients had a mean age of 52 years and 13% had insomnia.

During follow-up, 2,406 of 153,881 patients with insomnia, and 12,398 of 1,030,375 patients without insomnia had an MI.

In the pooled analysis, patients with insomnia had a significantly increased risk of MI (relative risk, 1.69; P < .00001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and smoking.

Sleeping 5 hours or less was associated with a greater risk for MI than sleeping 6 hours, or 7-8 hours, but sleeping 9 hours or more was just as harmful.

Patients who had difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep – two symptoms of insomnia – had a 13% increased risk for MI compared with other patients (RR, 1.13; P = .003).

However, patients who had nonrestorative sleep and daytime dysfunction despite adequate sleep – which is common – did not have an increased risk of MI, compared with other patients (RR, 1.06; P = .46).

Women with insomnia had a 2.24-fold greater risk for MI than other women, whereas men with insomnia had a 2.03-fold greater risk for MI than other men.

Patients with insomnia had a greater risk for MI than those without insomnia in subgroups based on patients’ age (< 65 and > 65), follow up duration (≤ 5 years and > 5 years), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia).

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – was associated with a 69% greater risk of having a myocardial infarction than among adults without insomnia, according to new research.

Those who slept 5 or fewer hours per night had the highest risk for MI, and those with both diabetes and insomnia had double the risk for MI, compared with patients without these comorbidities.

amenic181/Getty Images

The findings are from a meta-analysis of studies in more than 1 million patients, almost all without prior MI who were, on average, in their early 50s and followed for 9 years.

Yomna E. Dean, a medical student at Alexandria (Egypt) University, reported these results in a press briefing, and the study was simultaneously published in Clinical Cardiology. It will be presented at the upcoming at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Insomnia and ]at least] 5 hours of sleep are highly associated with increased incidence of MI, an association comparable to that of other MI risk factors and as such, it should be considered as a risk factor for MI and to be incorporated into MI prevention guidelines,” the researchers concluded.

“We believe that [insomnia] should be screened and patients should be educated about the importance of sleep because nowadays insomnia is no longer a disease – sleep deprivation could also be a life choice,” Ms, Dean told a press conference prior to the meeting.

“Clinicians must educate the patients about the importance of sleep in maintaining a healthy heart and encourage proper sleep hygiene,” Ms. Dean reiterated in an email. “And if a patient still has insomnia, other methods should be considered such as cognitive-behavior[al] therapy for insomnia [CBT-I].”
 

Adds to growing evidence

This study does not allow any conclusion about whether treating insomnia will reduce heart attack risk, Jennifer L. Martin, PhD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, noted in a comment. Nor does it report the diversity of study participants, since insomnia is also a health equity issue, she noted, and insomnia symptoms and comorbidities were self-reported.

However, this analysis “adds to the growing evidence that poor quality or insufficient sleep is associated with poor health,” said Dr. Martin, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this research.

The study reinforces the recommendation from the American Heart Association, which includes “Get Healthy Sleep” as one of “Life’s Essential 8” for heart health, Dr. Martin noted.

“Particularly in primary care where disease prevention and health promotion are important, clinicians should be asking all patients about their sleep – just like they ask about diet and exercise – as a key aspect of maintaining heart health,” she said.

Advice about basic sleep hygiene advice is a first step, she noted.

When improved sleep hygiene is not enough to address chronic insomnia, the AASM’s clinical practice guidelines and the guidelines of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, recommend first-line treatment with CBT-I, typically offered by a sleep specialist or mental health clinician.

Similarly, the American College of Physicians suggests that sleeping pills should be reserved for short-term use in patients who may not benefit sufficiently from CBT-I.
 

Sleeping too little, too much, equally harmful

“Studies have found that insomnia and subsequent sleep deprivation puts the body under stress,” Ms. Dean said. “This triggers cortisol release which could accelerate atherosclerosis,” and increase risk of MI.

For this analysis, the researchers identified nine observational studies, published from 1998 to 2019, with data on incident MI in adults who had insomnia.

The diagnosis of insomnia was based on ICD diagnostic codes or on the DSM‐5, which defines insomnia as the presence of any of the following three symptoms: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, or early morning awakening with inability to return to sleep. Patients with sleep apnea were excluded.

The studies were in populations in China, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States, in 1.1 million adults aged 18 and older. The patients had a mean age of 52 years and 13% had insomnia.

During follow-up, 2,406 of 153,881 patients with insomnia, and 12,398 of 1,030,375 patients without insomnia had an MI.

In the pooled analysis, patients with insomnia had a significantly increased risk of MI (relative risk, 1.69; P < .00001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and smoking.

Sleeping 5 hours or less was associated with a greater risk for MI than sleeping 6 hours, or 7-8 hours, but sleeping 9 hours or more was just as harmful.

