Clinician Reviews

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) back previous findings of increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) after receiving the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S).

Over 14 months, GBS reporting rates within 21 and 42 days of administration of Janssen’s replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine were approximately 9 to 12 times higher than after administration of the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) or the Moderna (mRNA-1273) mRNA COVID vaccines.

Additionally, observed GBS cases after the Janssen shot were 2 to 3 times greater than expected, based on background rates within 21 and 42 days of vaccination.

Conversely, and confirming prior data, there was no increased risk for GBS with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines and no significant difference between observed and expected numbers of GBS cases after either mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

More precise risk estimates

Winston Abara, MD, with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues analyzed GBS reports submitted to the VAERS between December 2020 and January 2022. 

Among 487.6 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, 3.7% were Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S vaccine, 54.7% were Pfizer’s BNT162b2 vaccine, and 41.6% were Moderna’s mRNA-1273 vaccine.

There were 295 verified reports of GBS identified after COVID-19 vaccination. Of these, 209 occurred within 21 days of vaccination and 253 within 42 days.

Within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates per 1 million doses were 3.29 for the Janssen vaccine versus 0.29 and 0.35 for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, respectively. Within 42 days of vaccination, reporting rates per 1 million doses were 4.07, 0.34, and 0.44, respectively.

Also within 21 days of vaccination, GBS reporting rates were significantly higher with the Janssen vaccine than the Pfizer vaccine (reporting rate ratio, 11.40) and the Moderna vaccine (RRR, 9.26). Similar findings were observed within 42 days after vaccination.

The observed-to-expected ratios were 3.79 for 21-day and 2.34 for 42-day intervals after receipt of the Janssen vaccine, and less than 1 (not significant) after the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine within both post-vaccination periods.

“Unlike prior studies, our analysis included all U.S. reports of verified GBS cases that met the Brighton Collaboration GBS case definition criteria (Brighton Levels 1, 2, and 3) submitted over a 14-month surveillance period to the to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” Dr. Abara said in an interview. “Because we used all U.S. reports, the sample of verified GBS cases in this analysis is larger than other studies. Therefore, it may provide a more precise estimate of the GBS risk within 21 and 42 days after mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” he said.
 

‘Remarkably low’ use

Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., noted that this is a “nice confirmatory analysis that supports and further expands what’s been observed before.”

Last year, as reported by this news organization, Dr. Klein and colleagues reported data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink confirming a small but statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen COVID-19 vaccine but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.

Unlike VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink is not a reporting system. It’s an active surveillance of medical records in the Kaiser Permanente system. The VAERS is a passive system, so it requires individuals to report GBS cases to the VAERS team, Dr. Klein explained.

So although the two studies are slightly different, overall, the VAERS data is “consistent with what we found,” she said.

Also weighing in, C. Buddy Creech, MD, MPH, director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Research Program and professor of pediatrics at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn., said it is “important to realize that GBS had been observed after adenovirus-vectored vaccines earlier in the pandemic, both for the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Janssen vaccine.”

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) preferentially recommends that people age 18 years and older receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine rather than the Janssen adenoviral vector vaccine when both types of COVID-19 vaccine are available.

“Thus, the use of the Janssen vaccine is remarkably low in the U.S. right now,” Dr. Creech said.

“Nevertheless, we have a firm commitment, both scientifically and ethically, to track potential side effects after vaccination and to make sure that the vaccines in use for COVID, and other important infectious diseases, are safe and effective,” he added.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Abara and Dr. Creech have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Klein reported having received grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial, as well as grants from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur, and Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur).

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Contrary to common belief, potatoes do not have a negative effect on blood glucose levels and can actually help people lose weight, according to researchers at Louisiana State University’s Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge.

What to know

Potatoes are filled with key nutrients, packed with health benefits, and do not increase the risk of type 2 diabetes, as has been assumed.

People tend to eat the same weight of food regardless of calorie content to feel full, so by eating foods that are heavier in weight and that are low in calories, you can reduce the number of calories you consume.

Study participants found themselves fuller, and full more quickly, and often did not even finish their meal when the high-calorie items of their meals were replaced with potatoes.

Participants had overweight, obesity, or insulin resistance, but their blood glucose levels were not negatively affected by the potato consumption, and all of those involved actually lost weight.

People typically do not stick with a diet they don’t like or that isn't varied enough, but potatoes can be prepared in numerous ways for variety in a diet, and they are a fairly inexpensive vegetable to incorporate into a diet.

This is a summary of the article, "Low-Energy Dense Potato- and Bean-Based Diets Reduce Body Weight and Insulin Resistance: A Randomized, Feeding, Equivalence Trial," published in the Journal of Medicinal Food on November 11, 2022. The full article can be found on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

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

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

Nonstop inflammation and immune problems top the list of potential causes of long COVID, but doctors say it’s growing clear that more than one thing is to blame for the wide swath of often debilitating symptoms that could last months or even years.

“I think that it’s a much more complex picture than just inflammation, or just autoimmunity, or just immune dysregulation. And it’s probably a combination of all three causing a cascade of effects that then manifests itself as brain fog, or shortness of breath, or chronic fatigue,” says Alexander Truong, MD, a pulmonologist and assistant professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who also runs a long-COVID clinic.

Long COVID, post–COVID-19 condition, and postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) are among the terms used by the National Institutes of Health to describe the long-term health issues faced by an estimated 10%-30% of people infected with COVID-19. Symptoms – as many as 200 – can range from inconvenient to crippling, damage multiple organ systems, come and go, and relapse. Long COVID increases the risk of worsening existing health problems and triggering new ones, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

So far, research suggests there is no single cause, condition, or disease that explains why some people have an extensive range of symptoms long after the early COVID-19 infection has cleared up. Many experts believe some combination of biological processes – including the virus hanging around in our bodies, inflammation, autoimmunity, tiny blood clots, immune system problems, and even the reactivation of dormant viruses such as the Epstein-Barr virus – could be the culprit, a theory also supported by a comprehensive and in-depth review of long-COVID studies published in the journal Nature Reviews Microbiology.

“It’s become clear over the last couple of years that there are different [symptoms] of long COVID … that cannot all be lumped together,” says Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant professor of medicine and an infectious diseases doctor at the University of California, San Francisco.
 

Inflammation and a virus that hangs around

Multiple studies have shown that the virus or pieces of it can remain in many parts of the body, including the kidneys, brain, heart, and gastrointestinal system, long after the early infection. 

