Infectious Disease Practitioner

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlash and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlash and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlash and criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study details

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new analysis finds that vonoprazan triple therapy (Voquezna) is the most cost-effective first-line regimen to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

Rifabutin triple therapy (Talicia) is the second most cost-effective strategy for H. pylori eradication, followed in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness by vonoprazan dual therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and clarithromycin triple therapy.

The analysis is believed to be the first to report on the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan- and rifabutin-based regimens as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection from the perspective of U.S. health care payers.

The findings “strongly” suggest that vonoprazan triple therapy would provide the greatest net health benefit and monetary benefit for U.S. payers, reported Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy in Columbia, and colleagues.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

It’s estimated that more than 114 million people in the United States have H. pylori infection. Clinical practice guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in all patients with a positive test of active infection.

Using a Markov model, Dr. Yunusa and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of five prepackaged or co-formulated H. pylori eradication regimens: clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, vonoprazan dual therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy, and rifabutin triple therapy.

The model estimated the expected costs in 2022 U.S. dollars, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), and expected net monetary benefit over 20 years.

Among their key findings and conclusions:

• Bismuth quadruple therapy had the highest expected cost ($1,439) and rifabutin triple regimen had the lowest expected cost ($1,048).
• Because rifabutin triple therapy was predicted to cost less and was more effective than clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and vonoprazan dual therapy, it dominated all treatment strategies – except for vonoprazan triple therapy.
• Compared with rifabutin triple therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy had a higher expected cost ($1,172 vs. $1,048) and expected QALY (14.262 vs. 14.256), yielding an ICER of $22,573 per QALY. 
• Vonoprazan triple therapy had the highest expected net monetary benefit and was the most cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds between $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, followed by rifabutin triple therapy.
• Vonoprazan triple therapy would result on average in an incremental net benefit of $1,655 per patient than clarithromycin triple therapy.
• Because the rifabutin-based regimen was more cost-effective than all but vonoprazan triple therapy, it has a potential role as an alternative first-line treatment.
• Rifabutin triple therapy and vonoprazan dual therapy would need to be considerably discounted (by 15%-43% and by 44%-85%, respectively), to be cost-effective at commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.
• Vonoprazan dual therapy demonstrated limited value relative to other available options; thus, its widespread adoption as a first-line strategy seems unlikely.
• Based on the results, it would be hard to justify the use of bismuth quadruple therapy or clarithromycin triple therapy since they provide the lowest net monetary benefit and have lower eradication rates.

The investigators noted that their analysis considered only direct costs of therapy, not other costs such as appointments, travel, and time away from work.

They also assumed medical costs, including endoscopy and H. pylori testing, would not change regardless of treatment regimen. Therefore, total health care costs may be underestimated.

The study did not receive any funding. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis finds that vonoprazan triple therapy (Voquezna) is the most cost-effective first-line regimen to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

Rifabutin triple therapy (Talicia) is the second most cost-effective strategy for H. pylori eradication, followed in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness by vonoprazan dual therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and clarithromycin triple therapy.

The analysis is believed to be the first to report on the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan- and rifabutin-based regimens as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection from the perspective of U.S. health care payers.

The findings “strongly” suggest that vonoprazan triple therapy would provide the greatest net health benefit and monetary benefit for U.S. payers, reported Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy in Columbia, and colleagues.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

It’s estimated that more than 114 million people in the United States have H. pylori infection. Clinical practice guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in all patients with a positive test of active infection.

Using a Markov model, Dr. Yunusa and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of five prepackaged or co-formulated H. pylori eradication regimens: clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, vonoprazan dual therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy, and rifabutin triple therapy.

The model estimated the expected costs in 2022 U.S. dollars, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), and expected net monetary benefit over 20 years.

Among their key findings and conclusions:

• Bismuth quadruple therapy had the highest expected cost ($1,439) and rifabutin triple regimen had the lowest expected cost ($1,048).
• Because rifabutin triple therapy was predicted to cost less and was more effective than clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and vonoprazan dual therapy, it dominated all treatment strategies – except for vonoprazan triple therapy.
• Compared with rifabutin triple therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy had a higher expected cost ($1,172 vs. $1,048) and expected QALY (14.262 vs. 14.256), yielding an ICER of $22,573 per QALY. 
• Vonoprazan triple therapy had the highest expected net monetary benefit and was the most cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds between $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, followed by rifabutin triple therapy.
• Vonoprazan triple therapy would result on average in an incremental net benefit of $1,655 per patient than clarithromycin triple therapy.
• Because the rifabutin-based regimen was more cost-effective than all but vonoprazan triple therapy, it has a potential role as an alternative first-line treatment.
• Rifabutin triple therapy and vonoprazan dual therapy would need to be considerably discounted (by 15%-43% and by 44%-85%, respectively), to be cost-effective at commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.
• Vonoprazan dual therapy demonstrated limited value relative to other available options; thus, its widespread adoption as a first-line strategy seems unlikely.
• Based on the results, it would be hard to justify the use of bismuth quadruple therapy or clarithromycin triple therapy since they provide the lowest net monetary benefit and have lower eradication rates.

The investigators noted that their analysis considered only direct costs of therapy, not other costs such as appointments, travel, and time away from work.

They also assumed medical costs, including endoscopy and H. pylori testing, would not change regardless of treatment regimen. Therefore, total health care costs may be underestimated.

The study did not receive any funding. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new analysis finds that vonoprazan triple therapy (Voquezna) is the most cost-effective first-line regimen to eradicate Helicobacter pylori infection in the United States.

Rifabutin triple therapy (Talicia) is the second most cost-effective strategy for H. pylori eradication, followed in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness by vonoprazan dual therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and clarithromycin triple therapy.

The analysis is believed to be the first to report on the cost-effectiveness of vonoprazan- and rifabutin-based regimens as first-line treatments for H. pylori infection from the perspective of U.S. health care payers.

The findings “strongly” suggest that vonoprazan triple therapy would provide the greatest net health benefit and monetary benefit for U.S. payers, reported Ismaeel Yunusa, PharmD, PhD, of the University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy in Columbia, and colleagues.

The study was published online in the American Journal of Gastroenterology.

It’s estimated that more than 114 million people in the United States have H. pylori infection. Clinical practice guidelines recommend H. pylori eradication in all patients with a positive test of active infection.

Using a Markov model, Dr. Yunusa and colleagues estimated the cost-effectiveness of five prepackaged or co-formulated H. pylori eradication regimens: clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, vonoprazan dual therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy, and rifabutin triple therapy.

The model estimated the expected costs in 2022 U.S. dollars, expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), and expected net monetary benefit over 20 years.

Among their key findings and conclusions:

• Bismuth quadruple therapy had the highest expected cost ($1,439) and rifabutin triple regimen had the lowest expected cost ($1,048).
• Because rifabutin triple therapy was predicted to cost less and was more effective than clarithromycin triple therapy, bismuth quadruple therapy, and vonoprazan dual therapy, it dominated all treatment strategies – except for vonoprazan triple therapy.
• Compared with rifabutin triple therapy, vonoprazan triple therapy had a higher expected cost ($1,172 vs. $1,048) and expected QALY (14.262 vs. 14.256), yielding an ICER of $22,573 per QALY. 
• Vonoprazan triple therapy had the highest expected net monetary benefit and was the most cost-effective at willingness to pay thresholds between $50,000 and $150,000 per QALY, followed by rifabutin triple therapy.
• Vonoprazan triple therapy would result on average in an incremental net benefit of $1,655 per patient than clarithromycin triple therapy.
• Because the rifabutin-based regimen was more cost-effective than all but vonoprazan triple therapy, it has a potential role as an alternative first-line treatment.
• Rifabutin triple therapy and vonoprazan dual therapy would need to be considerably discounted (by 15%-43% and by 44%-85%, respectively), to be cost-effective at commonly used cost-effectiveness thresholds.
• Vonoprazan dual therapy demonstrated limited value relative to other available options; thus, its widespread adoption as a first-line strategy seems unlikely.
• Based on the results, it would be hard to justify the use of bismuth quadruple therapy or clarithromycin triple therapy since they provide the lowest net monetary benefit and have lower eradication rates.

The investigators noted that their analysis considered only direct costs of therapy, not other costs such as appointments, travel, and time away from work.

They also assumed medical costs, including endoscopy and H. pylori testing, would not change regardless of treatment regimen. Therefore, total health care costs may be underestimated.

The study did not receive any funding. The authors have declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Leave the mouthwash. Take the yogurt

Most of us have experienced some sort of bad breath. It’s common in the morning right after waking up, but it also may be a sign for underlying medical issues like dental problems or acid reflux. Wherever it comes from, we always want to get rid of it. A recent meta-analysis in BMJ Open may have found the answer in some common foods.

Mladenovic/iStock/Getty Images

For those with halitosis, the basic problem is that the bacteria in their mouths are not happy about where they are. The researchers looked at 130 studies and found seven that suggested fermented food has some effect in combating bad breath.