Patients who had difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep – two symptoms of insomnia – had a 13% increased risk for MI compared with other patients (RR, 1.13; P = .003).

However, patients who had nonrestorative sleep and daytime dysfunction despite adequate sleep – which is common – did not have an increased risk of MI, compared with other patients (RR, 1.06; P = .46).

Women with insomnia had a 2.24-fold greater risk for MI than other women, whereas men with insomnia had a 2.03-fold greater risk for MI than other men.

Patients with insomnia had a greater risk for MI than those without insomnia in subgroups based on patients’ age (< 65 and > 65), follow up duration (≤ 5 years and > 5 years), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia).

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia – difficulty falling or staying asleep – was associated with a 69% greater risk of having a myocardial infarction than among adults without insomnia, according to new research.

Those who slept 5 or fewer hours per night had the highest risk for MI, and those with both diabetes and insomnia had double the risk for MI, compared with patients without these comorbidities.

amenic181/Getty Images

The findings are from a meta-analysis of studies in more than 1 million patients, almost all without prior MI who were, on average, in their early 50s and followed for 9 years.

Yomna E. Dean, a medical student at Alexandria (Egypt) University, reported these results in a press briefing, and the study was simultaneously published in Clinical Cardiology. It will be presented at the upcoming at the annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

“Insomnia and ]at least] 5 hours of sleep are highly associated with increased incidence of MI, an association comparable to that of other MI risk factors and as such, it should be considered as a risk factor for MI and to be incorporated into MI prevention guidelines,” the researchers concluded.

“We believe that [insomnia] should be screened and patients should be educated about the importance of sleep because nowadays insomnia is no longer a disease – sleep deprivation could also be a life choice,” Ms, Dean told a press conference prior to the meeting.

“Clinicians must educate the patients about the importance of sleep in maintaining a healthy heart and encourage proper sleep hygiene,” Ms. Dean reiterated in an email. “And if a patient still has insomnia, other methods should be considered such as cognitive-behavior[al] therapy for insomnia [CBT-I].”
 

Adds to growing evidence

This study does not allow any conclusion about whether treating insomnia will reduce heart attack risk, Jennifer L. Martin, PhD, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, noted in a comment. Nor does it report the diversity of study participants, since insomnia is also a health equity issue, she noted, and insomnia symptoms and comorbidities were self-reported.

However, this analysis “adds to the growing evidence that poor quality or insufficient sleep is associated with poor health,” said Dr. Martin, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with this research.

The study reinforces the recommendation from the American Heart Association, which includes “Get Healthy Sleep” as one of “Life’s Essential 8” for heart health, Dr. Martin noted.

“Particularly in primary care where disease prevention and health promotion are important, clinicians should be asking all patients about their sleep – just like they ask about diet and exercise – as a key aspect of maintaining heart health,” she said.

Advice about basic sleep hygiene advice is a first step, she noted.

When improved sleep hygiene is not enough to address chronic insomnia, the AASM’s clinical practice guidelines and the guidelines of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, recommend first-line treatment with CBT-I, typically offered by a sleep specialist or mental health clinician.

Similarly, the American College of Physicians suggests that sleeping pills should be reserved for short-term use in patients who may not benefit sufficiently from CBT-I.
 

Sleeping too little, too much, equally harmful

“Studies have found that insomnia and subsequent sleep deprivation puts the body under stress,” Ms. Dean said. “This triggers cortisol release which could accelerate atherosclerosis,” and increase risk of MI.

For this analysis, the researchers identified nine observational studies, published from 1998 to 2019, with data on incident MI in adults who had insomnia.

The diagnosis of insomnia was based on ICD diagnostic codes or on the DSM‐5, which defines insomnia as the presence of any of the following three symptoms: difficulty initiating sleep, difficulty maintaining sleep, or early morning awakening with inability to return to sleep. Patients with sleep apnea were excluded.

The studies were in populations in China, Germany, Norway, Taiwan, United Kingdom, and United States, in 1.1 million adults aged 18 and older. The patients had a mean age of 52 years and 13% had insomnia.

During follow-up, 2,406 of 153,881 patients with insomnia, and 12,398 of 1,030,375 patients without insomnia had an MI.

In the pooled analysis, patients with insomnia had a significantly increased risk of MI (relative risk, 1.69; P < .00001), after adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, and smoking.

Sleeping 5 hours or less was associated with a greater risk for MI than sleeping 6 hours, or 7-8 hours, but sleeping 9 hours or more was just as harmful.

Patients who had difficulty initiating and maintaining sleep – two symptoms of insomnia – had a 13% increased risk for MI compared with other patients (RR, 1.13; P = .003).