“One major question that I think is the area of most intense investigation now is whether there is viral persistence that is driving immune dysregulation and therefore symptoms,” says Dr. Peluso.

A small Harvard University study, for example, found evidence that reservoirs of the coronavirus could linger in patients up to a year after they’re first diagnosed. 

An earlier German study found that patients with post-COVID-19 symptoms had higher levels of three cytokines – small proteins that tell the body’s immune system what to do and are involved in the growth and activity of immune system cells and blood cells. Researchers said the results supported the theory that there is persistent reprogramming of certain immune cells, and that the uncontrolled “self-fueled hyperinflammation” during the early COVID-19 infection can become continued immune cell disruption that drives long-COVID symptoms.

“Long COVID is more likely due to either an inflammatory response by the body or reservoirs of virus that the body is still trying to clear … and the symptoms we’re seeing are a side effect of that,” says Rainu Kaushal, MD, senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York.

Australian researchers found that immune system recovery appeared different, compared with those who were infected with other common coronaviruses.

These findings also support concerns that some experts express over the long-term risks of COVID-19 infections in general, but especially repeat infections.

“Anything that kind of revs up inflammation in the body can boil that pot over and make the symptoms worse. That’s very easily an infection or some other insult to the body. So that’s the generalized hypothesis as to why insults to the body may worsen the symptoms,” says Dr. Truong.
 

An autoimmune condition?

But inflammation alone does not fully explain post–COVID-19 problems.

Dr. Truong and his team, for example, have been documenting inflammatory markers in patients at the post-COVID clinic he cofounded more than 2 years ago at Emory Executive Park in Atlanta. When the clinic was first launched, high-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs – including ibuprofen – and prednisone were prescribed to long-COVID patients.

“It didn’t make a difference at all for any of these folks,” he says, adding that there are signs that autoimmunity is at play. But he cautions that it is still too early to suggest treating long-COVID patients with medications used for other autoimmune conditions.

In autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and type 1 diabetes, a person’s immune system can’t tell normal cells from foreign pathogens and attacks healthy cells. There is typically no single diagnostic test, and many share similar symptoms, making detection and diagnosis potentially difficult, according to Johns Hopkins Medicine.

A small study published in the journal  Science Translational Medicine found that, among patients who failed to regain their sense of smell long after their initial infection, there was inflammation in the nose tissue where smell nerve cells are found, even though no detectable virus remained. Fewer olfactory sensory neurons were seen, as well – findings that researchers said resembled some kind of “autoimmune-like process.”

Meanwhile, scientists in Canada found signs of autoimmunity in blood samples taken from patients who still had fatigue and shortness of breath after their initial COVID-19 infection. Two specific proteins were present a year after infection in up to 30% of patients, many of whom still had shortness of breath and fatigue, the researchers reported in the Jan. 1 issue of the European Respiratory Journal. These patients had been healthy and had no autoimmune condition or other diseases before they were infected.
 

Immune system problems

A number of studies have suggested that a problematic immune response could also explain why symptoms persist for some people.

Researchers in France, for example, found that the immune response problems in those with severe COVID-19 infections caused exaggerated or uncontrolled formation of a type of bug-fighting defense mechanism called a neutrophil extracellular trap (NET), which in turn triggers harmful inflammation that can result in multiorgan damage. These traps are netlike structures made from fibers composed mostly of DNA strings that bind, or trap, pathogens.

Long COVID is not like an acute infectious disease, says Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Mount Sinai in New York, and an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. It is more similar to other complex chronic diseases that have taken decades to understand, such as heart disease, mental illness, and rheumatologic diseases, he says.
 

Biomarkers and blood clots

Scientists are homing in on biomarkers, or detectable and measurable traits – in this case, molecular indicators – that can make diagnosing long COVID easier and give better direction for treatment. These biomarkers are also key to helping sort out the complex biology of long COVID.

In one study, data from blood samples taken from hundreds of hospitalized COVID-19 patients suggests changes are happening at the molecular level during initial severe infections. These changes may be tied to the development of longer-term symptoms, according to the study by Dr. Charney and his team at Mount Sinai published in Nature Medicine

Blood clotting issues have also been detected in long COVID patients. At least one study found signs that long-COVID patients had higher levels of a type of auto-antibody linked to the abnormal formation of clots. Researchers suspect that tiny, persistent microclots – undetectable via regular pathology tests – may be cutting off oxygen flow to tissue by blocking capillaries – and could explain many of the post-COVID symptoms described by patients.

While enormous progress has been made toward understanding long COVID, the research is still considered early and faces many challenges, including varying criteria used to define the condition, the types and quality of data used, differences in how patients are defined and recruited, and the small size of many studies. Some research also appears to conflict with other studies. And while there are specialized tools for diagnosing some aspects of the condition, standard tests often don’t detect many of the signs seen in long-COVID patients. But given the urgency and global scale of the problem, experts say more funding and support should be prioritized.

“People are suffering now, and they want answers now. ... It’s not like with COVID, where the path towards a great and meaningful solution to this unbelievable problem was clear – we need a vaccine,” says Dr. Charney. 

“It’s going to be a long haul to figure out what is going on.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

It’s the end of an era. The Biden administration announced Jan. 30 that it will be ending the twin COVID-19 emergency declarations, marking a major change in the 3-year-old pandemic.

The orders spanned two presidencies. The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar issued a public health emergency in January 2020. Then-President Donald Trump declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency 2 months later. Both emergency declarations – which remained in effect under President Joe Biden – are set to expire May 11. 

Read on for an overview of how the end of the public health emergency will trigger multiple federal policy changes. 
 

Changes that affect everyone

• There will be cost-sharing changes for COVID-19 vaccines, testing, and certain treatments. One hundred–percent coverage for COVID testing, including free at-home tests, will expire May 11. 
• Telemedicine cannot be used to prescribe controlled substances after May 11, 2023.
• Enhanced federal funding will be phased down through Dec. 31, 2023. This extends the time states must receive federally matched funds for COVID-related services and products, through the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. Otherwise, this would have expired June 30, 2023.
• Emergency use authorizations for COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations will not be affected and/or end on May 11.

Changes that affect people with private health insurance

• Many will likely see higher costs for COVID-19 tests, as free testing expires and cost-sharing begins in the coming months.
• COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters will continue to be covered until the federal government’s vaccination supply is depleted. If that happens, you will need an in-network provider.
• You will still have access to COVID-19 treatments – but that could change when the federal supply dwindles.