Now when we say fermented food, we’re not talking about that science project waiting to happen in the back of the refrigerator. Think yogurt, sourdough bread, or miso soup. Anything that contains probiotic bacteria.

Matthew J. Messina, DDS, assistant professor of dentistry at Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study, told Healthline that “the whole idea behind probiotics is [bacteria replacement]. Supplant the ‘bad guys’ with the ‘good guys,’ then we’ll end up with a better result.” Essentially balancing the scales in your mouth.

It may not be a long-term solution, Dr. Messina said, but the short-term data are positive. So if you experience bad breath from time to time, try a little bowl of yogurt instead of chewing gum. If nothing else, the bacteria in your mouth will thank you.

You can talk the silly talk, but can you walk the silly walk?

The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch from Monty Python is an enduring comedy classic, and one of surprising relevance for doctors. After all, this isn’t the first time a study has analyzed the unusual strides of Mr. Putey and Mr. Teabag.

The BMJ Christmas edition truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For this plunge into the Flying Circus, the study authors recruited a small group of fairly average adults and had them walk normally around a track for 5 minutes, monitoring their oxygen intake and energy expenditure. After that, the study participants imitated Mr. Putey’s walk and then Mr. Teabag’s.

Michael Blann/DigitalVision

In the sketch, Mr. Teabag notes that Mr. Putey’s walk is “not particularly silly,” which is borne out in the research. When imitating Mr. Putey’s walk, oxygen intake and energy expenditure were barely higher than a normal walk, not enough to achieve a meaningful difference. Hopefully he’ll get that government grant to further develop his silly walk, because right now Mr. Putey’s walk simply doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Teabag’s walk is a different story and the very image of inefficiency. Oxygen intake was 2.5 times higher than during the normal walk, and energy expenditure was noticeably higher (8 kcal in men and 5.2 kcal in women). In fact, the walk was so inefficient and its effect so drastic it actually reached the level of vigorous exercise. Thanks to this, the study authors noted that just 11 minutes a day of walking like Mr. Teabag would be enough to reach the general goal of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Boosting that to 12-19 minutes would increase daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal.

The study authors wrote, “Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy – and perhaps more joyful – walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.” We think they just advocated for a real-life Ministry of Silly Walks. Well, there have been worse ideas. Just look at Twitter.
 

When efficient gut microbes go bad

With the latest news from the Ministry of Silly Walks, is it time for humans to embrace all things inefficient? Maybe.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Turns out that individuals with more efficient digestive systems – those that extract more energy from the fuel supplied to them by the busy mouths above – tend to gain more weight than those with less efficient guts, even when they eat the same food, according to a recent study published in Microbiome.

The researchers took a look at the composition of gut microbes in a group of 85 volunteers and found that about 40% had microbiomes dominated by Bacteroides bacteria, which are more effective at extracting nutrients from food. That group also weighed 10% more on average, amounting to an extra 9 kg.

In a rather blatant demonstration of efficiency, the investigators also measured the speed of the participants’ digestion, as they had hypothesized that those with the longest digestive travel times would be the ones who harvested the most nutrition from their food. That was not the case.

The study subjects with the most efficient gut bacteria “also have the fastest passage through the gastrointestinal system, which has given us something to think about,” senior author Henrik Roager of the University of Copenhagen said in a written statement.

You know what gives us something to think about? Stool energy density and intestinal transit time and faecal bacterial cell counts, that’s what. Ick. Sometimes science is gross.

Here’s another thought, though: Seeing faecal instead of fecal is kind of funny to our American eyes, but adding that extra letter is also inefficient, which could mean that it’s good. So, in the spirit of embracing the inefficient as a new year begins, we’re resolving to wrap our editorial arms around faecal and the faeces it represents. Well, not literally, of course. More like we’re embracing the spirit of faeces.

Leave the mouthwash. Take the yogurt

Most of us have experienced some sort of bad breath. It’s common in the morning right after waking up, but it also may be a sign for underlying medical issues like dental problems or acid reflux. Wherever it comes from, we always want to get rid of it. A recent meta-analysis in BMJ Open may have found the answer in some common foods.

Mladenovic/iStock/Getty Images

For those with halitosis, the basic problem is that the bacteria in their mouths are not happy about where they are. The researchers looked at 130 studies and found seven that suggested fermented food has some effect in combating bad breath.

Now when we say fermented food, we’re not talking about that science project waiting to happen in the back of the refrigerator. Think yogurt, sourdough bread, or miso soup. Anything that contains probiotic bacteria.

Matthew J. Messina, DDS, assistant professor of dentistry at Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study, told Healthline that “the whole idea behind probiotics is [bacteria replacement]. Supplant the ‘bad guys’ with the ‘good guys,’ then we’ll end up with a better result.” Essentially balancing the scales in your mouth.

It may not be a long-term solution, Dr. Messina said, but the short-term data are positive. So if you experience bad breath from time to time, try a little bowl of yogurt instead of chewing gum. If nothing else, the bacteria in your mouth will thank you.

You can talk the silly talk, but can you walk the silly walk?

The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch from Monty Python is an enduring comedy classic, and one of surprising relevance for doctors. After all, this isn’t the first time a study has analyzed the unusual strides of Mr. Putey and Mr. Teabag.

The BMJ Christmas edition truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For this plunge into the Flying Circus, the study authors recruited a small group of fairly average adults and had them walk normally around a track for 5 minutes, monitoring their oxygen intake and energy expenditure. After that, the study participants imitated Mr. Putey’s walk and then Mr. Teabag’s.

Michael Blann/DigitalVision

In the sketch, Mr. Teabag notes that Mr. Putey’s walk is “not particularly silly,” which is borne out in the research. When imitating Mr. Putey’s walk, oxygen intake and energy expenditure were barely higher than a normal walk, not enough to achieve a meaningful difference. Hopefully he’ll get that government grant to further develop his silly walk, because right now Mr. Putey’s walk simply doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Teabag’s walk is a different story and the very image of inefficiency. Oxygen intake was 2.5 times higher than during the normal walk, and energy expenditure was noticeably higher (8 kcal in men and 5.2 kcal in women). In fact, the walk was so inefficient and its effect so drastic it actually reached the level of vigorous exercise. Thanks to this, the study authors noted that just 11 minutes a day of walking like Mr. Teabag would be enough to reach the general goal of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Boosting that to 12-19 minutes would increase daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal.

The study authors wrote, “Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy – and perhaps more joyful – walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.” We think they just advocated for a real-life Ministry of Silly Walks. Well, there have been worse ideas. Just look at Twitter.
 

When efficient gut microbes go bad

With the latest news from the Ministry of Silly Walks, is it time for humans to embrace all things inefficient? Maybe.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Turns out that individuals with more efficient digestive systems – those that extract more energy from the fuel supplied to them by the busy mouths above – tend to gain more weight than those with less efficient guts, even when they eat the same food, according to a recent study published in Microbiome.

The researchers took a look at the composition of gut microbes in a group of 85 volunteers and found that about 40% had microbiomes dominated by Bacteroides bacteria, which are more effective at extracting nutrients from food. That group also weighed 10% more on average, amounting to an extra 9 kg.

In a rather blatant demonstration of efficiency, the investigators also measured the speed of the participants’ digestion, as they had hypothesized that those with the longest digestive travel times would be the ones who harvested the most nutrition from their food. That was not the case.

The study subjects with the most efficient gut bacteria “also have the fastest passage through the gastrointestinal system, which has given us something to think about,” senior author Henrik Roager of the University of Copenhagen said in a written statement.

You know what gives us something to think about? Stool energy density and intestinal transit time and faecal bacterial cell counts, that’s what. Ick. Sometimes science is gross.

Here’s another thought, though: Seeing faecal instead of fecal is kind of funny to our American eyes, but adding that extra letter is also inefficient, which could mean that it’s good. So, in the spirit of embracing the inefficient as a new year begins, we’re resolving to wrap our editorial arms around faecal and the faeces it represents. Well, not literally, of course. More like we’re embracing the spirit of faeces.

Leave the mouthwash. Take the yogurt

Most of us have experienced some sort of bad breath. It’s common in the morning right after waking up, but it also may be a sign for underlying medical issues like dental problems or acid reflux. Wherever it comes from, we always want to get rid of it. A recent meta-analysis in BMJ Open may have found the answer in some common foods.

Mladenovic/iStock/Getty Images

For those with halitosis, the basic problem is that the bacteria in their mouths are not happy about where they are. The researchers looked at 130 studies and found seven that suggested fermented food has some effect in combating bad breath.

Now when we say fermented food, we’re not talking about that science project waiting to happen in the back of the refrigerator. Think yogurt, sourdough bread, or miso soup. Anything that contains probiotic bacteria.

Matthew J. Messina, DDS, assistant professor of dentistry at Ohio State University, who was not involved with the study, told Healthline that “the whole idea behind probiotics is [bacteria replacement]. Supplant the ‘bad guys’ with the ‘good guys,’ then we’ll end up with a better result.” Essentially balancing the scales in your mouth.