However, patients who had nonrestorative sleep and daytime dysfunction despite adequate sleep – which is common – did not have an increased risk of MI, compared with other patients (RR, 1.06; P = .46).

Women with insomnia had a 2.24-fold greater risk for MI than other women, whereas men with insomnia had a 2.03-fold greater risk for MI than other men.

Patients with insomnia had a greater risk for MI than those without insomnia in subgroups based on patients’ age (< 65 and > 65), follow up duration (≤ 5 years and > 5 years), and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia).

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FRANCE – Conducted every 5 years since 2005, the Cancer Survey documents the knowledge, perceptions, and way of life of the French people in relation to cancer. The French National Cancer Institute (InCA), in partnership with Public Health France (SPF), has published the results of its 2021 survey. The researchers analyzed responses to telephone interviews of a representative sample of almost 5,000 individuals aged 15-85 years.

This study shows how thinking has changed over time and how difficult it is to alter preconceived notions.
 

Is cancer hereditary?

The report shows that 67.7% of respondents believe that cancer is a hereditary disease. Respondents were asked to explain their answer. “Data show that medical practices for cancer treatment substantiate this belief [that cancer is hereditary],” wrote the authors of the report.

“Indeed, health care professionals almost systematically ask questions about family history of breast cancer and, when a family member has been diagnosed with cancer, medical monitoring of other family members is often sought out, thus reinforcing the belief that cancer is hereditary,” they said.

Furthermore, there seems to be confusion regarding the role of genes in the development of cancer. A person can inherit cancer-predisposing genes, not cancer itself. The authors highlighted their concern that this confusion may “lead people to think that prevention measures are unnecessary because cancer is inherited.”
 

Misconceptions about smoking

About 41% of smokers think that the length of time one has been smoking is the biggest determining factor for developing cancer; 58.1% think the number of cigarettes smoked per day has a bigger impact.

Experts at InCA and SPF put the debate to rest, stating that prolonged exposure to carcinogenic substances is far more toxic. As for the danger threshold concerning the number of cigarettes smoked per day, respondents believed this to be 9.2 cigarettes per day, on average. They believed that the danger threshold for the number of years as an active smoker is 13.4, on average.

“The [survey] respondents clearly understand that smoking carries a risk, but many smokers think that light smoking or smoking for a short period of time doesn’t carry any risks.” Yet it is understood that even occasional tobacco consumption increases mortality.

This was not the only misconception regarding smoking and its relationship with cancer. About 34% of survey respondents agreed with the following statement: “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer unless you’re a heavy smoker and have smoked for a long time.” Furthermore, 43.3% agreed with the statement, “Pollution is more likely to cause cancer than smoking,” 54.6% think that “exercising cleans your lungs of tobacco,” and 61.6% think that “a smoker can prevent developing cancer caused by smoking if they know to quit on time.”
 

Overweight and obesity

Although diet and excess weight represent the third and fourth biggest avoidable cancer risk factors, after smoking and alcohol, only 30% of survey respondents knew of this link.

“Among the causes of cancer known and cited by respondents without prompting, excessive weight and obesity were mentioned only 100 times out of 12,558 responses,” highlighted the authors of the report. The explanation put forward by the authors is that discourse about diet has been more focused on diet as a protective health factor, especially in preventing cardiovascular diseases. “The link between cancer and diet is less prominent in the public space,” they noted.
 

Breastfeeding and cancer

About 63% of survey respondents, which for the first time included both women and men, believe that breastfeeding does not affect mothers’ risk of breast cancer, but this is a misconception. And almost 1 in 3 respondents said that breastfeeding provides health benefits for the mother.

Artificial UV rays

Exposure to UV rays, whether of natural or artificial origin, is a major risk factor for skin cancer. However, 1 in 5 people (20.9%) think that a session in a tanning bed is less harmful than sun exposure.

Daily stress

Regarding psychological factors linked to cancer, the authors noted that risk factors not supported by scientific evidence were, ironically, cited more often by respondents than proven risk factors. There is a real knowledge gap between scientific data and the beliefs of the French people. For example, “working at night” is largely not seen as a risk factor, but data show that it presents a clear risk. However, “not being able to express one’s feelings,” “having been weakened by traumatic experiences,” and “being exposed to the stress of modern life” are seen as risk factors of cancer, without any scientific evidence.

Cigarettes and e-cigarettes

About 53% of respondents agreed that “e-cigarettes are just as harmful or more harmful than traditional cigarettes.” Nicotine and the flavors in e-cigarettes are largely perceived as “very” or “extremely” harmful to the health of a person. However, the authors note that “no published study on nicotine substitutes has shown harmful effects on the health of a person, let alone determined it a risk factor for cancer. The nicotine doses in e-cigarettes are similar to traditional nicotine substitutes, and no cytotoxic effect of nicotine in its inhaled form has been found.” There seems to be confusion between dependence and risk of cancer.

