MDedge Endocrinology

Researchers in Italy have identified microplastic (MP) fragments in four human placentas that were donated for study after delivery.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

“The presence of MPs in the placenta tissue requires the reconsideration of the immunological mechanism of self-tolerance,” wrote Antonio Ragusa, MD, of San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, and colleagues. “Placenta represents the interface between the fetus and the environment.”

In a pilot observational study published in Environment International, the researchers used Raman microspectroscopy to analyze placentas from six women with physiological pregnancies for the presence of MPs. MPs were defined as particles smaller than 5 mm resulting from the degradation of plastic in the environment, such as plastic objects, coatings, adhesives, paints, and personal care products. Data from previous studies have shown that MPs can move into living organisms, but this study is the first to identify MPs in human placentas, the researchers said.
 

Polypropylene and pigments identified

A total of 12 microplastic fragments were identified in tissue from the placentas of four women; 5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side, and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes, which suggests that MPs can reach all levels of placental tissue, the researchers said. Most of the MPs were approximately 10 mcm in size, but two were roughly 5 mcm.

All 12 of the MPs were pigmented; of these, 3 were identified as stained polypropylene and the other 9 contained pigments used in a variety of items including coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics, and personal care products. The researchers used a software program to analyze the pigments and matched them with information from the European Chemical Agency for identification of the commercial name, chemical formula, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name, and Color Index Constitution Number.

The mechanism by which MPs may enter the bloodstream and access the placenta remains unclear, the researchers said. “The most probable transport route for MPs is a mechanism of particle uptake and translocation, already described for the internalization from the gastrointestinal tract. Once MPs have reached the maternal surface of the placenta, as other exogenous materials, they can invade the tissue in depth by several transport mechanisms, both active and passive, that are not clearly understood yet.”

The range in location and characteristics of the particles found in the study suggest that passage of MPs into the placenta may be affected by physiological conditions and genetics, as well as food and lifestyle habits of the patients, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and observational study design.

However, the presence of MPs in the placenta could affect the pregnancy in various ways, including immunity, growth factor signaling, maternal-fetal communication, and trafficking of various cell types and macrophages, the researchers wrote. In addition, MPs could have a transgenerational effect on metabolism and reproduction.

“Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of MPs in human placenta may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting harmful for pregnancy,” they concluded.
 

Cause for concern, but research gaps remain

“Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are detectable in tissues of humans and wildlife,” Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in an interview. “To my knowledge, this was never previously shown in the placenta.

“There are two reasons why detection of microplastics in placenta would be concerning,” Dr. Gore explained. “First, microplastics may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or they may concentrate other chemicals that are EDCs. Second, the developing fetus is exquisitely sensitive to natural hormones, and disruptions by EDCs may lead to both immediate as well as latent health problems.

“Clinicians should be concerned about particulate matter in the placenta, “although the number of particles was very small,” said Dr. Gore. “Out of six women, four had particles in their placentas (total of 12) of which one was confirmed to be a plastic (polypropylene). For the other 11 particles, only the pigments could be identified, so more work is needed to confirm whether they were plastics.

“If I were a clinician discussing this article with my patients, I would point out that, although it is concerning that microparticles are present in placenta, few of them were found, and it is not known whether any chemical is released from the particles or actually reaches the fetal circulation,” Dr. Gore said. “I would use it as a starting point for a conversation about lifestyle during pregnancy and encouraging pregnant women to avoid eating foods stored and/or prepared in plastics.”

The limitations of the study include not only the small sample size, but also that “the type of chemicals in the microplastics is for the most part unknown, making it difficult to assess which (if any) might be EDCs,” Dr. Gore emphasized. In addition, “lifestyle and diet can greatly affect exposures to chemicals, so this needs to be carefully factored into the analysis.” Also, “most of the detected particles are pigments, so connections to plastics (other than the one polypropylene particle) need to be strengthened,” she explained.

“The pathways by which microplastics might get into tissues are still rather speculative, and the mechanisms proposed by the authors (endocytosis, paracellular diffusion, entry via airways) need to be demonstrated,” Dr. Gore concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gore had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ragusa A et al. Environ Int. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.