It may not be a long-term solution, Dr. Messina said, but the short-term data are positive. So if you experience bad breath from time to time, try a little bowl of yogurt instead of chewing gum. If nothing else, the bacteria in your mouth will thank you.

You can talk the silly talk, but can you walk the silly walk?

The Ministry of Silly Walks sketch from Monty Python is an enduring comedy classic, and one of surprising relevance for doctors. After all, this isn’t the first time a study has analyzed the unusual strides of Mr. Putey and Mr. Teabag.

The BMJ Christmas edition truly is the gift that keeps on giving. For this plunge into the Flying Circus, the study authors recruited a small group of fairly average adults and had them walk normally around a track for 5 minutes, monitoring their oxygen intake and energy expenditure. After that, the study participants imitated Mr. Putey’s walk and then Mr. Teabag’s.

Michael Blann/DigitalVision

In the sketch, Mr. Teabag notes that Mr. Putey’s walk is “not particularly silly,” which is borne out in the research. When imitating Mr. Putey’s walk, oxygen intake and energy expenditure were barely higher than a normal walk, not enough to achieve a meaningful difference. Hopefully he’ll get that government grant to further develop his silly walk, because right now Mr. Putey’s walk simply doesn’t cut it.

Mr. Teabag’s walk is a different story and the very image of inefficiency. Oxygen intake was 2.5 times higher than during the normal walk, and energy expenditure was noticeably higher (8 kcal in men and 5.2 kcal in women). In fact, the walk was so inefficient and its effect so drastic it actually reached the level of vigorous exercise. Thanks to this, the study authors noted that just 11 minutes a day of walking like Mr. Teabag would be enough to reach the general goal of 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Boosting that to 12-19 minutes would increase daily energy expenditure by 100 kcal.

The study authors wrote, “Had an initiative to promote inefficient movement been adopted in the early 1970s, we might now be living among a healthier society. Efforts to promote higher energy – and perhaps more joyful – walking should ensure inclusivity and inefficiency for all.” We think they just advocated for a real-life Ministry of Silly Walks. Well, there have been worse ideas. Just look at Twitter.
 

When efficient gut microbes go bad

With the latest news from the Ministry of Silly Walks, is it time for humans to embrace all things inefficient? Maybe.

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Turns out that individuals with more efficient digestive systems – those that extract more energy from the fuel supplied to them by the busy mouths above – tend to gain more weight than those with less efficient guts, even when they eat the same food, according to a recent study published in Microbiome.

The researchers took a look at the composition of gut microbes in a group of 85 volunteers and found that about 40% had microbiomes dominated by Bacteroides bacteria, which are more effective at extracting nutrients from food. That group also weighed 10% more on average, amounting to an extra 9 kg.

In a rather blatant demonstration of efficiency, the investigators also measured the speed of the participants’ digestion, as they had hypothesized that those with the longest digestive travel times would be the ones who harvested the most nutrition from their food. That was not the case.

The study subjects with the most efficient gut bacteria “also have the fastest passage through the gastrointestinal system, which has given us something to think about,” senior author Henrik Roager of the University of Copenhagen said in a written statement.

You know what gives us something to think about? Stool energy density and intestinal transit time and faecal bacterial cell counts, that’s what. Ick. Sometimes science is gross.

Here’s another thought, though: Seeing faecal instead of fecal is kind of funny to our American eyes, but adding that extra letter is also inefficient, which could mean that it’s good. So, in the spirit of embracing the inefficient as a new year begins, we’re resolving to wrap our editorial arms around faecal and the faeces it represents. Well, not literally, of course. More like we’re embracing the spirit of faeces.

Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.

The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.

The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.

Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.

These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as Congress has not included inflation-based payment adjustments in Medicare’s physician payment rule, the AMA said.

“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.

While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.

“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
 

New health care policies in omnibus

Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:

• Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
• Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
• Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
• Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
• Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
• Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.

FDA’s accelerated approval

The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.

The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.

Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.

Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:

• Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
• Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
• Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.

Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.

The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.

Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.

“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.

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

Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.

The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.

The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.

Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.

These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as Congress has not included inflation-based payment adjustments in Medicare’s physician payment rule, the AMA said.

“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.

While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.

“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
 

New health care policies in omnibus

Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:

• Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
• Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
• Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
• Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
• Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
• Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.

FDA’s accelerated approval

The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.

The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.

Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.

Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:

• Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
• Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
• Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.

Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.

The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.

Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.

“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.

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

Congress averted bigger reductions in Medicare’s future payments for clinicians in its massive, year-end spending bill, but physicians will still see a 2% cut in a key payment variable in 2023.

The bill also authorizes new policies regarding accelerated drug approvals and substance use disorder treatment.

The House voted 225-201 to clear a wide-ranging legislative package, known as an omnibus, for President Joe Biden’s signature. The Senate voted 68-29 to approve the measure.

Clinicians had been facing as much as 8.5% in cuts to certain factors that set their Medicare payment. The American Medical Association credited an advocacy campaign it joined with more than 150 organizations with fending off the much-feared reimbursement cuts. The 2% trim for 2023 will decline to 1.25% for 2024.

These reductions will hit as many clinicians face the toll on rising costs for running their practices, as Congress has not included inflation-based payment adjustments in Medicare’s physician payment rule, the AMA said.

“Congress must immediately begin the work of long-overdue Medicare physician payment reform that will lead to the program stability that beneficiaries and physicians need,” AMA President Jack Resneck, MD, said in a statement.

While the omnibus bill blocks 6.5% of Medicare payment cuts originally slated to take effect in 2023, it still puts “untenable strain” on primary care clinicians, said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement.

“However, we’re pleased to see several provisions that will improve access to care, including bolstering mental health services, extending telehealth, and expanding Medicaid and CHIP coverage,” Dr. Iroku-Malize added.
 

New health care policies in omnibus

Lawmakers adopted many health care policy changes in the omnibus package, which contained 12 overdue spending bills for fiscal year 2023. (Much of the federal government has been funded through stop-gap measures since this budget year began on Oct. 1.) The final measure runs to more than 4,100 pages in PDF form.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ) said the health care provisions will:

• Expand patient access to opioid addiction treatment by making it easier for clinicians to dispense buprenorphine for opioid use disorder maintenance or detoxification treatment
• Require health care providers to complete a training requirement on identifying and treating patients with substance use disorders
• Guarantee 12 months of continuous Medicaid coverage for 40 million children
• Provide 2 years of additional Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding
• Permanently extend the option for states to offer 12 months of Medicaid coverage to new mothers
• Continue Medicare’s expanded access to telehealth by extending COVID-19 telehealth flexibilities through Dec. 31, 2024.

FDA’s accelerated approval

The omnibus also will shorten the period of uncertainty patients and clinicians face with medicines cleared under the accelerated approval pathway.

The Food and Drug Administration uses accelerated approvals to give conditional clearances to medicines for fatal and serious conditions based on limited evidence signaling a potential benefit. Companies are expected to continue research needed to prove whether promising signals, such as stemming tumor growth, benefits patients.

Concerns have mounted when companies delay confirmatory trials or try to maintain accelerated approvals for drugs that fail those trials.

Mr. Pallone said the omnibus contains provisions that:

• Require the FDA to specify conditions for required post-approval studies
• Authorize the FDA to require post-approval studies to be underway at the time of approval or within a specified time period following approval.
• Clarify and streamline current FDA authority to withdraw approvals when sponsors fail to conduct studies with due diligence.

Reshma Ramachandran, MD, MPP, MHS, who serves as the chair of the Doctors for America’s FDA Task Force, told this news organization that she was pleased to see these provisions pass. She had been disappointed they were not included earlier this year in the latest Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization.

The provisions in the omnibus make “clear what steps the FDA can take to remove an unproven drug off the market should manufacturers fail to complete these studies or demonstrate meaningful clinical benefit,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote in an email.

Dr. Ramachandran said she hopes lawmakers build on these steps in the future. She suggested Congress add a mandate to require drug labels to clearly state when the FDA is still waiting for evidence needed to confirm benefits of medicines cleared by accelerated approval.

“Nevertheless, Congress in including and, hopefully, passing these reforms has made it clear that drug companies need to provide meaningful evidence that their accelerated approval drugs work in patients and FDA can take action to protect patients should this not occur,” Dr. Ramachandran wrote.

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

PARIS – All the way back in 1907, The Lancet published an article on a gonorrhea vaccine trial. Today, after continuous research throughout the intervening 110-plus years, scientists may finally have achieved success. Sébastien Fouéré, MD, discussed the details at a press conference that focused on the highlights of the Dermatology Days of Paris conference. Dr. Fouéré is the head of the genital dermatology and sexually transmitted infections unit at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris.

Twin bacteria

Although the gonorrhea vaccine has long been the subject of research, Dr. Fouéré views 2017 as a turning point. This was when the results of a study led by Helen Petousis-Harris, PhD, were published.

“She tried to formalize the not completely indisputable results published by Cuba, where it seemed there were fewer gonococci in individuals vaccinated against meningococcal group B,” he noted.