Changes that affect Medicare recipients

• Medicare telehealth flexibilities will be extended through Dec. 31, 2024, regardless of public health emergency status. This means people can access telehealth services from anywhere, not just rural areas; can use a smartphone for telehealth; and can access telehealth in their homes. 
• Medicare cost-sharing for testing and treatments will expire May 11, except for oral antivirals. 

Changes that affect Medicaid/CHIP recipients

• Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) recipients will continue to receive approved vaccinations free of charge, but testing and treatment without cost-sharing will expire during the third quarter of 2024.
• The Medicaid continuous enrollment provision will be separated from the public health emergency, and continuous enrollment will end March 31, 2023.

Changes that affect uninsured people

• The uninsured will no longer have access to 100% coverage for these products and services (free COVID-19 treatments, vaccines, and testing). 

Changes that affect health care providers

• There will be changes to how much providers get paid for diagnosing people with COVID-19, ending the enhanced Inpatient Prospective Payment System reimbursement rate, as of May 11, 2023.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) potential penalty waivers will end. This allows providers to communicate with patients through telehealth on a smartphone, for example, without violating privacy laws and incurring penalties.

What the experts are saying 

This news organization asked several health experts for their thoughts on ending the emergency health declarations for COVID, and what effects this could have. Many expressed concerns about the timing of the ending, saying that the move could limit access to COVID-related treatments. Others said the move was inevitable but raised concerns about federal guidance related to the decision. 

Question: Do you agree with the timing of the end to the emergency order?

Answer: Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston: “A lead time to prepare and anticipate these consequences may ease the transition, compared to an abrupt declaration that ends the declaration.” 

Answer: Georges C. Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association: “I think it’s time to do so. It has to be done in a great, thoughtful, and organized way because we’ve attached so many different things to this public health emergency. It’s going to take time for the system to adapt. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] data collection most likely will continue. People are used to reporting now. The CDC needs to give guidance to the states so that we’re clear about what we’re reporting, what we’re not. If we did that abruptly, it would just be a mess.”

Answer: Bruce Farber, MD, chief public health and epidemiology officer at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.: “I would have hoped to see it delayed.”

Answer: Steven Newmark, JD, chief legal officer and director of policy at the Global Healthy Living Foundation: “While we understand that an emergency cannot last forever, we hope that expanded services such as free vaccination, promotion of widespread vaccination, increased use of pharmacists to administer vaccines, telehealth availability and reimbursement, flexibility in work-from-home opportunities, and more continues. Access to equitable health care should never backtrack or be reduced.”

Q: What will the end of free COVID vaccinations and free testing mean? 

A: Dr. Farber: “There will likely be a decrease in vaccinations and testing. The vaccination rates are very low to begin with, and this will likely lower it further.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “I think it will mean that fewer people will get tested and vaccinated,” which “could lead to increased transmission, although wastewater testing suggests that there is a lot of unrecognized infection already occurring.” 

A: Dr. Benjamin: “That is a big concern. It means that for people, particularly for people who are uninsured and underinsured, we’ve got to make sure they have access to those. There’s a lot of discussion and debate about what the cost of those tests and vaccines will be, and it looks like the companies are going to impose very steep, increasing costs.”

Q: How will this affect higher-risk populations, like people with weakened immune systems? 

A: Dr. Farber: “Without monoclonals [drugs to treat COVID] and free Paxlovid,” people with weakened immune systems “may be undertreated.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “The implications of ongoing widespread virus transmission are that immunocompromised individuals may be more likely to be exposed and infected and to suffer the consequences of such infection, including severe illness. However, to a certain degree, this may already be happening. We are still seeing about 500 deaths/day, primarily in persons at highest risk of severe disease.”

A: Dr. Benjamin:  “People who have good insurance, can afford to get immunized, and have good relations with practitioners probably will continue to be covered. But lower-income individuals and people who really can’t afford to get tested or get immunized would likely become underimmunized and more infected. 

“So even though the federal emergency declaration will go away, I’m hoping that the federal government will continue to encourage all of us to emphasize those populations at the highest risk – those with chronic disease and those who are immunocompromised.”

A: Mr. Newmark: “People who are immunocompromised by their chronic illness or the medicines they take to treat acute or chronic conditions remain at higher risk for COVID-19 and its serious complications. The administration needs to support continued development of effective treatments and updated vaccines to protect the individual and public health. We’re also concerned that increased health care services - such as vaccination or telehealth – may fall back to prepandemic levels while the burden of protection, such as masking, may fall to chronic disease patients alone, which adds to the burden of living with disease.”

Q: What effect will ending Medicaid expansion money have? 

A: Dr. Benjamin: Anywhere from 16 to 20 million people are going to lose in coverage. I’m hoping that states will look at their experience over these last 2 years or so and come to the decision that there were improvements in healthier populations.

Q: Will this have any effect on how the public perceives the pandemic? 

A: Dr. Farber: “It is likely to give the impression that COVID is gone, which clearly is not the case.”

A: Dr. Benjamin: “It’ll be another argument by some that the pandemic is over. People should think about this as kind of like a hurricane. A hurricane comes through and tragically tears up communities, and we have an emergency during that time. But then we have to go through a period of recovery. I’m hoping people will realize that even though the public health emergencies have gone away, that we still need to go through a period of transition ... and that means that they still need to protect themselves, get vaccinated, and wear a mask when appropriate.”

A: Dr. Atmar: “There needs to be messaging that while we are transitioning away from emergency management of COVID-19, it is still a significant public health concern.”

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

Cardiovascular-related deaths increased dramatically in 2020, marking the largest single-year increase since 2015 and surpassing the previous record from 2003, according to the American Heart Association’s 2023 Statistical Update.

During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increases in cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths were seen among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people.

“We thought we had been improving as a country with respect to CVD deaths over the past few decades,” Connie Tsao, MD, chair of the AHA Statistical Update writing committee, told this news organization.

Since 2020, however, those trends have changed. Dr. Tsao, a staff cardiologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, noted the firsthand experience that many clinicians had in seeing the shift.

“We observed this sharp rise in age-adjusted CVD deaths, which corresponds to the COVID-19 pandemic,” she said. “Those of us health care providers knew from the overfull hospitals and ICUs that clearly COVID took a toll, particularly in those with cardiovascular risk factors.”

The AHA Statistical Update was published online in the journal Circulation.
 