Researchers in Italy have identified microplastic (MP) fragments in four human placentas that were donated for study after delivery.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

“The presence of MPs in the placenta tissue requires the reconsideration of the immunological mechanism of self-tolerance,” wrote Antonio Ragusa, MD, of San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, and colleagues. “Placenta represents the interface between the fetus and the environment.”

In a pilot observational study published in Environment International, the researchers used Raman microspectroscopy to analyze placentas from six women with physiological pregnancies for the presence of MPs. MPs were defined as particles smaller than 5 mm resulting from the degradation of plastic in the environment, such as plastic objects, coatings, adhesives, paints, and personal care products. Data from previous studies have shown that MPs can move into living organisms, but this study is the first to identify MPs in human placentas, the researchers said.
 

Polypropylene and pigments identified

A total of 12 microplastic fragments were identified in tissue from the placentas of four women; 5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side, and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes, which suggests that MPs can reach all levels of placental tissue, the researchers said. Most of the MPs were approximately 10 mcm in size, but two were roughly 5 mcm.

All 12 of the MPs were pigmented; of these, 3 were identified as stained polypropylene and the other 9 contained pigments used in a variety of items including coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics, and personal care products. The researchers used a software program to analyze the pigments and matched them with information from the European Chemical Agency for identification of the commercial name, chemical formula, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name, and Color Index Constitution Number.

The mechanism by which MPs may enter the bloodstream and access the placenta remains unclear, the researchers said. “The most probable transport route for MPs is a mechanism of particle uptake and translocation, already described for the internalization from the gastrointestinal tract. Once MPs have reached the maternal surface of the placenta, as other exogenous materials, they can invade the tissue in depth by several transport mechanisms, both active and passive, that are not clearly understood yet.”

The range in location and characteristics of the particles found in the study suggest that passage of MPs into the placenta may be affected by physiological conditions and genetics, as well as food and lifestyle habits of the patients, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and observational study design.

However, the presence of MPs in the placenta could affect the pregnancy in various ways, including immunity, growth factor signaling, maternal-fetal communication, and trafficking of various cell types and macrophages, the researchers wrote. In addition, MPs could have a transgenerational effect on metabolism and reproduction.

“Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of MPs in human placenta may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting harmful for pregnancy,” they concluded.
 

Cause for concern, but research gaps remain

“Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are detectable in tissues of humans and wildlife,” Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in an interview. “To my knowledge, this was never previously shown in the placenta.

“There are two reasons why detection of microplastics in placenta would be concerning,” Dr. Gore explained. “First, microplastics may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or they may concentrate other chemicals that are EDCs. Second, the developing fetus is exquisitely sensitive to natural hormones, and disruptions by EDCs may lead to both immediate as well as latent health problems.

“Clinicians should be concerned about particulate matter in the placenta, “although the number of particles was very small,” said Dr. Gore. “Out of six women, four had particles in their placentas (total of 12) of which one was confirmed to be a plastic (polypropylene). For the other 11 particles, only the pigments could be identified, so more work is needed to confirm whether they were plastics.

“If I were a clinician discussing this article with my patients, I would point out that, although it is concerning that microparticles are present in placenta, few of them were found, and it is not known whether any chemical is released from the particles or actually reaches the fetal circulation,” Dr. Gore said. “I would use it as a starting point for a conversation about lifestyle during pregnancy and encouraging pregnant women to avoid eating foods stored and/or prepared in plastics.”

The limitations of the study include not only the small sample size, but also that “the type of chemicals in the microplastics is for the most part unknown, making it difficult to assess which (if any) might be EDCs,” Dr. Gore emphasized. In addition, “lifestyle and diet can greatly affect exposures to chemicals, so this needs to be carefully factored into the analysis.” Also, “most of the detected particles are pigments, so connections to plastics (other than the one polypropylene particle) need to be strengthened,” she explained.

“The pathways by which microplastics might get into tissues are still rather speculative, and the mechanisms proposed by the authors (endocytosis, paracellular diffusion, entry via airways) need to be demonstrated,” Dr. Gore concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gore had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ragusa A et al. Environ Int. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.