Dr. Petousis-Harris, an immunologist, conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 11 clinics in New Zealand. The participants were aged 15-30 years, were eligible to receive the meningococcal B vaccine, and had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or both. The researchers found that receiving the meningococcal B vaccine in childhood provides around 30% protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.

“It’s not perhaps a coincidence that a meningococcal B vaccine would be protective against gonorrhea,” Dr. Fouéré pointed out. He considers this protection logical, even expected, insofar as “meningococcus and gonococcus are almost twins.” There is 90% and 100% homology between membrane proteins of the two bacteria.
 

Vaccine is effective

Two retrospective case-control studies confirm that the vaccine is protective. One of the studies, carried out by an Australian team, found that the effectiveness was 32%, quite close to that reported by Petousis-Harris. In the other study, a U.S. team brought to light a dose-response relationship. A partial vaccination series (single serogroup B meningococcal outer membrane vesicle vaccine dose) was 26% effective against gonorrhea, while a complete vaccination series (two MenB-4C doses) was 40% effective.

Prospective studies are in progress, which will provide a higher level of evidence. The ANRS DOXYVAC trial has been underway since January 2021. The participants are men who have sex with men, who are highly exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and who presented with at least one STI in the year before their participation in the study. “The study is being conducted by Jean-Michel Molina of Saint-Louis Hospital. What they’re trying to do is protect our cohort of pre-exposure prophylaxis patients with meningococcal vaccine,” explained Dr. Fouéré.

Initial findings demonstrated the efficacy of a meningococcal B vaccine in reducing the risk of gonorrhea and the efficacy of doxycycline as preventive intervention for STIs when taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. In light of these results, a decision was made at the end of October to discontinue the trial and to recommend providing both interventions to all ANRS DOXYVAC participants. The follow-up of the participants will continue until the end of 2023. The results that led to stopping the study in its current form will be presented in early 2023.

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

PARIS – All the way back in 1907, The Lancet published an article on a gonorrhea vaccine trial. Today, after continuous research throughout the intervening 110-plus years, scientists may finally have achieved success. Sébastien Fouéré, MD, discussed the details at a press conference that focused on the highlights of the Dermatology Days of Paris conference. Dr. Fouéré is the head of the genital dermatology and sexually transmitted infections unit at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris.

Twin bacteria

Although the gonorrhea vaccine has long been the subject of research, Dr. Fouéré views 2017 as a turning point. This was when the results of a study led by Helen Petousis-Harris, PhD, were published.

“She tried to formalize the not completely indisputable results published by Cuba, where it seemed there were fewer gonococci in individuals vaccinated against meningococcal group B,” he noted.

Dr. Petousis-Harris, an immunologist, conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 11 clinics in New Zealand. The participants were aged 15-30 years, were eligible to receive the meningococcal B vaccine, and had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or both. The researchers found that receiving the meningococcal B vaccine in childhood provides around 30% protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.

“It’s not perhaps a coincidence that a meningococcal B vaccine would be protective against gonorrhea,” Dr. Fouéré pointed out. He considers this protection logical, even expected, insofar as “meningococcus and gonococcus are almost twins.” There is 90% and 100% homology between membrane proteins of the two bacteria.
 

Vaccine is effective

Two retrospective case-control studies confirm that the vaccine is protective. One of the studies, carried out by an Australian team, found that the effectiveness was 32%, quite close to that reported by Petousis-Harris. In the other study, a U.S. team brought to light a dose-response relationship. A partial vaccination series (single serogroup B meningococcal outer membrane vesicle vaccine dose) was 26% effective against gonorrhea, while a complete vaccination series (two MenB-4C doses) was 40% effective.

Prospective studies are in progress, which will provide a higher level of evidence. The ANRS DOXYVAC trial has been underway since January 2021. The participants are men who have sex with men, who are highly exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and who presented with at least one STI in the year before their participation in the study. “The study is being conducted by Jean-Michel Molina of Saint-Louis Hospital. What they’re trying to do is protect our cohort of pre-exposure prophylaxis patients with meningococcal vaccine,” explained Dr. Fouéré.

Initial findings demonstrated the efficacy of a meningococcal B vaccine in reducing the risk of gonorrhea and the efficacy of doxycycline as preventive intervention for STIs when taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. In light of these results, a decision was made at the end of October to discontinue the trial and to recommend providing both interventions to all ANRS DOXYVAC participants. The follow-up of the participants will continue until the end of 2023. The results that led to stopping the study in its current form will be presented in early 2023.

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

PARIS – All the way back in 1907, The Lancet published an article on a gonorrhea vaccine trial. Today, after continuous research throughout the intervening 110-plus years, scientists may finally have achieved success. Sébastien Fouéré, MD, discussed the details at a press conference that focused on the highlights of the Dermatology Days of Paris conference. Dr. Fouéré is the head of the genital dermatology and sexually transmitted infections unit at Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris.

Twin bacteria

Although the gonorrhea vaccine has long been the subject of research, Dr. Fouéré views 2017 as a turning point. This was when the results of a study led by Helen Petousis-Harris, PhD, were published.

“She tried to formalize the not completely indisputable results published by Cuba, where it seemed there were fewer gonococci in individuals vaccinated against meningococcal group B,” he noted.

Dr. Petousis-Harris, an immunologist, conducted a retrospective case-control study involving 11 clinics in New Zealand. The participants were aged 15-30 years, were eligible to receive the meningococcal B vaccine, and had been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or both. The researchers found that receiving the meningococcal B vaccine in childhood provides around 30% protection against Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.

“It’s not perhaps a coincidence that a meningococcal B vaccine would be protective against gonorrhea,” Dr. Fouéré pointed out. He considers this protection logical, even expected, insofar as “meningococcus and gonococcus are almost twins.” There is 90% and 100% homology between membrane proteins of the two bacteria.
 

Vaccine is effective

Two retrospective case-control studies confirm that the vaccine is protective. One of the studies, carried out by an Australian team, found that the effectiveness was 32%, quite close to that reported by Petousis-Harris. In the other study, a U.S. team brought to light a dose-response relationship. A partial vaccination series (single serogroup B meningococcal outer membrane vesicle vaccine dose) was 26% effective against gonorrhea, while a complete vaccination series (two MenB-4C doses) was 40% effective.

Prospective studies are in progress, which will provide a higher level of evidence. The ANRS DOXYVAC trial has been underway since January 2021. The participants are men who have sex with men, who are highly exposed to the risk of sexually transmitted infections, and who presented with at least one STI in the year before their participation in the study. “The study is being conducted by Jean-Michel Molina of Saint-Louis Hospital. What they’re trying to do is protect our cohort of pre-exposure prophylaxis patients with meningococcal vaccine,” explained Dr. Fouéré.

Initial findings demonstrated the efficacy of a meningococcal B vaccine in reducing the risk of gonorrhea and the efficacy of doxycycline as preventive intervention for STIs when taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse. In light of these results, a decision was made at the end of October to discontinue the trial and to recommend providing both interventions to all ANRS DOXYVAC participants. The follow-up of the participants will continue until the end of 2023. The results that led to stopping the study in its current form will be presented in early 2023.

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

Clinicians in the United States are reporting more cases of invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) in children, according to an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These infections are rare but can be deadly, and they can affect adults as well as children.

Health care providers should consider this bacterial infection as a possible cause of severe illness in children and adults, including those with recent or co-occurring viral respiratory infections, the agency advised in a Dec. 22 alert.

In some cases, iGAS manifests as persistent or worsening symptoms after a patient with a known viral infection initially starts to show signs of improvement, according to the agency.

In November, the CDC was notified about a possible increase in cases of pediatric iGAS at a hospital in Colorado. Since then, two surveillance systems – the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network and the CDC’s Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System – have detected potential increases in pediatric iGAS cases in other states.

The uptick has coincided with “increased circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses,” the advisory stated. “While the overall number of cases has remained relatively low and iGAS infections remain rare in children, [the] CDC is investigating these reports.”
 

Not just strep throat

Group A Streptococcus bacteria can cause strep throat and infections in skin and soft tissue. The pathogens also can lead to uncommon but severe diseases, such as sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing fasciitis, according to the CDC. The severe illnesses “are associated with high mortality rates and require immediate treatment, including appropriate antibiotic therapy,” the agency said.

Groups at higher risk for iGAS include people aged 65 years or older, American Indian and Alaska Native populations, residents of long-term care facilities, those with wounds or skin disease, people who inject drugs, and people experiencing homelessness.

People with medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, immunosuppression, and chronic kidney, heart, or respiratory disease also are at increased risk.

Invasive strep A infections initially decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic amid measures to reduce the spread of disease, such as masking and social distancing. But since September, monthly cases have exceeded those in 2020 and 2021. “It is too early to determine whether this rise is beyond what would be expected for pre-COVID” seasonal patterns, the CDC said.
 