Data on deaths

Each year, the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health report the latest statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular risk factors. The 2023 update includes additional information about pandemic-related data.

Overall, the number of people who died from cardiovascular disease increased during the first year of the pandemic, rising from 876,613 in 2019 to 928,741 in 2020. This topped the previous high of 910,000 in 2003.

In addition, the age-adjusted mortality rate increased for the first time in several years, Dr. Tsao said, by a “fairly substantial” 4.6%. The age-adjusted mortality rate incorporates the variability in the aging population from year to year, accounting for higher death rates among older people.

“Even though our total number of deaths has been slowly increasing over the past decade, we have seen a decline each year in our age-adjusted rates – until 2020,” she said. “I think that is very indicative of what has been going on within our country – and the world – in light of people of all ages being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially before vaccines were available to slow the spread.”

The largest increases in CVD-related deaths occurred among Asian, Black, and Hispanic people, who were most heavily affected during the first year of the pandemic.

“People from communities of color were among those most highly impacted, especially early on, often due to a disproportionate burden of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension and obesity,” Michelle Albert, MD, MPH, president of AHA and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, said in a statement.

Dr. Albert, who is also the director of UCSF’s Center for the Study of Adversity and Cardiovascular Disease, does research on health equity and noted the disparities seen in the 2020 numbers. “Additionally, there are socioeconomic considerations, as well as the ongoing impact of structural racism on multiple factors, including limiting the ability to access quality health care,” she said.
 

Additional considerations

In a special commentary, the Statistical Update writing committee pointed to the need to track data for other underrepresented communities, including LGBTQ people and those living in rural or urban areas. The authors outlined several ways to better understand the effects of identity and social determinants of health, as well as strategies to reduce cardiovascular-related disparities.

“This year’s writing group made a concerted effort to gather information on specific social factors related to health risk and outcomes, including sexual orientation, gender identity, urbanization, and socioeconomic position,” Dr. Tsao said. “However, the data are lacking because these communities are grossly underrepresented in clinical and epidemiological research.”

For the next several years, the AHA Statistical Update will likely include more insights about the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as ongoing disparities.

“For sure, we will be continuing to see the effects of the pandemic for years to come,” Dr. Tsao said. “Recognition of the disparities in outcomes among vulnerable groups should be a call to action among health care providers and researchers, administration, and policy leaders to investigate the reasons and make changes to reverse these trends.”

The statistical update was prepared by a volunteer writing group on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee.

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

AURORA, COLO. – A combination of two over-the-counter herbal extracts – curcumin and qing dai – induced remissions in a significant proportion of patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a small placebo-controlled trial.

Among 42 patients randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either an enteric-coated pill containing 3 g of curcumin and qing-dai (CurQD) or placebo for 8 weeks, 43% of those assigned to receive the combination met the co-primary endpoint of a significant reduction in disease activity and objective evidence of response, compared with 8% of those assigned to placebo, reported Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv, Israel, and colleagues.

“In this randomized multicenter placebo-controlled trial, combination CurQD was found effective for inducing remission in active UC patients, including biologic-experienced patients,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
 

Nice spice

Curcumin is a polyphenolic compound derived from the spice turmeric that has been shown to have antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties. Qing-dai (QD), also known as indigo naturalis, has been used in traditional Chinese medicine as an anti-inflammatory. Both agents are available over the counter in the United States, and have been on the market in Israel as a combination since 2016, said coauthor Nir Salomon, a certified herbalist at Sheba Medical Center.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“What we have here is a combination of these two compounds that are specifically sourced – the gut-directed curcumin, which we developed, and the specifically-sourced QD, and we use them in a specific protocol with a formulation suitable for moderate to severe disease,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Salomon and colleagues in Israel and in Athens, Greece, tested CurQD in a two-part trial. The first part was a 4-week open-label study of CurQD in 10 patients with active UC defined by a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) score of 5 or greater and a modified Mayo endoscopic subscore of 2 or greater.

Part 2 was the placebo-controlled trial described before, with 42 patients with active UC. For 49% of these patients immunomodulatory and/or biologic therapies had failed to induce or maintain remissions.

A total of 43% of patients assigned to CurQD met the primary combined endpoint of a reduction in SCCAI of at least 3 points and objective evidence of response, consisting of either a Mayo endoscopic subscore improvement of 1 or greater, or at least 50% reduction in calprotectin.

In all, 85.7% of patients assigned to CurQD had a clinical response, compared with 30.7% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).

In addition, 75% of patients on CurQD had endoscopic improvement, compared with 20% on placebo (P = .036), and more patients on the combined supplement had at least 50% reductions in calprotectin levels (46.4% vs. 15.4%, respectively), although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Patients randomized to CurQD had significantly better resolution of rectal bleeding by day 12 (P value not shown).

Eight additional weeks of maintenance on curcumin alone resulted in 93% retention at week 16 of clinical response, 80% retention of remissions, and 40% maintenance of clinical biomarker responses.

CurQD, but not placebo, was associated with activation of the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) pathway. AhR is a nuclear receptor that has been implicated as a mediator of inflammatory bowel disease.

“Induction of AhR merits further study as [a] potential treatment target in active UC,” the investigators wrote.
 

Small molecule

“This is a very promising and nicely conducted trial. Previously there are separate trials both determining potential mechanisms of action as well as efficacy of curcumin and Qing Dai separately in this population. This is a nice study that uses the combination in patients with mild to moderate UC,” said Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterology physician and researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“Immunosuppressive treatments are very effective in our patients with IBD but there remains concern (particularly for patients) about the consequences of immunosuppression including risk of treatment associated cancer. Thus, there is a lot of interest in rigorous studies of nonimmunosuppressive treatments that may still be effective in relieving objective inflammation (apart from just symptomatic improvement). This study provides a nice evidence base for that. There remain multiple limitations including small sample size, potential generalizability to other populations, and importantly whether the efficacy is driven by curcumin or Qing Dai,” he said in reply to a request for independent commentary.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan was not involved in the study.

“This is great work! We are also studying Qing Dai/indigo naturalis and have developed a single small molecule that works similarly to this therapy,” Matt Davidson, PhD, of Azora Therapeutics in Encino, Calif., said in an online chat section of the meeting website.

In a separate scientific poster presented at the meeting, Dr. Davidson and Julie Saiki, PhD, also from Azora, reported that their company is developing a novel synthetic small molecule prodrug of indirubin, an AhR agonist derived from indigo that is purported to maximize colonic exposure while minimizing systemic exposure.