Researchers in Italy have identified microplastic (MP) fragments in four human placentas that were donated for study after delivery.

curtoicurto/Getty Images

“The presence of MPs in the placenta tissue requires the reconsideration of the immunological mechanism of self-tolerance,” wrote Antonio Ragusa, MD, of San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, and colleagues. “Placenta represents the interface between the fetus and the environment.”

In a pilot observational study published in Environment International, the researchers used Raman microspectroscopy to analyze placentas from six women with physiological pregnancies for the presence of MPs. MPs were defined as particles smaller than 5 mm resulting from the degradation of plastic in the environment, such as plastic objects, coatings, adhesives, paints, and personal care products. Data from previous studies have shown that MPs can move into living organisms, but this study is the first to identify MPs in human placentas, the researchers said.
 

Polypropylene and pigments identified

A total of 12 microplastic fragments were identified in tissue from the placentas of four women; 5 in the fetal side, 4 in the maternal side, and 3 in the chorioamniotic membranes, which suggests that MPs can reach all levels of placental tissue, the researchers said. Most of the MPs were approximately 10 mcm in size, but two were roughly 5 mcm.

All 12 of the MPs were pigmented; of these, 3 were identified as stained polypropylene and the other 9 contained pigments used in a variety of items including coatings, paints, adhesives, plasters, finger paints, polymers and cosmetics, and personal care products. The researchers used a software program to analyze the pigments and matched them with information from the European Chemical Agency for identification of the commercial name, chemical formula, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry name, and Color Index Constitution Number.

The mechanism by which MPs may enter the bloodstream and access the placenta remains unclear, the researchers said. “The most probable transport route for MPs is a mechanism of particle uptake and translocation, already described for the internalization from the gastrointestinal tract. Once MPs have reached the maternal surface of the placenta, as other exogenous materials, they can invade the tissue in depth by several transport mechanisms, both active and passive, that are not clearly understood yet.”

The range in location and characteristics of the particles found in the study suggest that passage of MPs into the placenta may be affected by physiological conditions and genetics, as well as food and lifestyle habits of the patients, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size and observational study design.

However, the presence of MPs in the placenta could affect the pregnancy in various ways, including immunity, growth factor signaling, maternal-fetal communication, and trafficking of various cell types and macrophages, the researchers wrote. In addition, MPs could have a transgenerational effect on metabolism and reproduction.

“Further studies need to be performed to assess if the presence of MPs in human placenta may trigger immune responses or may lead to the release of toxic contaminants, resulting harmful for pregnancy,” they concluded.
 

Cause for concern, but research gaps remain

“Microplastics are ubiquitous in the environment and are detectable in tissues of humans and wildlife,” Andrea C. Gore, PhD, of the University of Texas, Austin, said in an interview. “To my knowledge, this was never previously shown in the placenta.

“There are two reasons why detection of microplastics in placenta would be concerning,” Dr. Gore explained. “First, microplastics may be endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), or they may concentrate other chemicals that are EDCs. Second, the developing fetus is exquisitely sensitive to natural hormones, and disruptions by EDCs may lead to both immediate as well as latent health problems.

“Clinicians should be concerned about particulate matter in the placenta, “although the number of particles was very small,” said Dr. Gore. “Out of six women, four had particles in their placentas (total of 12) of which one was confirmed to be a plastic (polypropylene). For the other 11 particles, only the pigments could be identified, so more work is needed to confirm whether they were plastics.

“If I were a clinician discussing this article with my patients, I would point out that, although it is concerning that microparticles are present in placenta, few of them were found, and it is not known whether any chemical is released from the particles or actually reaches the fetal circulation,” Dr. Gore said. “I would use it as a starting point for a conversation about lifestyle during pregnancy and encouraging pregnant women to avoid eating foods stored and/or prepared in plastics.”

The limitations of the study include not only the small sample size, but also that “the type of chemicals in the microplastics is for the most part unknown, making it difficult to assess which (if any) might be EDCs,” Dr. Gore emphasized. In addition, “lifestyle and diet can greatly affect exposures to chemicals, so this needs to be carefully factored into the analysis.” Also, “most of the detected particles are pigments, so connections to plastics (other than the one polypropylene particle) need to be strengthened,” she explained.