Alcohol consumption

Eight of 10 respondents believe that “some people can drink a lot of alcohol all their life without ever getting cancer,” which goes against the scientific literature. The authors of the report state that the negative effects of alcohol on health seem poorly understood. Although alcohol is the second biggest cause of cancer, only a third of survey respondents cited it without having been prompted as one of the main causes of cancer. And 23.5% even think that “in terms of decreasing your risk of cancer, it’s better to drink a little wine than to drink no wine at all.”

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

If the pandemic served as a window into our health, what it revealed was a U.S. population that is not only sick but also seemingly only getting sicker. Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.

Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.

Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
 

Microplastics

“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.

Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.

Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.

According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.

Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.

Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.

Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.

To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.

The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.

Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA)

BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.

Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.

As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.

Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
 

Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.

Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.

Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.

The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
 

Pesticides

The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.

Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.

A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.

Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
 

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)

PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”

PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.

The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.

Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.

To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”

In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”

Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.

It’s flu season, yet again. For many parts of the country, we’re already in the thick of it, and for other places, we’re going to have flu outbreaks continuing and intensifying. I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.

In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.

Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.

Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.

Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.

There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.

On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.

Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.

It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.

I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.

Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.

I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
 

Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.

The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.

Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.

For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.

The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.

Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).

A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).

However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).

Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.

The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.

“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.

The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.

“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”

Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.

For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.

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

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.

The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.

Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.

For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.

The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.

Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).

A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).

However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).

Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.

The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.

“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.

The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.

“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”

Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.

For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.

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

Prone positioning significantly reduced the need for intubation among nonintubated adults with COVID-19, as indicated by data from a new meta-analysis of more than 2,000 individuals.

The use of prone positioning for nonintubated patients (so-called “awake prone positioning”) has been common since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prone positioning is more comfortable for patients, and it entails no additional cost. Also, awake prone positioning is less labor intensive than prone positioning for intubated patients, said Jie Li, PhD, in a presentation at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

However, data on the specific benefits of prone positioning are lacking and contradictory, said Dr. Li, a respiratory care specialist at Rush University, Chicago.

Dr. Li and colleagues from a multinational research group found that outcomes were improved for patients who were treated with awake prone positioning – notably, fewer treatment failures at day 28 – but a pair of subsequent studies by other researchers showed contradictory outcomes.

For more definitive evidence, Dr. Li and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized, controlled trials and one unpublished study of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19. The studies were published between Jan. 1, 2020, and July 1, 2022, and included a total of 2,886 adult patients.

The primary outcome was the reported cumulative risk of intubation among nonintubated COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes included mortality, the need for escalating respiratory support, length of hospital length of stay, ICU admission, and adverse events.

Overall, awake prone positioning significantly reduced the intubation risk among nonintubated patients compared to standard care (risk ratio, 0.85).

A further subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction in risk for intubation among patients supported by high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation (RR, 0.83).

However, no additional reduction in intubation risk occurred among patients who received conventional oxygen therapy (RR, 1.02).

Mortality rates were similar for patients who underwent awake prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning (RR, 0.96), as was the need for additional respiratory support (RR, 1.03). The length of hospital stay, ICU admission, and adverse events were similar between the patients who underwent prone positioning and those who underwent supine positioning.

The findings were limited by several factors. There was a potential for confounding by disease severity, which may have increased the use of respiratory support devices, Li said in her presentation.

“Another factor we should not ignore is the daily duration of prone positioning,” said Dr. Li. More research is needed to identify which factors play the greatest roles in treatment success.

The current study was important in that it evaluated the current evidence of awake prone positioning, “particularly to identify the patients who benefit most from this treatment, in order to guide clinical practice,” Dr. Li said in an interview.

“Since early in the pandemic, awake prone positioning has been broadly utilized to treat patients with COVID-19,” she said. “In 2021, we published a multinational randomized controlled trial with over 1,100 patients enrolled and reported lower treatment failure. However, no significant differences of treatment failure were reported in several subsequent multicenter randomized, controlled trials published after our study.”

Dr. Li said she was not surprised by the findings, which reflect those of her team’s previously published meta-analysis. “The increased number of patients helps confirm our previous finding, even with the inclusion of several recently published randomized controlled trials,” she said.

For clinicians, “the current evidence supports the use of awake prone positioning for patients with COVID-19, particularly those who require advanced respiratory support from high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive ventilation,” Dr. Li said.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Li has relationships with AARC, Heyer, Aeorgen, the Rice Foundation, and Fisher & Paykel Healthcare.

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

COVID-19 remains deadlier than influenza in severe cases requiring hospitalization, a new study shows.

People who were hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 infections were 54% more likely to die, compared with people who were hospitalized with the flu, Swiss researchers found.