In mouse models of colitis, oral administration of the prodrug significantly reduced Disease Activity Index and weight loss similar in magnitude to the active compound indirubin, they reported.

The study was supported by Sheba Medical Center. Mr. Salomon disclosed speaking fees from various companies and has received consulting fees and has an equity position in EvNature, the manufacturer of CurQD. Dr. Ananthakrishnan reported having no disclosures relative to the study. Dr. Davidson is CEO and cofounder of Avora Therapeutics.

AURORA, COLO. – A combination of two over-the-counter herbal extracts – curcumin and qing dai – induced remissions in a significant proportion of patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a small placebo-controlled trial.

Among 42 patients randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either an enteric-coated pill containing 3 g of curcumin and qing-dai (CurQD) or placebo for 8 weeks, 43% of those assigned to receive the combination met the co-primary endpoint of a significant reduction in disease activity and objective evidence of response, compared with 8% of those assigned to placebo, reported Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv, Israel, and colleagues.

“In this randomized multicenter placebo-controlled trial, combination CurQD was found effective for inducing remission in active UC patients, including biologic-experienced patients,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
 

Nice spice

Curcumin is a polyphenolic compound derived from the spice turmeric that has been shown to have antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties. Qing-dai (QD), also known as indigo naturalis, has been used in traditional Chinese medicine as an anti-inflammatory. Both agents are available over the counter in the United States, and have been on the market in Israel as a combination since 2016, said coauthor Nir Salomon, a certified herbalist at Sheba Medical Center.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“What we have here is a combination of these two compounds that are specifically sourced – the gut-directed curcumin, which we developed, and the specifically-sourced QD, and we use them in a specific protocol with a formulation suitable for moderate to severe disease,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Salomon and colleagues in Israel and in Athens, Greece, tested CurQD in a two-part trial. The first part was a 4-week open-label study of CurQD in 10 patients with active UC defined by a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) score of 5 or greater and a modified Mayo endoscopic subscore of 2 or greater.

Part 2 was the placebo-controlled trial described before, with 42 patients with active UC. For 49% of these patients immunomodulatory and/or biologic therapies had failed to induce or maintain remissions.

A total of 43% of patients assigned to CurQD met the primary combined endpoint of a reduction in SCCAI of at least 3 points and objective evidence of response, consisting of either a Mayo endoscopic subscore improvement of 1 or greater, or at least 50% reduction in calprotectin.

In all, 85.7% of patients assigned to CurQD had a clinical response, compared with 30.7% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).

In addition, 75% of patients on CurQD had endoscopic improvement, compared with 20% on placebo (P = .036), and more patients on the combined supplement had at least 50% reductions in calprotectin levels (46.4% vs. 15.4%, respectively), although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Patients randomized to CurQD had significantly better resolution of rectal bleeding by day 12 (P value not shown).

Eight additional weeks of maintenance on curcumin alone resulted in 93% retention at week 16 of clinical response, 80% retention of remissions, and 40% maintenance of clinical biomarker responses.

CurQD, but not placebo, was associated with activation of the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) pathway. AhR is a nuclear receptor that has been implicated as a mediator of inflammatory bowel disease.

“Induction of AhR merits further study as [a] potential treatment target in active UC,” the investigators wrote.
 

Small molecule

“This is a very promising and nicely conducted trial. Previously there are separate trials both determining potential mechanisms of action as well as efficacy of curcumin and Qing Dai separately in this population. This is a nice study that uses the combination in patients with mild to moderate UC,” said Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterology physician and researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“Immunosuppressive treatments are very effective in our patients with IBD but there remains concern (particularly for patients) about the consequences of immunosuppression including risk of treatment associated cancer. Thus, there is a lot of interest in rigorous studies of nonimmunosuppressive treatments that may still be effective in relieving objective inflammation (apart from just symptomatic improvement). This study provides a nice evidence base for that. There remain multiple limitations including small sample size, potential generalizability to other populations, and importantly whether the efficacy is driven by curcumin or Qing Dai,” he said in reply to a request for independent commentary.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan was not involved in the study.

“This is great work! We are also studying Qing Dai/indigo naturalis and have developed a single small molecule that works similarly to this therapy,” Matt Davidson, PhD, of Azora Therapeutics in Encino, Calif., said in an online chat section of the meeting website.

In a separate scientific poster presented at the meeting, Dr. Davidson and Julie Saiki, PhD, also from Azora, reported that their company is developing a novel synthetic small molecule prodrug of indirubin, an AhR agonist derived from indigo that is purported to maximize colonic exposure while minimizing systemic exposure.

In mouse models of colitis, oral administration of the prodrug significantly reduced Disease Activity Index and weight loss similar in magnitude to the active compound indirubin, they reported.

The study was supported by Sheba Medical Center. Mr. Salomon disclosed speaking fees from various companies and has received consulting fees and has an equity position in EvNature, the manufacturer of CurQD. Dr. Ananthakrishnan reported having no disclosures relative to the study. Dr. Davidson is CEO and cofounder of Avora Therapeutics.

AURORA, COLO. – A combination of two over-the-counter herbal extracts – curcumin and qing dai – induced remissions in a significant proportion of patients with active ulcerative colitis (UC) in a small placebo-controlled trial.

Among 42 patients randomized on a 2:1 basis to receive either an enteric-coated pill containing 3 g of curcumin and qing-dai (CurQD) or placebo for 8 weeks, 43% of those assigned to receive the combination met the co-primary endpoint of a significant reduction in disease activity and objective evidence of response, compared with 8% of those assigned to placebo, reported Shomron Ben-Horin, MD, of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv, Israel, and colleagues.

“In this randomized multicenter placebo-controlled trial, combination CurQD was found effective for inducing remission in active UC patients, including biologic-experienced patients,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.
 

Nice spice

Curcumin is a polyphenolic compound derived from the spice turmeric that has been shown to have antioxidative and anti-inflammatory properties. Qing-dai (QD), also known as indigo naturalis, has been used in traditional Chinese medicine as an anti-inflammatory. Both agents are available over the counter in the United States, and have been on the market in Israel as a combination since 2016, said coauthor Nir Salomon, a certified herbalist at Sheba Medical Center.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“What we have here is a combination of these two compounds that are specifically sourced – the gut-directed curcumin, which we developed, and the specifically-sourced QD, and we use them in a specific protocol with a formulation suitable for moderate to severe disease,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Salomon and colleagues in Israel and in Athens, Greece, tested CurQD in a two-part trial. The first part was a 4-week open-label study of CurQD in 10 patients with active UC defined by a Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) score of 5 or greater and a modified Mayo endoscopic subscore of 2 or greater.