Recommendations

Because iGAS can occur after the flu or chickenpox, health care providers should offer influenza and varicella vaccinations to all eligible people who are not up to date with their vaccines.

In addition, clinicians should educate patients about symptoms of iGAS that require urgent medical attention, including necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, and toxic shock syndrome.

They also should obtain cultures for suspected cases of iGAS as clinically indicated, follow guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of strep throat, and be aware of alternative ways to treat strep throat in children amid a shortage of amoxicillin suspension.

Researchers have reported more cases of iGAS in the United Kingdom this year, as well. According to the UK Health Security Agency, 74 deaths, including 16 children, in England have been attributed to iGAS since September.

“We know that this is concerning for parents, but I want to stress that while we are seeing an increase in cases in children, this remains very uncommon,” UKHSA Deputy Director Colin Brown said in a news release. “There are lots of winter bugs circulating that can make your child feel unwell that mostly aren’t cause for alarm. However, make sure you talk to a health professional if your child is getting worse after a bout of scarlet fever, a sore throat, or respiratory infection.”

A fever that doesn’t resolve, dehydration, extreme tiredness, and difficulty breathing are signs to watch out for, Dr. Brown said.

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

Clinicians in the United States are reporting more cases of invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) in children, according to an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These infections are rare but can be deadly, and they can affect adults as well as children.

Health care providers should consider this bacterial infection as a possible cause of severe illness in children and adults, including those with recent or co-occurring viral respiratory infections, the agency advised in a Dec. 22 alert.

In some cases, iGAS manifests as persistent or worsening symptoms after a patient with a known viral infection initially starts to show signs of improvement, according to the agency.

In November, the CDC was notified about a possible increase in cases of pediatric iGAS at a hospital in Colorado. Since then, two surveillance systems – the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network and the CDC’s Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System – have detected potential increases in pediatric iGAS cases in other states.

The uptick has coincided with “increased circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses,” the advisory stated. “While the overall number of cases has remained relatively low and iGAS infections remain rare in children, [the] CDC is investigating these reports.”
 

Not just strep throat

Group A Streptococcus bacteria can cause strep throat and infections in skin and soft tissue. The pathogens also can lead to uncommon but severe diseases, such as sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing fasciitis, according to the CDC. The severe illnesses “are associated with high mortality rates and require immediate treatment, including appropriate antibiotic therapy,” the agency said.

Groups at higher risk for iGAS include people aged 65 years or older, American Indian and Alaska Native populations, residents of long-term care facilities, those with wounds or skin disease, people who inject drugs, and people experiencing homelessness.

People with medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, immunosuppression, and chronic kidney, heart, or respiratory disease also are at increased risk.

Invasive strep A infections initially decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic amid measures to reduce the spread of disease, such as masking and social distancing. But since September, monthly cases have exceeded those in 2020 and 2021. “It is too early to determine whether this rise is beyond what would be expected for pre-COVID” seasonal patterns, the CDC said.
 

Recommendations

Because iGAS can occur after the flu or chickenpox, health care providers should offer influenza and varicella vaccinations to all eligible people who are not up to date with their vaccines.

In addition, clinicians should educate patients about symptoms of iGAS that require urgent medical attention, including necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, and toxic shock syndrome.

They also should obtain cultures for suspected cases of iGAS as clinically indicated, follow guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of strep throat, and be aware of alternative ways to treat strep throat in children amid a shortage of amoxicillin suspension.

Researchers have reported more cases of iGAS in the United Kingdom this year, as well. According to the UK Health Security Agency, 74 deaths, including 16 children, in England have been attributed to iGAS since September.

“We know that this is concerning for parents, but I want to stress that while we are seeing an increase in cases in children, this remains very uncommon,” UKHSA Deputy Director Colin Brown said in a news release. “There are lots of winter bugs circulating that can make your child feel unwell that mostly aren’t cause for alarm. However, make sure you talk to a health professional if your child is getting worse after a bout of scarlet fever, a sore throat, or respiratory infection.”

A fever that doesn’t resolve, dehydration, extreme tiredness, and difficulty breathing are signs to watch out for, Dr. Brown said.

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

Clinicians in the United States are reporting more cases of invasive group A streptococcal infection (iGAS) in children, according to an alert from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These infections are rare but can be deadly, and they can affect adults as well as children.

Health care providers should consider this bacterial infection as a possible cause of severe illness in children and adults, including those with recent or co-occurring viral respiratory infections, the agency advised in a Dec. 22 alert.

In some cases, iGAS manifests as persistent or worsening symptoms after a patient with a known viral infection initially starts to show signs of improvement, according to the agency.

In November, the CDC was notified about a possible increase in cases of pediatric iGAS at a hospital in Colorado. Since then, two surveillance systems – the Infectious Diseases Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network and the CDC’s Active Bacterial Core Surveillance System – have detected potential increases in pediatric iGAS cases in other states.

The uptick has coincided with “increased circulation of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza viruses, SARS-CoV-2, and other respiratory viruses,” the advisory stated. “While the overall number of cases has remained relatively low and iGAS infections remain rare in children, [the] CDC is investigating these reports.”
 

Not just strep throat

Group A Streptococcus bacteria can cause strep throat and infections in skin and soft tissue. The pathogens also can lead to uncommon but severe diseases, such as sepsis, streptococcal toxic shock syndrome, and necrotizing fasciitis, according to the CDC. The severe illnesses “are associated with high mortality rates and require immediate treatment, including appropriate antibiotic therapy,” the agency said.

Groups at higher risk for iGAS include people aged 65 years or older, American Indian and Alaska Native populations, residents of long-term care facilities, those with wounds or skin disease, people who inject drugs, and people experiencing homelessness.

People with medical conditions such as diabetes, cancer, immunosuppression, and chronic kidney, heart, or respiratory disease also are at increased risk.

Invasive strep A infections initially decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic amid measures to reduce the spread of disease, such as masking and social distancing. But since September, monthly cases have exceeded those in 2020 and 2021. “It is too early to determine whether this rise is beyond what would be expected for pre-COVID” seasonal patterns, the CDC said.
 

Recommendations

Because iGAS can occur after the flu or chickenpox, health care providers should offer influenza and varicella vaccinations to all eligible people who are not up to date with their vaccines.

In addition, clinicians should educate patients about symptoms of iGAS that require urgent medical attention, including necrotizing fasciitis, cellulitis, and toxic shock syndrome.

They also should obtain cultures for suspected cases of iGAS as clinically indicated, follow guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of strep throat, and be aware of alternative ways to treat strep throat in children amid a shortage of amoxicillin suspension.

Researchers have reported more cases of iGAS in the United Kingdom this year, as well. According to the UK Health Security Agency, 74 deaths, including 16 children, in England have been attributed to iGAS since September.

“We know that this is concerning for parents, but I want to stress that while we are seeing an increase in cases in children, this remains very uncommon,” UKHSA Deputy Director Colin Brown said in a news release. “There are lots of winter bugs circulating that can make your child feel unwell that mostly aren’t cause for alarm. However, make sure you talk to a health professional if your child is getting worse after a bout of scarlet fever, a sore throat, or respiratory infection.”

A fever that doesn’t resolve, dehydration, extreme tiredness, and difficulty breathing are signs to watch out for, Dr. Brown said.

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

A year ago in December, mapping specialist Whitney Tyshynski, 35, was working out 5 days a week with a personal trainer near her home in Alberta, Canada, doing 5k trail runs, lifting heavy weights, and feeling good. Then, in January she got COVID-19. The symptoms never went away.
 

Nowadays, Ms. Tyshynski needs a walker to retrieve her mail, a half-block trip she can’t make without fear of fainting. Because she gets dizzy when she drives, she rarely goes anywhere in her car. Going for a dog walk with a friend means sitting in a car and watching the friend and the dogs in an open field. And since fainting at Costco during the summer, she’s afraid to shop by herself.

Because she lives alone and her closest relatives are an hour and a half away, Ms. Tyshynski is dependent on friends. But she’s reluctant to lean on them because they already have trouble understanding how debilitating her lingering symptoms can be.

“I’ve had people pretty much insinuate that I’m lazy,” she says.

There’s no question that COVID-19 cut people off from one another. But for those like Ms. Tyshynski who have long COVID, that disconnect has never ended. It’s not just that symptoms including extreme fatigue and brain fog make it difficult to socialize; it’s that people who had COVID-19 and recovered are often skeptical that the condition is real.

At worst, as Ms. Tyshynski has discovered, people don’t take it seriously and accuse those who have it of exaggerating their health woes. In that way, long COVID can be as isolating as the original illness.

“Isolation in long COVID comes in various forms and it’s not primarily just that physical isolation,” says Yochai Re’em, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in New York who has experienced long COVID and blogs about the condition for Psychology Today. “A different yet equally challenging type of isolation is the emotional isolation, where you need more emotional support, connection with other people who can appreciate what it is you are going through without putting their own needs and desires onto you – and that can be hard to find.”

It’s hard to find in part because of what Dr. Re’em sees as a collective belief that anyone who feels bad should be able to get better by exercising, researching, or going to a doctor.