The results of the study continue to debunk an earlier belief from the start of the pandemic that the flu was the more dangerous of the two respiratory viruses. The researchers noted that the deadliness of COVID-19, compared with flu, persisted “despite virus evolution and improved management strategies.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open and included 5,212 patients in Switzerland hospitalized with COVID-19 or the flu. All the COVID patients were infected with the Omicron variant and hospitalized between Jan. 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. Flu data included cases from January 2018 to March 15, 2022. 

Overall, 7% of COVID-19 patients died, compared with 4.4% of flu patients. Researchers noted that the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients had declined since their previous study, which was conducted during the first COVID wave in the first half of 2020. At that time, the death rate of hospitalized COVID patients was 12.8%. 

Since then, 98% of the Swiss population has been vaccinated. “Vaccination still plays a significant role regarding the main outcome,” the authors concluded, since a secondary analysis in this most recent study showed that unvaccinated COVID patients were twice as likely to die, compared with flu patients.

“Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 still cannot simply be compared with influenza,” they wrote.

While the death rate among COVID patients was significantly higher, there was no difference in the rate that COVID or flu patients were admitted to the ICU, which was around 8%.

A limitation of the study was that all the COVID cases did not have laboratory testing to confirm the Omicron variant. However, the study authors noted that Omicron accounted for at least 95% of cases during the time the patients were hospitalized. The authors were confident that their results were not biased by the potential for other variants being included in the data.

Four coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.

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

COVID-19 remains deadlier than influenza in severe cases requiring hospitalization, a new study shows.

People who were hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 infections were 54% more likely to die, compared with people who were hospitalized with the flu, Swiss researchers found.

The results of the study continue to debunk an earlier belief from the start of the pandemic that the flu was the more dangerous of the two respiratory viruses. The researchers noted that the deadliness of COVID-19, compared with flu, persisted “despite virus evolution and improved management strategies.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open and included 5,212 patients in Switzerland hospitalized with COVID-19 or the flu. All the COVID patients were infected with the Omicron variant and hospitalized between Jan. 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. Flu data included cases from January 2018 to March 15, 2022. 

Overall, 7% of COVID-19 patients died, compared with 4.4% of flu patients. Researchers noted that the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients had declined since their previous study, which was conducted during the first COVID wave in the first half of 2020. At that time, the death rate of hospitalized COVID patients was 12.8%. 

Since then, 98% of the Swiss population has been vaccinated. “Vaccination still plays a significant role regarding the main outcome,” the authors concluded, since a secondary analysis in this most recent study showed that unvaccinated COVID patients were twice as likely to die, compared with flu patients.

“Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 still cannot simply be compared with influenza,” they wrote.

While the death rate among COVID patients was significantly higher, there was no difference in the rate that COVID or flu patients were admitted to the ICU, which was around 8%.

A limitation of the study was that all the COVID cases did not have laboratory testing to confirm the Omicron variant. However, the study authors noted that Omicron accounted for at least 95% of cases during the time the patients were hospitalized. The authors were confident that their results were not biased by the potential for other variants being included in the data.

Four coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.

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

COVID-19 remains deadlier than influenza in severe cases requiring hospitalization, a new study shows.

People who were hospitalized with Omicron COVID-19 infections were 54% more likely to die, compared with people who were hospitalized with the flu, Swiss researchers found.

The results of the study continue to debunk an earlier belief from the start of the pandemic that the flu was the more dangerous of the two respiratory viruses. The researchers noted that the deadliness of COVID-19, compared with flu, persisted “despite virus evolution and improved management strategies.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open and included 5,212 patients in Switzerland hospitalized with COVID-19 or the flu. All the COVID patients were infected with the Omicron variant and hospitalized between Jan. 15, 2022, and March 15, 2022. Flu data included cases from January 2018 to March 15, 2022. 

Overall, 7% of COVID-19 patients died, compared with 4.4% of flu patients. Researchers noted that the death rate for hospitalized COVID patients had declined since their previous study, which was conducted during the first COVID wave in the first half of 2020. At that time, the death rate of hospitalized COVID patients was 12.8%. 

Since then, 98% of the Swiss population has been vaccinated. “Vaccination still plays a significant role regarding the main outcome,” the authors concluded, since a secondary analysis in this most recent study showed that unvaccinated COVID patients were twice as likely to die, compared with flu patients.

“Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 still cannot simply be compared with influenza,” they wrote.

While the death rate among COVID patients was significantly higher, there was no difference in the rate that COVID or flu patients were admitted to the ICU, which was around 8%.

A limitation of the study was that all the COVID cases did not have laboratory testing to confirm the Omicron variant. However, the study authors noted that Omicron accounted for at least 95% of cases during the time the patients were hospitalized. The authors were confident that their results were not biased by the potential for other variants being included in the data.