Part 2 was the placebo-controlled trial described before, with 42 patients with active UC. For 49% of these patients immunomodulatory and/or biologic therapies had failed to induce or maintain remissions.

A total of 43% of patients assigned to CurQD met the primary combined endpoint of a reduction in SCCAI of at least 3 points and objective evidence of response, consisting of either a Mayo endoscopic subscore improvement of 1 or greater, or at least 50% reduction in calprotectin.

In all, 85.7% of patients assigned to CurQD had a clinical response, compared with 30.7% of those assigned to placebo (P < .001).

In addition, 75% of patients on CurQD had endoscopic improvement, compared with 20% on placebo (P = .036), and more patients on the combined supplement had at least 50% reductions in calprotectin levels (46.4% vs. 15.4%, respectively), although the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Patients randomized to CurQD had significantly better resolution of rectal bleeding by day 12 (P value not shown).

Eight additional weeks of maintenance on curcumin alone resulted in 93% retention at week 16 of clinical response, 80% retention of remissions, and 40% maintenance of clinical biomarker responses.

CurQD, but not placebo, was associated with activation of the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) pathway. AhR is a nuclear receptor that has been implicated as a mediator of inflammatory bowel disease.

“Induction of AhR merits further study as [a] potential treatment target in active UC,” the investigators wrote.
 

Small molecule

“This is a very promising and nicely conducted trial. Previously there are separate trials both determining potential mechanisms of action as well as efficacy of curcumin and Qing Dai separately in this population. This is a nice study that uses the combination in patients with mild to moderate UC,” said Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan, MBBS, MPH, a gastroenterology physician and researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“Immunosuppressive treatments are very effective in our patients with IBD but there remains concern (particularly for patients) about the consequences of immunosuppression including risk of treatment associated cancer. Thus, there is a lot of interest in rigorous studies of nonimmunosuppressive treatments that may still be effective in relieving objective inflammation (apart from just symptomatic improvement). This study provides a nice evidence base for that. There remain multiple limitations including small sample size, potential generalizability to other populations, and importantly whether the efficacy is driven by curcumin or Qing Dai,” he said in reply to a request for independent commentary.

Dr. Ananthakrishnan was not involved in the study.

“This is great work! We are also studying Qing Dai/indigo naturalis and have developed a single small molecule that works similarly to this therapy,” Matt Davidson, PhD, of Azora Therapeutics in Encino, Calif., said in an online chat section of the meeting website.

In a separate scientific poster presented at the meeting, Dr. Davidson and Julie Saiki, PhD, also from Azora, reported that their company is developing a novel synthetic small molecule prodrug of indirubin, an AhR agonist derived from indigo that is purported to maximize colonic exposure while minimizing systemic exposure.

In mouse models of colitis, oral administration of the prodrug significantly reduced Disease Activity Index and weight loss similar in magnitude to the active compound indirubin, they reported.

The study was supported by Sheba Medical Center. Mr. Salomon disclosed speaking fees from various companies and has received consulting fees and has an equity position in EvNature, the manufacturer of CurQD. Dr. Ananthakrishnan reported having no disclosures relative to the study. Dr. Davidson is CEO and cofounder of Avora Therapeutics.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A 12-month program of moderate to vigorous exercise reduced the risk of type 2 diabetes by approximately 50% in adults with obesity over 10 years, according to a new analysis of a study.

“Physical exercise combined with diet restriction has been proven to be effective in prevention of diabetes. However, the long-term effect of exercise on prevention of diabetes, and the difference of exercise intensity in prevention of diabetes have not been well studied,” said corresponding author Xiaoying Li, MD, of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, in an interview.

In the research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Li and colleagues analyzed the results of a study of 220 adults with central obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, but no incident diabetes, randomized to a 12-month program of vigorous exercise (73 patients), moderate aerobic exercise (73 patients) or no exercise (74 patients).

A total of 208 participants completed the 1-year intervention; of these, 195 and 178 remained to provide data at 2 years and 10 years, respectively. The mean age of the participants was 53.9 years, 32.3% were male, and the mean waist circumference was 96.1 cm at baseline.

The cumulative incidence of type 2 diabetes in the vigorous exercise, moderate exercise, and nonexercise groups was 2.1 per 100 person-years 1.9 per 100 person-years, and 4.1 per 100 person-years, respectively, over the 10-year follow-up period. This translated to a reduction in type 2 diabetes risk of 49% in the vigorous exercise group and 53% in the moderate exercise group compared with the nonexercise group.

In addition, individuals in the vigorous and moderate exercise groups significantly reduced their HbA1c and waist circumference compared with the nonexercisers. Levels of plasma fasting glucose and weight regain were lower in both exercise groups compared with nonexercisers, but these differences were not significant.

The exercise intervention was described in a 2016 study, which was also published in JAMA Internal Medicine. That study’s purpose was to compare the effects of exercise on patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Participants were coached and supervised for their exercise programs. The program for the vigorous group involved jogging for 150 minutes per week at 65%-80% of maximum heart rate for 6 months and brisk walking 150 minutes per week at 45%-55% of maximum heart rate for another 6 months. The program for the moderate exercise group involved brisk walking 150 minutes per week for 12 months.

Both exercise groups showed a trend towards higher levels of leisure time physical activity after 10 years compared with the nonexercise groups, although the difference was not significant.

The main limitation of the study was that incident prediabetes was not prespecified, which may have led to some confounding, the researchers noted. In addition, the participants were highly supervised for a 12-month program only. However, the results support the long-term value of physical exercise as a method of obesity management and to delay progression to type 2 diabetes in obese individuals, they said. Vigorous and moderate aerobic exercise programs could be implemented for this patient population, they concluded.

“Surprisingly, our findings demonstrated that a 12-month vigorous aerobic exercise or moderate aerobic exercise could significantly reduce the risk of incident diabetes by 50% over the 10-year follow-up,” Dr. Li said in an interview. The results suggest that physical exercise for some period of time can produce a long-term beneficial effect in prevention of type 2 diabetes, he said.

Potential barriers to the routine use of an exercise intervention in patients with obesity include the unwillingness of this population to engage in vigorous exercise, and the potential for musculoskeletal injury, said Dr. Li. In these cases, obese patients should be encouraged to pursue moderate exercise, Dr. Li said.