“Society thinks you need to take some kind of action and usually that’s a physical action,” he says. “And that attitude is tremendously problematic in this illness because of the postexertional malaise that people experience: When people exert themselves, their symptoms get worse. And so the action that people take can’t be that traditional action that we’re used to taking in our society.”

Long COVID patients often have their feelings invalidated not just by friends, loved ones, and extended family, but by health care providers. That can heighten feelings of isolation, particularly for people who live alone, says Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

The first patients Dr. Anderson saw as part of OHSU’s long COVID program contracted the virus in February 2020. Because the program addresses both the physical and mental health components of the condition, Dr. Anderson has seen a lot of people whose emotional challenges are similar to those Ms. Tyshynski faces.

“I think there’s a lack of understanding that leads to people just not necessarily taking it seriously,” he says. “Plus, the symptoms of long COVID do wax and wane. They’re not static. So people can be feeling pretty good one day and be feeling terrible the next. There’s some predictability to it, but it’s not absolutely predictable. It can be difficult for people to understand.”

Both Dr. Anderson and Dr. Re’em stress that long COVID patients need to prioritize their own energy regardless of what they’re being told by those who don’t understand the illness. Dr. Anderson offers to speak to his patients’ spouses to educate them about the realities of the condition because, he says, “any kind of lack of awareness or understanding in a family member or close support could potentially isolate the person struggling with long COVID.”

Depending on how open-minded and motivated a friend or relative is, they might develop more empathy with time and education, Dr. Re’em says. But for others, dealing with a confusing, unfamiliar chronic illness can be overwhelming and provoke anxiety.

“The hopelessness is too much for them to sit with, so instead they say things like ‘just push through it,’ or ‘just do X, Y, and Z,’ because psychologically it’s too much for them to take on that burden,” he says.

The good news is that there are plenty of web-based support groups for people with long COVID, including Body Politic (which Dr. Re’em is affiliated with), Survivor Corps, and on Facebook. “The patient community with this illness is tremendous, absolutely tremendous,” Dr. Re’em says. “Those people can be found and they can support each other.”

Some long COVID clinics run groups, as do individual practitioners such as Dr. Re’em, although those can be challenging to join. For instance, Dr. Re’em’s are only for New York state residents.

The key to finding a group is to be patient, because finding the right one takes time and energy.

“There are support groups that exist, but they are not as prevalent as I would like them to be,” Dr. Anderson says.

OHSU had an educational support group run by a social worker affiliated with the long COVID hub, but when the social worker left the program, the program was put on hold.

There’s a psychotherapy group operating out of the psychiatry department, but the patients are recruited exclusively from Dr. Anderson’s clinic and access is limited.

“The services exist, but I think that generally they’re sparse and pretty geographically dependent,” Dr. Anderson says. “I think you’d probably more likely be able to find something like this in a city or an area that has an academic institution or a place with a lot of resources rather than out in a rural community.”

Ms. Tyshynski opted not to join a group for fear it would increase the depression and anxiety that she had even before developing long COVID. When she and her family joined a cancer support group when her father was ill, she found it more depressing than helpful. Where she has found support is from the cofounder of the animal rescue society where she volunteers, a woman who has had long COVID for more than 2 years and has been a source of comfort and advice.

It’s one of the rare reminders Ms. Tyshynski has that even though she may live alone, she’s not completely alone. “Other people are going through this, too,” she says. “It helps to remember that.”

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

A year ago in December, mapping specialist Whitney Tyshynski, 35, was working out 5 days a week with a personal trainer near her home in Alberta, Canada, doing 5k trail runs, lifting heavy weights, and feeling good. Then, in January she got COVID-19. The symptoms never went away.
 

Nowadays, Ms. Tyshynski needs a walker to retrieve her mail, a half-block trip she can’t make without fear of fainting. Because she gets dizzy when she drives, she rarely goes anywhere in her car. Going for a dog walk with a friend means sitting in a car and watching the friend and the dogs in an open field. And since fainting at Costco during the summer, she’s afraid to shop by herself.

Because she lives alone and her closest relatives are an hour and a half away, Ms. Tyshynski is dependent on friends. But she’s reluctant to lean on them because they already have trouble understanding how debilitating her lingering symptoms can be.

“I’ve had people pretty much insinuate that I’m lazy,” she says.

There’s no question that COVID-19 cut people off from one another. But for those like Ms. Tyshynski who have long COVID, that disconnect has never ended. It’s not just that symptoms including extreme fatigue and brain fog make it difficult to socialize; it’s that people who had COVID-19 and recovered are often skeptical that the condition is real.

At worst, as Ms. Tyshynski has discovered, people don’t take it seriously and accuse those who have it of exaggerating their health woes. In that way, long COVID can be as isolating as the original illness.

“Isolation in long COVID comes in various forms and it’s not primarily just that physical isolation,” says Yochai Re’em, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in New York who has experienced long COVID and blogs about the condition for Psychology Today. “A different yet equally challenging type of isolation is the emotional isolation, where you need more emotional support, connection with other people who can appreciate what it is you are going through without putting their own needs and desires onto you – and that can be hard to find.”

It’s hard to find in part because of what Dr. Re’em sees as a collective belief that anyone who feels bad should be able to get better by exercising, researching, or going to a doctor.

“Society thinks you need to take some kind of action and usually that’s a physical action,” he says. “And that attitude is tremendously problematic in this illness because of the postexertional malaise that people experience: When people exert themselves, their symptoms get worse. And so the action that people take can’t be that traditional action that we’re used to taking in our society.”

Long COVID patients often have their feelings invalidated not just by friends, loved ones, and extended family, but by health care providers. That can heighten feelings of isolation, particularly for people who live alone, says Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

The first patients Dr. Anderson saw as part of OHSU’s long COVID program contracted the virus in February 2020. Because the program addresses both the physical and mental health components of the condition, Dr. Anderson has seen a lot of people whose emotional challenges are similar to those Ms. Tyshynski faces.

“I think there’s a lack of understanding that leads to people just not necessarily taking it seriously,” he says. “Plus, the symptoms of long COVID do wax and wane. They’re not static. So people can be feeling pretty good one day and be feeling terrible the next. There’s some predictability to it, but it’s not absolutely predictable. It can be difficult for people to understand.”

Both Dr. Anderson and Dr. Re’em stress that long COVID patients need to prioritize their own energy regardless of what they’re being told by those who don’t understand the illness. Dr. Anderson offers to speak to his patients’ spouses to educate them about the realities of the condition because, he says, “any kind of lack of awareness or understanding in a family member or close support could potentially isolate the person struggling with long COVID.”

Depending on how open-minded and motivated a friend or relative is, they might develop more empathy with time and education, Dr. Re’em says. But for others, dealing with a confusing, unfamiliar chronic illness can be overwhelming and provoke anxiety.

“The hopelessness is too much for them to sit with, so instead they say things like ‘just push through it,’ or ‘just do X, Y, and Z,’ because psychologically it’s too much for them to take on that burden,” he says.

The good news is that there are plenty of web-based support groups for people with long COVID, including Body Politic (which Dr. Re’em is affiliated with), Survivor Corps, and on Facebook. “The patient community with this illness is tremendous, absolutely tremendous,” Dr. Re’em says. “Those people can be found and they can support each other.”

Some long COVID clinics run groups, as do individual practitioners such as Dr. Re’em, although those can be challenging to join. For instance, Dr. Re’em’s are only for New York state residents.

The key to finding a group is to be patient, because finding the right one takes time and energy.

“There are support groups that exist, but they are not as prevalent as I would like them to be,” Dr. Anderson says.

OHSU had an educational support group run by a social worker affiliated with the long COVID hub, but when the social worker left the program, the program was put on hold.

There’s a psychotherapy group operating out of the psychiatry department, but the patients are recruited exclusively from Dr. Anderson’s clinic and access is limited.

“The services exist, but I think that generally they’re sparse and pretty geographically dependent,” Dr. Anderson says. “I think you’d probably more likely be able to find something like this in a city or an area that has an academic institution or a place with a lot of resources rather than out in a rural community.”

Ms. Tyshynski opted not to join a group for fear it would increase the depression and anxiety that she had even before developing long COVID. When she and her family joined a cancer support group when her father was ill, she found it more depressing than helpful. Where she has found support is from the cofounder of the animal rescue society where she volunteers, a woman who has had long COVID for more than 2 years and has been a source of comfort and advice.

It’s one of the rare reminders Ms. Tyshynski has that even though she may live alone, she’s not completely alone. “Other people are going through this, too,” she says. “It helps to remember that.”

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

A year ago in December, mapping specialist Whitney Tyshynski, 35, was working out 5 days a week with a personal trainer near her home in Alberta, Canada, doing 5k trail runs, lifting heavy weights, and feeling good. Then, in January she got COVID-19. The symptoms never went away.
 