“The pathways by which microplastics might get into tissues are still rather speculative, and the mechanisms proposed by the authors (endocytosis, paracellular diffusion, entry via airways) need to be demonstrated,” Dr. Gore concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gore had no conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Ragusa A et al. Environ Int. 2020 Dec 2. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.106274.

Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.

They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.

For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m² in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.

Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.

Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.

The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.

SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.

This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.

Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.

They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.

For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m² in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.

Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.

Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.

The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.

SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.

This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.

Exercise and a hypocaloric, Mediterranean-style diet remain first-line interventions that can benefit all patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), according to a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

“[W]eight loss is associated with a reduction in liver fat, which provides a potential for reversal of disease progression,” wrote Zobair M. Younossi, MD, MPH, of Inova Fairfax Medical Campus in Falls Church, Va., with his associates. Lifestyle modifications remain “the cornerstone for management” because, even though NAFLD affects approximately 25% of individuals worldwide according to one meta-analytic assessment, interventions such as medications, bariatric endoscopy, and surgery are usually reserved for the subset of patients with severe obesity, comorbid diabetes, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with at least stage 2 fibrosis, the experts wrote in Gastroenterology.

They note that clinically significant weight loss typically requires a hypocaloric diet of 1,200-1,500 kilocalories/day or a decrease of 500-1,000 kilocalories/day from baseline. A Mediterranean diet of fresh vegetables, fruits, legumes, minimally processed whole grains, fish, olive oil, nuts, and seeds is recommended because its antioxidant, anti-inflammatory effects may slow NAFLD progression. This diet minimizes or eliminates sweets, refined grains, and red and processed meats. Fructose from fruit is not associated with NAFLD, but patients should consume little or no commercially prepared fructose, which has been linked to visceral adiposity, insulin resistance, hepatic inflammation, and fibrosis progression. Other hypocaloric diets have not been studied enough to support their routine use in NAFLD treatment, according to the clinical practice update.

For patients with NASH, which is the more severe form of NAFLD and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality caused by complications from cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma, weight loss also has a big impact: Losing at least 5% of total body weight can decrease hepatic steatosis, losing at least 7% can resolve NASH, and losing at least 10% can lessen or stabilize hepatic fibrosis, according to level 1 evidence cited by the update. Weight loss “can significantly impact all aspects of NAFLD histology including fibrosis, but a goal of 10% total body weight loss should be considered for patients with overweight or obese NAFLD,” the authors wrote. Fat loss also improves liver histology in patients with lean NAFLD (body mass index, 26 kg/m² in non-Asian patients or 24 in Asians), for whom a hypocaloric diet targeting a more modest 3%-5% total body weight loss is recommended.

Because aerobic exercise reduces hepatic fat levels independently of hypocaloric diet, patients with NAFLD should consider a weekly regimen of 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity. Resistance training can complement aerobic exercise “but [is] not a replacement,” the authors noted. In addition, patients with NAFLD should restrict alcohol consumption to reduce the risk for liver-related events, and those with advanced hepatic fibrosis should “avoid alcohol entirely.” These recommendations reflect the findings of a large prospective study in which the consumption of even low amounts of alcohol led to worse liver-related outcomes among patients with NAFLD.

Clinicians should screen for and “aggressively” manage common NAFLD comorbidities, including diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and obstructive sleep apnea, according to the clinical practice update. Patients with coexisting metabolic conditions should be risk-stratified for cardiovascular disease and treated based on guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

It is believed that sarcopenia affects patients with NASH cirrhosis because their livers cannot effectively store, metabolize, or mobilize carbohydrates, which leads to a catabolic state in which protein and fat are used as energy sources, according to the update. To avoid exacerbations, these patients may need to optimize their protein intake – a minimum of 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight is recommended – from sources of branched-chain amino acids, such as chicken, fish, eggs, nuts, lentils, or soy. Patients with sarcopenic NAFLD also should consume small, frequent meals spaced no more than 4-6 hours apart. When possible, they should consult with a specialized nutritionist. Moderate-intensity exercise may also benefit patients experiencing sarcopenia.