Looking ahead, more research is needed to examine the potential mechanism behind the effect of exercise on diabetes prevention, said Dr. Li.

Findings fill gap in long-term outcome data

The current study is important because of the long-term follow-up data, said Jill Kanaley, PhD, professor and interim chair of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri, in an interview. “We seldom follow up on our training studies, thus it is important to see if there is any long-term impact of these interventions,” she said.

Dr. Kanaley said she was surprised to see the residual benefits of the exercise intervention 10 years later.

“We often wonder how long the impact of the exercise training will stay with someone so that they continue to exercise and watch their weight; this study seems to indicate that there is an educational component that stays with them,” she said.

The main clinical takeaway from the current study was the minimal weight gain over time, Dr. Kanaley said.

Although time may be a barrier to the routine use of an exercise intervention, patients have to realize that they can usually find the time, especially given the multiple benefits, said Dr. Kanaley. “The exercise interventions provide more benefits than just weight control and glucose levels,” she said.

“The 30-60 minutes of exercise does not have to come all at the same time,” Dr. Kanaley noted. “It could be three 15-minute bouts of exercise/physical activity to get their 45 minutes in,” she noted. Exercise does not have to be heavy vigorous exercise, even walking is beneficial, she said. For people who complain of boredom with an exercise routine, Dr. Kanaley encourages mixing it up, with activities such as different exercise classes, running, or walking on a different day of any given week.

Although the current study was conducted in China, the findings may translate to a U.S. population, Dr. Kanaley said in an interview. However, “frequently our Western diet is less healthy than the traditional Chinese diet. This may have provided an immeasurable benefit to these subjects,” although study participants did not make specific adjustments to their diets, she said.  

Additional research is needed to confirm the findings, said Dr. Kanaley. “Ideally, the study should be repeated in a population with a Western diet,” she noted.

Next steps for research include maintenance of activity

Evidence on the long-term benefits of exercise programs is limited, said Amanda Paluch, PhD, a physical activity epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in an interview.

“Chronic diseases such as diabetes can take years to develop, so understanding these important health outcomes requires years of follow-up. This study followed their study participants for 10 years, which gives us a nice glimpse of the long-term benefits of exercise training on diabetes prevention,” she said.

Data from previous observational studies of individuals’ current activity levels (without an intervention) suggest that adults who are more physically active have a lower risk of diabetes over time, said Dr. Paluch. However, the current study is one of the few with rigorous exercise interventions with extensive follow-up on diabetes risk, and it provides important evidence that a 12-month structured exercise program in inactive adults with obesity can result in meaningful long-term health benefits by lowering the risk of diabetes, she said.

“The individuals in the current study participated in a structured exercise program where their exercise sessions were supervised and coached,” Dr. Paluch noted. “Having a personalized coach may not be within the budget or time constraints for many people,” she said. Her message to clinicians for their patients: “When looking to start an exercise routine, identify an activity you enjoy and find feasible to fit into your existing life and schedule,” she said.

“Although this study was conducted in China, the results are meaningful for the U.S. population, as we would expect the physiological benefit of exercise to be consistent across various populations,” Dr. Paluch said. “However, there are certainly differences across countries at the individual level to the larger community-wide level that may influence a person’s ability to maintain physical activity and prevent diabetes, so replicating similar studies in other countries, including the U.S., would be of value.” 

“Additionally, we need more research on how to encourage maintenance of physical activity in the long-term, after the initial exercise program is over,” she said.

“From this current study, we cannot tease out whether diabetes risk is reduced because of the 12-month exercise intervention or the benefit is from maintaining physical activity regularly over the 10 years of follow-up, or a combination of the two,” said Dr. Paluch. Future studies should consider teasing out participants who were only active during the exercise intervention, then ceased being active vs. participants who continued with vigorous activity long-term, she said.

The study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation, the National Key Research and Development Program of China, and the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project. The researchers, Dr. Kanaley, and Dr. Paluch had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.

For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.

In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.

Reversal of short-term cartilage changes

However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.

“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.

For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.

“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.

Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis

The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.

Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.

Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”

Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.

“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.

Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.

An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.

It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.

Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’

“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”

Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
 

Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.

For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.

In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.

Reversal of short-term cartilage changes

However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.

“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.

For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.

“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.

Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis

The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.

Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.

Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”

Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.

“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.

Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.

An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.

It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.

Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’

“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”

Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
 

Running does not appear to cause sustained wear and tear of healthy knee cartilage, with research suggesting that the small, short-term changes to cartilage after a run reverse within hours.

A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the most recent issue of Osteoarthritis and Cartilage presents the findings involving 396 adults, which compared the “before” and “after” state of healthy knee cartilage in runners.

pojoslaw/Thinkstock

Running is often thought to be detrimental to joint health, wrote Sally Coburn, PhD candidate at the La Trobe Sport & Exercise Medicine Research Centre at La Trobe University in Melbourne and coauthors, but this perception is not supported by evidence.

For the analysis, the researchers included studies that looked at either knee or hip cartilage using MRI to assess its size, shape, structure, and/or composition both in the 48 hours before a single bout of running and in the 48 hours after. The analysis aimed to include adults with or at risk of osteoarthritis, but only 57 of the 446 knees in the analysis fit these criteria.

In studies where participants underwent MRI within 20 minutes of running, there was an immediate postrun decrease in the volume of cartilage, ranging from –3.3% for weight-bearing femoral cartilage to –4.1% for tibial cartilage volume. This also revealed a decrease in T1 and T2 relaxation times, which are specialized MRI measures that reflect the composition of cartilage and which can indicate a breakdown of cartilage structure in the case of diseases such as arthritis.

Reversal of short-term cartilage changes

However, within 48 hours of the run, data from studies that repeated the MRIs more than once after the initial prerun scan suggested these changes reversed back to prerun levels.

“We were able to pool delayed T2 relaxation time measures from studies that repeated scans of the same participants 60 minutes and 91 minutes post-run and found no effect of running on tibiofemoral joint cartilage composition,” the authors write.

For example, one study in marathon runners found no difference in cartilage thickness in the tibiofemoral joint between baseline and at 2-10 hours and 12 hours after the marathon. Another showed the immediate post-run decrease in patellofemoral joint cartilage thickness had reverted back to prerun levels when the scan was repeated 24 hours after the run.

“The changes are very minimal and not inconsistent with what’s expected for your cartilage which is functioning normally,” Ms. Coburn told this news organization.