Nowadays, Ms. Tyshynski needs a walker to retrieve her mail, a half-block trip she can’t make without fear of fainting. Because she gets dizzy when she drives, she rarely goes anywhere in her car. Going for a dog walk with a friend means sitting in a car and watching the friend and the dogs in an open field. And since fainting at Costco during the summer, she’s afraid to shop by herself.

Because she lives alone and her closest relatives are an hour and a half away, Ms. Tyshynski is dependent on friends. But she’s reluctant to lean on them because they already have trouble understanding how debilitating her lingering symptoms can be.

“I’ve had people pretty much insinuate that I’m lazy,” she says.

There’s no question that COVID-19 cut people off from one another. But for those like Ms. Tyshynski who have long COVID, that disconnect has never ended. It’s not just that symptoms including extreme fatigue and brain fog make it difficult to socialize; it’s that people who had COVID-19 and recovered are often skeptical that the condition is real.

At worst, as Ms. Tyshynski has discovered, people don’t take it seriously and accuse those who have it of exaggerating their health woes. In that way, long COVID can be as isolating as the original illness.

“Isolation in long COVID comes in various forms and it’s not primarily just that physical isolation,” says Yochai Re’em, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in New York who has experienced long COVID and blogs about the condition for Psychology Today. “A different yet equally challenging type of isolation is the emotional isolation, where you need more emotional support, connection with other people who can appreciate what it is you are going through without putting their own needs and desires onto you – and that can be hard to find.”

It’s hard to find in part because of what Dr. Re’em sees as a collective belief that anyone who feels bad should be able to get better by exercising, researching, or going to a doctor.

“Society thinks you need to take some kind of action and usually that’s a physical action,” he says. “And that attitude is tremendously problematic in this illness because of the postexertional malaise that people experience: When people exert themselves, their symptoms get worse. And so the action that people take can’t be that traditional action that we’re used to taking in our society.”

Long COVID patients often have their feelings invalidated not just by friends, loved ones, and extended family, but by health care providers. That can heighten feelings of isolation, particularly for people who live alone, says Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist and assistant professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

The first patients Dr. Anderson saw as part of OHSU’s long COVID program contracted the virus in February 2020. Because the program addresses both the physical and mental health components of the condition, Dr. Anderson has seen a lot of people whose emotional challenges are similar to those Ms. Tyshynski faces.

“I think there’s a lack of understanding that leads to people just not necessarily taking it seriously,” he says. “Plus, the symptoms of long COVID do wax and wane. They’re not static. So people can be feeling pretty good one day and be feeling terrible the next. There’s some predictability to it, but it’s not absolutely predictable. It can be difficult for people to understand.”

Both Dr. Anderson and Dr. Re’em stress that long COVID patients need to prioritize their own energy regardless of what they’re being told by those who don’t understand the illness. Dr. Anderson offers to speak to his patients’ spouses to educate them about the realities of the condition because, he says, “any kind of lack of awareness or understanding in a family member or close support could potentially isolate the person struggling with long COVID.”

Depending on how open-minded and motivated a friend or relative is, they might develop more empathy with time and education, Dr. Re’em says. But for others, dealing with a confusing, unfamiliar chronic illness can be overwhelming and provoke anxiety.

“The hopelessness is too much for them to sit with, so instead they say things like ‘just push through it,’ or ‘just do X, Y, and Z,’ because psychologically it’s too much for them to take on that burden,” he says.

The good news is that there are plenty of web-based support groups for people with long COVID, including Body Politic (which Dr. Re’em is affiliated with), Survivor Corps, and on Facebook. “The patient community with this illness is tremendous, absolutely tremendous,” Dr. Re’em says. “Those people can be found and they can support each other.”

Some long COVID clinics run groups, as do individual practitioners such as Dr. Re’em, although those can be challenging to join. For instance, Dr. Re’em’s are only for New York state residents.

The key to finding a group is to be patient, because finding the right one takes time and energy.

“There are support groups that exist, but they are not as prevalent as I would like them to be,” Dr. Anderson says.

OHSU had an educational support group run by a social worker affiliated with the long COVID hub, but when the social worker left the program, the program was put on hold.

There’s a psychotherapy group operating out of the psychiatry department, but the patients are recruited exclusively from Dr. Anderson’s clinic and access is limited.

“The services exist, but I think that generally they’re sparse and pretty geographically dependent,” Dr. Anderson says. “I think you’d probably more likely be able to find something like this in a city or an area that has an academic institution or a place with a lot of resources rather than out in a rural community.”

Ms. Tyshynski opted not to join a group for fear it would increase the depression and anxiety that she had even before developing long COVID. When she and her family joined a cancer support group when her father was ill, she found it more depressing than helpful. Where she has found support is from the cofounder of the animal rescue society where she volunteers, a woman who has had long COVID for more than 2 years and has been a source of comfort and advice.

It’s one of the rare reminders Ms. Tyshynski has that even though she may live alone, she’s not completely alone. “Other people are going through this, too,” she says. “It helps to remember that.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the medication lenacapavir (Sunlenca) for adults living with multidrug resistant HIV-1 infection. After the initial doses are completed – given both orally and via subcutaneous injection – the drug is administered by injection every 6 months.
 

“Following today’s decision from the FDA, lenacapavir helps to fill a critical unmet need for people with complex prior treatment histories and offers physicians a long-awaited twice-yearly option for these patients who otherwise have limited therapy choices,” said site principal investigator Sorana Segal-Maurer, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a statement.

HIV drug regimens generally consist of two or three HIV medicines combined in a daily pill. In 2021, the FDA approved the first injectable complete drug regimen for HIV-1, Cabenuva, which can be administered monthly or every other month. Lenacapavir is administered only twice annually, but it is also combined with other antiretrovirals. The injections and oral tablets of lenacapavir are estimated to cost $42,250 in the first year of treatment and then $39,000 annually in the subsequent years, Reuters reported.

Lenacapavir is the first of a new class of drug called capsid inhibitors to be FDA-approved for treating HIV-1. The drug blocks the HIV-1 virus’s protein shell and interferes with essential steps of the virus’s evolution. The approval, announced today, was based on a multicenter clinical trial of 72 patients with multidrug resistant HIV-1 infection. After a year of the medication, 30 (83%) of the 36 patients randomly assigned to take lenacapavir, in combination with other HIV medications, had undetectable viral loads.

“Today’s approval ushers in a new class of antiretroviral drugs that may help patients with HIV who have run out of treatment options,” said Debra Birnkrant, MD, director of the division of antivirals in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a press release. “The availability of new classes of antiretroviral medications may possibly help these patients live longer, healthier lives.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the medication lenacapavir (Sunlenca) for adults living with multidrug resistant HIV-1 infection. After the initial doses are completed – given both orally and via subcutaneous injection – the drug is administered by injection every 6 months.
 

“Following today’s decision from the FDA, lenacapavir helps to fill a critical unmet need for people with complex prior treatment histories and offers physicians a long-awaited twice-yearly option for these patients who otherwise have limited therapy choices,” said site principal investigator Sorana Segal-Maurer, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a statement.

HIV drug regimens generally consist of two or three HIV medicines combined in a daily pill. In 2021, the FDA approved the first injectable complete drug regimen for HIV-1, Cabenuva, which can be administered monthly or every other month. Lenacapavir is administered only twice annually, but it is also combined with other antiretrovirals. The injections and oral tablets of lenacapavir are estimated to cost $42,250 in the first year of treatment and then $39,000 annually in the subsequent years, Reuters reported.

Lenacapavir is the first of a new class of drug called capsid inhibitors to be FDA-approved for treating HIV-1. The drug blocks the HIV-1 virus’s protein shell and interferes with essential steps of the virus’s evolution. The approval, announced today, was based on a multicenter clinical trial of 72 patients with multidrug resistant HIV-1 infection. After a year of the medication, 30 (83%) of the 36 patients randomly assigned to take lenacapavir, in combination with other HIV medications, had undetectable viral loads.

“Today’s approval ushers in a new class of antiretroviral drugs that may help patients with HIV who have run out of treatment options,” said Debra Birnkrant, MD, director of the division of antivirals in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a press release. “The availability of new classes of antiretroviral medications may possibly help these patients live longer, healthier lives.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the medication lenacapavir (Sunlenca) for adults living with multidrug resistant HIV-1 infection. After the initial doses are completed – given both orally and via subcutaneous injection – the drug is administered by injection every 6 months.
 

“Following today’s decision from the FDA, lenacapavir helps to fill a critical unmet need for people with complex prior treatment histories and offers physicians a long-awaited twice-yearly option for these patients who otherwise have limited therapy choices,” said site principal investigator Sorana Segal-Maurer, MD, a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a statement.

HIV drug regimens generally consist of two or three HIV medicines combined in a daily pill. In 2021, the FDA approved the first injectable complete drug regimen for HIV-1, Cabenuva, which can be administered monthly or every other month. Lenacapavir is administered only twice annually, but it is also combined with other antiretrovirals. The injections and oral tablets of lenacapavir are estimated to cost $42,250 in the first year of treatment and then $39,000 annually in the subsequent years, Reuters reported.