The researchers disclosed ties to Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and several other companies. The review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute’s Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board.

SOURCE: Younossi ZM et al. Gastroenterology. 2020 Dec 8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.051.

This article was updated Feb. 10, 2021.

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A proposal to delay administration of the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines – suggested as a strategy to boost the number of people who get some degree of protection from a single immunization with the Pfizer/BioNTech or Moderna vaccines – is inciting a strong debate among clinicians and public health officials.

Proponents argue that getting some degree of protection to a greater number of Americans is worthwhile, particularly as case numbers and hospitalizations continue to rise and with the emergence of a more contagious variant.

Opponents raise concerns about diverting from the two-dose schedule evaluated in clinical trials, including a lack of data on long-term protection from a single dose. They also suggest a longer interval between dosing could increase resistance of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

It is time to consider delaying the second dose, Robert M. Wachter, MD, at the University of California San Francisco, and Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, at Brown University in Providence, R.I., wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post Jan. 3. 

The two experts state that supply constraints, distribution bottlenecks, and hundreds of thousands of new infections daily prompted them to change their stance on administering COVID-19 vaccines according to the two-dose clinical trial regimen. Furthermore, they cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggests 80%-90% efficacy for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection following one dose of the Moderna vaccine. 

Not everyone agrees one dose is a good idea. “Clinical trials with specific schedules for vaccine dosing – that’s the whole basis of the scientific evidence,” Maria Elena Bottazzi, PhD, associate dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

After one dose “the immune system is learning, but it’s not ideal. That’s why you need the second dose,” Dr. Bottazzi said. “I appreciate the urgency and the anxiety ... but the data support [that] clinical efficacy requires two doses.”

Another proposed strategy to extend the current supply of COVID-19 vaccines to more Americans involves splitting the current dosage of the Moderna vaccine in half. Officials in the United States and the United Kingdom are reportedly considering this approach. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration would have to approve any dosing change.
 

Agreeing to disagree

Dr. Wachter shared a link to his opinion piece on Twitter, stating that “We both came to this view because of the slow rollout & the new variant. But it’s a tough call and reasonable people will disagree.”

As predicted, the tweet elicited a number of strong opinions.

“There are no correct answers but there’s data deficiency, plenty of fodder and need for healthy, intellectual debate. That wouldn’t be occurring if there was an ample supply of vaccines,” Eric Topol, MD, director of the Scripps Translational Science Institute and editor-in-chief of Medscape, tweeted on Jan. 3.

“If the problem were with the supply of the vaccine, one might make an argument for focusing on 1st dose. But the problem is in distribution of the vaccine & giving actual doses,” John Grohol, PsyD, tweeted.

“Right now we don’t have a supply issue, we have a distribution issue,” Angela Shen, ScD, MPH, a research scientist in the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview. Emergency use authorization for the Johnson & Johnson and other COVID-19 vaccines in development could further boost available supplies, she added.

“The clinical trials studied two doses,” Dr. Shen said. “We don’t have data that one dose is going to have lasting protection.” 
 

Does new variant change equation?

Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha, in their editorial, cited a quote from former boxing champion Mike Tyson: “Everybody has a plan until they’ve been punched in the mouth.” ‘Punches’ such as the new variant, the high number of cases and deaths in the United States, and other problems prompted them to advocate for the delayed dosing strategy.

“Appreciate the concern for the new variant – I think it’s worth noting that we’re punching ourselves in the mouth with the slow vaccine rollout, which is the first problem to solve,” Jake Quinton, MD, an internist at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, noted on Twitter.

 

Vaccine and public resistance raised

“I agree with the problem but not with the proposed solution, which is guesswork not based on data,” the Jan Grimm Lab at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York responded to Dr. Wachter and Dr. Jha on Twitter. “There ARE data though that show that 1 shot alone did not elicit sufficient T-cell nor antibody response. This might also lead to mutations resistant to the vaccines. Dangerous!”

Other physicians took to Twitter to point out that changing the recommendations at this point could further erode public confidence in COVID-19 immunization. For example, Deirdre Habermehl, MD, wrote, “We’ve spent months telling the public the best route is to follow the science and now without data think a course correction based on a guesstimate is ok? Public confidence is low enough and the real issue is logistics at this point.”