Sparse data in people with osteoarthritis

The authors said there were not enough data from individuals with osteoarthritis to be able to pool and quantify their cartilage changes. However, one study in the analysis found that cartilage lesions in people considered at risk of osteoarthritis because of prior anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were unchanged after running.

Another suggested that the decrease in femoral cartilage volume recorded at 15 minutes persisted at 45 minutes, while a separate study found significantly increased T2 relaxation times at 45 minutes after a run in those with knee osteoarthritis but not in those without osteoarthritis.

Senior author Adam Culvenor, PhD, senior research fellow at the La Trobe Centre, said their analysis suggested running was healthy, with small changes in cartilage that resolve quickly, but “we really don’t know yet if running is safe for people with osteoarthritis,” he said. “We need much more work in that space.”

Overall, the study evidence was rated as being of low certainty, which Dr. Coburn said was related to the small numbers in each study, which in turn relates to the cost and logistical challenges of the specialized MRI scan used.

“Study of a repeated exposure over a long duration of time on a disease that has a long natural history, like osteoarthritis, is challenging in that most funding agencies will not fund studies longer than 5 years,” Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, of the department of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an email.

Dr. Lo, who was not involved with this review and meta-analysis, said there are still concerns about the effect of running on knee osteoarthritis among those with the disease, although there are some data to suggest that among those who self-select to run, there are no negative outcomes for the knee.

An accompanying editorial noted that research into the effect of running on those with osteoarthritis was still in its infancy. “This would help to guide clinical practice on how to support people with osteoarthritis, with regard to accessing the health benefits of running participation,” write Jean-Francois Esculier, PT, PhD, from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and Christian Barton, PhD, with the La Trobe Centre, pointing out there were a lack of evidence-based clinical recommendations for people with osteoarthritis who want to start or continue running.

It’s a question that PhD candidate Michaela Khan, MSc, is trying to answer at the University of British Columbia. “Our lab did a pilot study for my current study now, and they found that osteoarthritic cartilage took a little bit longer to recover than their healthy counterparts,” Ms. Khan said. Her research is suggesting that people with osteoarthritis not only can run, but even those with severe disease, who might be candidates for knee replacement, can run long distances.

Commenting on the analysis, Ms. Khan said the main take-home message was that healthy cartilage seems to recover after running, and that there is not an ongoing effect of ‘wear and tear.’

“That’s changing the narrative that if you keep running, it will wear away your cartilage, it’ll hurt your knees,” she said. “Now, we have a good synthesis of scientific evidence to prove maybe otherwise.”

Ms. Coburn and Dr. Culvenor report grant support from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, and another author reports grant support from the U.S. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The authors, as well as Dr. Lo and Ms. Khan, report relevant financial relationships.
 

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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

Misinformation regarding COVID-19 has been cited as a public health threat since the beginning of the worldwide pandemic. Doctors and professional organizations are standing guard, hoping to protect patients from any harm that results from mistruths spread by colleagues.

Case in point: Several physicians and the American Board of Pathology filed complaints with Washington and Idaho medical boards alleging that Ryan Cole, MD, a board-certified pathologist who practices in Boise, Idaho, but who also holds a license in Washington, has spread antivaccine and pro-ivermectin statements on social media. Dr. Cole is one of the founders of America’s Frontline Doctors, a right-wing political organization. Dr. Cole did not respond to a request for comment.

Gary W. Procop, MD, CEO, American Board of Pathology, told this news organization that “as physicians and board-certified pathologists, we have a public trust, and we must be accountable to patients, society, and the profession. Misinformation can cause real harm to patients, which may include death. Misinformation diverts patients away from lifesaving vaccination and other preventive measures, promotes viral transmission, and recommends ineffective therapies that may be toxic instead of evidence-based medical care.”
 

Cavalcade of complaints

Several doctors also chimed in with formal complaints alleging that Cole is spreading unreliable information, according to a report from KTVB News. For example, a Boise doctor wrote in his complaint that Dr. Cole is “a major purveyor of misinformation” and called it “amazing” that the physician was continuing to publicly support debunked information about COVID-19 more than a year into the pandemic. The doctor also stated, “Cole is a health menace, abusing his status as a physician to mislead the public.”

As a result of such complaints, the Washington medical board has charged Cole with COVID-19–related violations. It is unclear whether or not the Idaho medical board will sanction the doctor. At least 12 medical boards have sanctioned doctors for similar violations since the start of the pandemic.

The statement of charges from the Washington medical board contends that since March 2021, Dr. Cole has made numerous misleading statements regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines, the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19, and the effectiveness of masks.

In addition, the statement alleges that Dr. Cole treated several COVID-19 patients via telemedicine. During these sessions, he prescribed ivermectin, an antiparasite drug that has not been found to have any effectiveness in treating, curing, or preventing COVID-19. One of the patients died after receiving this treatment, according to the complaint.

Citing a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Procop pointed out that use of ivermectin, which is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat COVID-19, is particularly troubling.

“There is a concern whenever an ineffective treatment is prescribed when more effective and scientifically proven therapies are available. Therapeutics have potential side effects, and toxicities have been associated with the use of ivermectin,” Dr. Procop said. “The benefits of therapy should always outweigh the risks of treatment.”

If the Washington medical board finds that Dr. Cole has engaged in unprofessional conduct, possible sanctions include revocation or suspension of his license. Washington state law also provides for a range of other possible sanctions, including restriction or limitation of his practice, requiring that he complete a specific program of remedial education or treatment, monitoring of his practice, censure or reprimand, probation, a fine of up to $5,000 for each violation, or refunding fees that his practice has billed to and collected from patients. Dr. Cole had until January 30 to respond to the medical board’s statement.

“The American Board of Pathology supports the actions of the Washington State Medical Board regarding their inquiries into any physician that holds license in their state who makes false and misleading medical claims, or provides medical care beyond their scope of practice, as indicated by their training,” Dr. Procop said.
 

Law in limbo

While medical boards are seeking to sanction professionals who spread falsehoods, the pause button has been hit on the California law that allows regulators to punish doctors for spreading false information about COVID-19 vaccinations and treatments.

The law went into effect Jan. 1 but was temporarily halted when U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of California granted a preliminary injunction against the law on Jan. 25, according to a report in the Sacramento Bee.

Mr. Shubb said the measure’s definition of “misinformation” was “unconstitutionally vague” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. He also criticized the law’s definition of “misinformation” as being “grammatically incoherent.”

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