Lenacapavir is the first of a new class of drug called capsid inhibitors to be FDA-approved for treating HIV-1. The drug blocks the HIV-1 virus’s protein shell and interferes with essential steps of the virus’s evolution. The approval, announced today, was based on a multicenter clinical trial of 72 patients with multidrug resistant HIV-1 infection. After a year of the medication, 30 (83%) of the 36 patients randomly assigned to take lenacapavir, in combination with other HIV medications, had undetectable viral loads.

“Today’s approval ushers in a new class of antiretroviral drugs that may help patients with HIV who have run out of treatment options,” said Debra Birnkrant, MD, director of the division of antivirals in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, in a press release. “The availability of new classes of antiretroviral medications may possibly help these patients live longer, healthier lives.”

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Problematic alcohol use by physicians appears to be increasing, new research shows. However, good data on exactly how common this is and on salient risk factors are lacking.
 

In a systematic literature review, investigators found the prevalence of self-reported problematic alcohol use varied widely, but could affect up to one third of physicians.

However, all studies were survey-based and self-reported, and definitions of problematic alcohol use were mixed, with inconsistent reporting on differences across sex, age, physician specialty, and career stage.

“Key epidemiologic information of the prevalence of problematic alcohol use in physicians and associated risk factors are unknown, hampering the ability to identify high-risk individuals for targeted interventions,” Manish Sood, MD, University of Ottawa, and colleagues wrote.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Serious concern

The researchers noted that physicians are at a higher risk for burnout and mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, than the general population, which could contribute to problematic drinking.

Problematic drinking among physicians poses a “serious concern” to their health and ability to provide care, the investigators wrote. Understanding the extent and characteristics of the issue is important to guide interventions.

To better characterize problematic drinking among physicians, the investigators reviewed 31 studies from 2006 to 2020 involving 51,680 residents, fellows, or staff physicians in 17 countries.

In the studies, problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool: the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, AUDIT Version C (AUDIT-C), or the Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener (CAGE) questionnaire.

“Problematic alcohol use” included hazardous, potentially hazardous, risky, at-risk, harmful, problematic, or heavy drinking or alcohol use, as well as alcohol misuse, alcohol dependence, and alcohol use more than low-risk guidelines and alcohol use disorder.

Results showed problematic alcohol use “varied widely” regardless of measurement method used. The rate was 0%-34% with AUDIT, 9%-35% with AUDIT-C, and 4%-22% with CAGE.

The data also showed an increase in reported problematic alcohol use over time, rising from 16.3% between 2006 and 2010 to 26.8% between 2017 and 2020.
 

True prevalence unknown

“It remains unknown whether this increase is indeed accurate or whether it is due to increased transparency by physicians in self-reporting problematic alcohol use because of a changing culture of medicine,” the investigators wrote.

The data suggest that problematic alcohol use is more common in male than female physicians; but no firm conclusions can be drawn from the data on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage, the researchers noted.

True prevalence of problematic alcohol use among physicians remains unknown – and identifying this type of behavior is difficult, they pointed out.

They added that physicians with problematic use may be “high functioning,” making identifying potential impairment a challenge. Also, societal stigma and fear of reprisal from professional colleges for reporting or seeking care for problematic alcohol use may encourage physicians with alcohol problems to keep their problems hidden.

The researchers noted that future population-based studies with longitudinal designs or using health administrative data could help identify the prevalence of and salient risk factors for problematic alcohol use in physicians.

The study was supported by the Canadian Medical Association. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Emergencies happen anywhere, anytime, and sometimes physicians find themselves in situations where they are the only ones who can help. Is There a Doctor in the House? is a new series telling these stories.
 

I live on the Maumee River in Ohio, about 50 yards from the water. I had an early quit time and came home to meet my wife for lunch. Afterward, I went up to my barn across the main road to tinker around. It was a nice day out, so my wife had opened some windows. Suddenly, she heard screaming from the river. It did not sound like fun.

She ran down to the river’s edge and saw a dad and three boys struggling in the water. She phoned me screaming: “They’re drowning! They’re drowning!” I jumped in my truck and drove up our driveway through the yard right down to the river.

My wife was on the phone with 911 at that point, and I could see them about 75-100 yards out. The dad had two of the boys clinging around his neck. They were going under the water and coming up and going under again. The other boy was just floating nearby, face down, motionless.

I threw my shoes and scrubs off and started to walk towards the water. My wife screamed at me, “You’re not going in there!” I said, “I’m not going to stand here and watch this. It’s not going to happen.”

I’m not a kid anymore, but I was a high school swimmer, and to this day I work out all the time. I felt like I had to try something. So, I went in the water despite my wife yelling and I swam towards them.

What happens when you get in that deep water is that you panic. You can’t hear anyone because of the rapids, and your instinct is to swim back towards where you went in, which is against the current. Unless you’re a very strong swimmer, you’re just wasting your time, swimming in place.

But these guys weren’t trying to go anywhere. Dad was just trying to stay up and keep the boys alive. He was in about 10 feet of water. What they didn’t see or just didn’t know: About 20 yards upstream from that deep water is a little island.

When I got to them, I yelled at the dad to move towards the island, “Go backwards! Go back!” I flipped the boy over who wasn’t moving. He was the oldest of the three, around 10 or 11 years old. When I turned him over, he was blue and wasn’t breathing. I put my fingers on his neck and didn’t feel a pulse.

So, I’m treading water, holding him. I put an arm behind his back and started doing chest compressions on him. I probably did a dozen to 15 compressions – nothing. I thought, I’ve got to get some air in this kid. So, I gave him two deep breaths and then started doing compressions again. I know ACLS and CPR training would say we don’t do that anymore. But I couldn’t just sit there and give up. Shortly after that, he coughed out a large amount of water and started breathing.

The dad and the other two boys had made it to the island. So, I started moving towards it with the boy. It was a few minutes before he regained consciousness. Of course, he was unaware of what had happened. He started to scream, because here’s this strange man holding him. But he was breathing. That’s all I cared about.

When we got to the island, I saw that my neighbor downstream had launched his canoe. He’s a retired gentleman who lives next to me, a very physically fit man. He started rolling as hard as he could towards us, against the stream. I kind of gave him a thumbs up, like, “we’re safe now. We’re standing.” We loaded the kids and the dad in the canoe and made it back against the stream to the parking lot where they went in.

All this took probably 10 or 15 minutes, and by then the paramedics were there. Life Flight had been dispatched up by my barn where there’s room to land. So, they drove up there in the ambulance. The boy I revived was flown to the hospital. The others went in the ambulance.

I know all the ED docs, so I talked to somebody later who, with permission from the family, said they were all doing fine. They were getting x-rays on the boy’s lungs. And then I heard the dad and two boys were released that night. The other boy I worked on was observed overnight and discharged the following morning.

Four or 5 days later, I heard from their pediatrician, who also had permission to share. He sent me a very nice note through Epic that he had seen the boys. Besides some mental trauma, they were all healthy and doing fine.

The family lives in the area and the kids go to school 5 miles from my house. So, the following weekend they came over. It was Father’s Day, which was kind of cool. They brought me some flowers and candy and a card the boys had drawn to thank me.

I learned that the dad had brought the boys to the fishing site. They were horsing around in knee deep water. One of the boys walked off a little way and didn’t realize there was a drop off. He went in, and of course the dad went after him, and the other two followed.

I said to the parents: “Look, things like this happen for a reason. People like your son are saved and go on in this world because they’ve got special things to do. I can’t wait to see what kind of man he becomes.”

Two or 3 months later, it was football season, and I got at a message from the dad saying their son was playing football on Saturday at the school. He wondered if I could drop by. So, I kind of snuck over and watched, but I didn’t go say hi. There’s trauma there, and I didn’t want them to have to relive that.

I’m very fortunate that I exercise every day and I know how to do CPR and swim. And thank God the boy was floating when I got to him, or I never would’ve found him. The Maumee River is known as the “muddy Maumee.” You can’t see anything under the water.

Depending on the time of year, the river can be almost dry or overflowing into the parking lot with the current rushing hard. If it had been like that, I wouldn’t have considered going in. And they wouldn’t they have been there in the first place. They’d have been a mile downstream.

I took a risk. I could have gone out there and had the dad and two other kids jump on top of me. Then we all would have been in trouble. But like I told my wife, I couldn’t stand there and watch it. I’m just not that person.

I think it was also about being a dad myself and having grandkids now. Doctor or no doctor, I felt like I was in reasonably good shape and I had to go in there to help. This dad was trying his butt off, but three little kids is too many. You can’t do that by yourself. They were not going to make it.

I go to the hospital and I save lives as part of my job, and I don’t even come home and talk about it. But this is a whole different thing. Being able to save someone’s life when put in this situation is very gratifying. It’s a tremendous feeling. There’s a reason that young man is here today, and I’ll be watching for great things from him.

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

Daniel Cassavar, MD, is a cardiologist with ProMedica in Perrysburg, Ohio.