Four coauthors reported receiving grants and personal fees from various sources.

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

A strategy for the treatment of tuberculosis involving just an 8-week treatment regimen – along with close posttreatment monitoring and treatment extension if needed – shows potential as an effective alternative to the standard 24-week regimen.

“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”

Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.

“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.

The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.

Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.

These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
 

TRUNCATE-TB

To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).

Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.

Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.

Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.

For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).

The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.

The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.

In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
 

‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated

In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.

The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.

Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.

“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”

Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.

“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said. 

“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.

“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”

The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”

The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.

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

A strategy for the treatment of tuberculosis involving just an 8-week treatment regimen – along with close posttreatment monitoring and treatment extension if needed – shows potential as an effective alternative to the standard 24-week regimen.

“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”

Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.

“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.

The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.

Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.

These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
 

TRUNCATE-TB

To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).

Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.

Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.

Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.

For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).

The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.

The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.

In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
 

‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated

In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.

The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.

Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.

“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”

Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.

“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said. 

“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.

“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”

The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”

The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.

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

A strategy for the treatment of tuberculosis involving just an 8-week treatment regimen – along with close posttreatment monitoring and treatment extension if needed – shows potential as an effective alternative to the standard 24-week regimen.

“We found that if we use the strategy of a bedaquiline-linezolid five-drug regimen for 8 weeks and then followed patients for 96 weeks, [the regimen] was noninferior, clinically, to the standard regimen in terms of the number of people alive, free of TB disease, and not on treatment,” said lead author Nicholas Paton, MD, of the National University of Singapore, in a press conference held during the Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections.

“The total time on treatment was reduced by half – instead of 160 days, it was 85 days for the total duration.”

Commenting on the study, which was published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine, Richard E. Chaisson, MD, noted that, although more needs to be understood, the high number of responses is nevertheless encouraging.

“Clinicians will not feel comfortable with the short regimens at this point, but it is remarkable that so many patients did well with shorter treatments,” Dr. Chaisson, who is a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and international health and director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Tuberculosis Research, Baltimore, said in an interview.

Importantly, the study should help push forward “future studies [that] will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments,” he said.

The current global standard for TB treatment, practiced for 4 decades, has been a 6-month rifampin-based regimen. Although the regimen performs well, curing more than 95% of cases in clinical trials, in real-world practice, the prolonged duration can be problematic, with issues of nonadherence and loss of patients to follow-up.

Previous research has shown that shorter regimens have potential, with some studies showing as many as 85% of patients cured with 3- and 4-month regimens, and some promising 2-month regimens showing efficacy specifically for those with smear-negative TB.

These efforts suggest that “the current 6-month regimen may lead to overtreatment in the majority of persons in order to prevent relapse in a minority of persons,” the authors asserted.
 

TRUNCATE-TB

To investigate a suitable shorter-term alternative, the authors conducted the phase 2-3, prospective, open-label TRUNCATE-TB trial, in which 674 patients with rifampin-susceptible pulmonary TB were enrolled at 18 sites in Asia and Africa.

The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the standard treatment regimen (rifampin and isoniazid for 24 weeks with pyrazinamide and ethambutol for the first 8 weeks; n = 181), or one of four novel five-drug regimens to be administered over 8 weeks, along with extended treatment for persistent clinical disease of up to 12 weeks, if needed, and a plan for retreatment in the case of relapse (n = 493).

Two of the regimens were dropped because of logistic criteria; the two remaining shorter-course groups included in the study involved either high-dose rifampin plus linezolid or bedaquiline plus linezolid, each combined with isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol.

Of the patients, 62% were male, and four withdrew or were lost to follow-up by the end of the study at a final follow-up at week 96.

Among patients assigned to the 8-week regimens, 80% stopped at exactly 8 weeks, while 9% wound up having extended treatment to 10 weeks and 3% were extended to 12 weeks.

For the primary endpoint, a composite of death, ongoing treatment, or active disease at week 96, the rate was lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group, occurring in 7 of 181 patients (3.9%), compared with 21 of 184 patients (11.4%) in the rifampin plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 7.4 percentage points, which did not meet noninferiority criterion), and 11 of 189 (5.8%) in the group in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group (adjusted difference, 0.8 percentage points, meeting noninferiority criterion).

The mean total duration of treatment through week 96 in the standard treatment group was 180 days versus 106 days in the rifampin–linezolid group, and 85 days in the bedaquiline-linezolid group.

The results were consistent across multiple subgroups defined according to baseline characteristics, including some that could be linked to severe disease and a high risk for relapse.

In terms of safety, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Of note, only two patients (1.1%) in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group acquired a resistance, which Dr. Paton said was “encouraging,” because of concerns about resistance to that drug.
 

‘Unfavorable’ composite also evaluated

In an updated analysis of the study that Dr. Paton presented at the meeting, the authors looked at a revised “unfavorable” primary outcome – a composite including treatment failure, relapse, death, or nonattendance at week 96 without evidence of prior disease clearance.

The rate remained lowest in the standard 24-week therapy group (3.9%) versus 25% in the rifampin plus linezolid group, and 13.8% in the bedaquiline plus linezolid group.

Though the lower rate with the standard treatment was expected, Dr. Paton said the results nevertheless hold promise, at least for some patients, for successful treatment with the 8-week bedaquiline plus linezolid strategy.

“What the trial has told us is that even with that 13.8% relapse rate, we can manage patients within this strategy and people can do fine at the end, because with some simple clinical biomarkers, we can pick the people who may have a high chance of achieving a cure.”

Dr. Chaisson expressed concern over the higher unfavorable rates, but said the results help pave the way for refining a workable-shorter term strategy.

“TRUNCATE-TB did find that most patients could be successfully treated in 2 months with the novel regimen of bedaquiline plus linezolid, but the failure rate was still unacceptably high,” he said. 

“This regimen will not be widely adapted at this point, but additional analyses may identify subsets of patients who will do well with shorter regimens, and future studies will stratify patients according to their likelihood of responding to shorter treatments.”

The authors of an accompanying editorial further commented that the benefits of a shorter treatment strategy could very well outweigh possible shortcomings.

“Treatment algorithms such as that used in the TRUNCATE-TB trial are fundamental to tuberculosis control,” wrote Véronique Dartois, PhD, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Nutley, N.J., and Eric J. Rubin, MD, PhD, the editor-in-chief of NEJM. “Although implementing them could be a challenge, any added burden might be offset by reduced costs, better adherence, and increased patient satisfaction. Thus, for tuberculosis, a strategy might be more than just a regimen.”

The good news, as summed up by CROI vice-chair Landon Myer, MD, PhD, in the press conference, is that “we’re moving closer and closer to the holy grail of a short, efficacious regimen for TB treatment. We’re getting there slowly, but we’re getting there.”

The study received grant funding from the Singapore National Medical Research Council; a grant from the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office; the Medical Research Council; and Wellcome Trust; as well as a grant from the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council. Dr. Dartois reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Chaisson had no disclosures to report.

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

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

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

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

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

The natural immunity provided by a COVID infection protects a person against severe illness on a par with two doses of mRNA vaccine, a new study says. 

People who’ve been infected with COVID reduced their chances of hospitalization and death by 88% over 10 months compared to somebody who hasn’t been infected, according to the study, published in The Lancet. 

The natural immunity provided by infection was “at least as high, if not higher” than the immunity provided by two doses of Moderna or Pfizer mRNA vaccines against the ancestral, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron BA.1 variants, the researchers reported. 

But protection against the BA.1 subvariant of Omicron was not as high – 36% at 10 months after infection, wrote the research team from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

They examined 65 studies from 19 countries through Sept. 31, 2022. They did not study data about infection from Omicron XBB and its sub-lineages. People who had immunity from both infection and vaccination, known as hybrid immunity, were not studied. 

The findings don’t mean people should skip the vaccines and get COVID on purpose, one of the researchers told NBC News. 

“The problem of saying ‘I’m gonna get infected to get immunity’ is you might be one of those people that end up in the hospital or die,” said Christopher Murray, MD, DPhil, director of the IHME. “Why would you take the risk when you can get immunity through vaccination quite safely?”

The findings could help people figure out the most effective time to get vaccinated or boosted and guide officials in setting policies on workplace vaccine mandates and rules for high-occupancy indoor settings, the researchers concluded.

This was the largest meta-analysis of immunity following infection to date, NBC News reports.

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

Approximately one in four patients with untreated COVID-19 experience symptom relapse, while almost one in three exhibits relapse of viral load, a recent study finds.

These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.

To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).

From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.

“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.

Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.

The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.

Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.

This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.

This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound

“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.

Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.

“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
 

Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation

This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.

This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.

“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”

That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,

“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.

An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.

“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”

While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Approximately one in four patients with untreated COVID-19 experience symptom relapse, while almost one in three exhibits relapse of viral load, a recent study finds.

These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.

To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).

From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.

“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.

Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.

The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.

Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.

This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.

This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound

“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.

Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.

“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
 

Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation

This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.

This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.

“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”

That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,

“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.

An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.

“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”

While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Approximately one in four patients with untreated COVID-19 experience symptom relapse, while almost one in three exhibits relapse of viral load, a recent study finds.

These findings offer a natural history of COVID-19 that will inform discussions and research concerning antiviral therapy, lead author Jonathan Z. Li, MD, associate professor of infectious disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

“There are increasing reports that high-risk patients are avoiding nirmatrelvir-ritonavir due to concerns about post-Paxlovid rebound, but there remains a gap in our knowledge of the frequency of symptom and viral relapse during untreated natural infection,” Dr. Li said in a written comment.

To address this gap, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed data from 563 participants from the placebo group of the Adaptive Platform Treatment Trial for Outpatients with COVID-19 (ACTIV-2/A5401).

From days 0-28, patients recorded severity of 13 symptoms, with scores ranging from absent to severe (absent = 0, mild = 1, moderate = 2, severe = 3). RNA testing was performed on samples from nasal swabs on days 0–14, 21, and 28.

“The symptom rebound definition was determined by consensus of the study team, which comprises more than 10 infectious disease, pulmonary, and critical care physicians, as likely representing a clinically meaningful change in symptoms,” Dr. Li said.

Symptom scores needed to increase by at least 4 points to reach the threshold. For instance, a patient would qualify for relapse if they had worsening of four symptoms from mild to moderate, emergence of two new moderate symptoms, or emergence of one new moderate and two new mild symptoms.

The threshold for viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 0.5 log10 RNA copies/mL from one nasal swab to the next, while high-level viral relapse was defined by an increase of at least 5.0 log10 RNA copies/mL. The former threshold was chosen based on previous analysis of viral rebound after nirmatrelvir treatment in the EPIC-HR phase 3 trial, whereas the high-level relapse point was based on Dr. Li and colleagues’ previous work linking this cutoff with the presence of infectious virus.

Their present analysis revealed that 26% of patients had symptom relapse at a median of 11 days after first symptom onset. Viral relapse occurred in 31% of patients, while high-level viral relapse occurred in 13% of participants. In about 9 out 10 cases, these relapses were detected at only one time point, suggesting they were transient. Of note, symptom relapse and high-level viral relapse occurred simultaneously in only 3% of patients.

This lack of correlation was “surprising” and “highlights that recovery from any infection is not always a linear process,” Dr. Li said.

This finding also suggests that untreated patients with recurring symptoms probably pose a low risk of contagion, according to David Wohl, MD, coauthor of the paper and professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 

Paxlovid may not be to blame for COVID-19 rebound

“These results provide important context for the reports of Paxlovid rebound and show that baseline rates of symptom and viral relapse should be accounted for when studying the risk of rebound after antiviral therapy,” Dr. Li said.

Dr. Wohl suggested that these data can also play a role in conversations with patients who experience rebound after taking antiviral therapy.

“Many who have a return of their symptoms after taking Paxlovid blame the drug, and that may be justified, but this study suggests it happens in untreated people too,” Dr. Wohl said in a written comment.
 

Longer antiviral therapy deserves investigation

This is a “very important study” because it offers a baseline for comparing the natural history of COVID-19 with clinical course after antiviral therapy, said Timothy Henrich, MD, associate professor in the division of experimental medicine at University of California, San Francisco.

“Unlike this natural history, where it’s kind of sputtering up and down as it goes down, [after antiviral therapy,] it goes away for several days, and then it comes back up; and when it comes up, people have symptoms again,” Dr. Henrich said in an interview.

This suggests that each type of rebound is a unique phenomenon and, from a clinical perspective, that antiviral therapy may need to be extended.

“We treat for too short a period of time,” Dr. Henrich said. “We’re able to suppress [SARS-CoV-2] to the point where we’re not detecting it in the nasal pharynx, but it’s clearly still there. And it’s clearly still in a place that can replicate without the drug.”

That said, treating for longer may not be a sure-fire solution, especially if antiviral therapy is started early in the clinical course, as this could delay SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses that are necessary for resolution, Dr. Henrich added,

“We need further study of longer-term therapies,” he said.

An array of research questions need to be addressed, according to Aditya Shah, MBBS, an infectious disease specialist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. In a written comment, he probed the significance of rebound in various clinical scenarios.

“What [type of] rebound matters and what doesn’t?” Dr. Shah asked. “Does symptom rebound matter? How many untreated and treated ‘symptom rebounders’ need additional treatment or health care? If rebound does not really matter, but if Paxlovid helps in certain unvaccinated and high-risk patients, then does rebound matter? Future research should also focus on Paxlovid utility in vaccinated but high-risk patients. Is it as beneficial in them as it is in unvaccinated high-risk patients?”

While potentially regimen-altering questions like these remain unanswered, Dr. Henrich advised providers to keep patients focused on what we do know about the benefits of antiviral therapy given the current 5-day course, which is that it reduces the risk of severe disease and hospitalization.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Merck, Gilead, ViiV, and others. Dr. Henrich disclosed grant support from Merck and a consulting role with Roche. Dr. Shah disclosed no conflicts of interest.