Dr. Shen and Dr. Bottazzi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SARS-CoV-2 can invade the brain and directly act on brain cells, causing neuroinflammation, new animal research suggests. Investigators injected spike 1 (S1), which is found on the tufts of the “red spikes” of the virus, into mice and found that it crossed the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and was taken up not only by brain regions and the brain space but also by other organs – specifically, the lungs, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

“We found that the S1 protein, which is the protein COVID-19 uses to ‘grab onto’ cells, crosses the BBB and is a good model of what the virus does when it enters the brain,” lead author William A. Banks, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview.

“When proteins such as the S1 protein become detached from the virus, they can enter the brain and cause mayhem, causing the brain to release cytokines, which, in turn, cause inflammation and subsequent neurotoxicity,” said Dr. Banks, associate chief of staff and a researcher at the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience.
 

Neurologic symptoms

COVID-19 is associated with a variety of central nervous system symptoms, including the loss of taste and smell, headaches, confusion, stroke, and cerebral hemorrhage, the investigators noted.

Dr. Banks explained that SARS-CoV-2 may enter the brain by crossing the BBB, acting directly on the brain centers responsible for other body functions. The respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 may therefore result partly from the invasion of the areas of the brain responsible for respiratory functions, not only from the virus’ action at the site of the lungs.

The researchers set out to assess whether a particular viral protein – S1, which is a subunit of the viral spike protein – could cross the BBB or enter other organs when injected into mice. They found that, when intravenously injected S1 (I-S1) was cleared from the blood, tissues in multiple organs, including the lung, spleen, kidney, and liver, took it up.

Notably, uptake of I-S1 was higher in the liver, “suggesting that this protein is cleared from the blood predominantly by the liver,” Dr. Banks said. In addition, uptake by the lungs is “important, because that’s where many of the effects of the virus are,” he added.

The researchers found that I-S1 in the brains of the mice was “mostly degraded” 30 minutes following injection. “This indicates that I-S1 enters the BBB intact but is eventually degraded in the brain,” they wrote.

Moreover, by 30 minutes, more than half of the I-S1 proteins had crossed the capillary wall and had fully entered into the brain parenchymal and interstitial fluid spaces, as well as other regions.
 

More severe outcomes in men

The researchers then induced an inflammatory state in the mice through injection of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and found that inflammation increased I-S1 uptake in both the brain and the lung (where uptake was increased by 101%). “These results show that inflammation could increase S1 toxicity for lung tissue by increasing its uptake,” the authors suggested. Moreover, inflammation also increased the entry of I-S1 into the brain, “likely due to BBB disruption.”

In human beings, male sex and APOE4 genotype are risk factors for both contracting COVID-19 and having a poor outcome, the authors noted. As a result, they examined I-S1 uptake in male and female mice that expressed human APOE3 or APOE4 (induced by a mouse ApoE promoter).

Multiple-comparison tests showed that among male mice that expressed human APOE3, the “fastest I-S1 uptake” was in the olfactory bulb, liver, and kidney. Female mice displayed increased APOE3 uptake in the spleen.

“This observation might relate to the increased susceptibility of men to more severe COVID-19 outcomes,” coauthor Jacob Raber, PhD, professor, departments of behavioral neuroscience, neurology, and radiation medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, said in a press release.

In addition to intravenous I-S1 injection, the researchers also investigated the effects of intranasal administration. They found that, although it also entered the brain, it did so at levels roughly 10 times lower than those induced by intravenous administration.
 

“Frightening tricks”

Dr. Banks said his laboratory has studied the BBB in conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, obesity, diabetes, and HIV. “Our experience with viruses is that they do an incredible number of things and have a frightening number of tricks,” he said. In this case, “the virus is probably causing inflammation by releasing cytokines elsewhere in the body that get into the brain through the BBB.” Conversely, “the virus itself may enter the brain by crossing the BBB and directly cause brain cells to release their own cytokines,” he added.

An additional finding of the study is that, whatever the S1 protein does in the brain is a model for what the entire virus itself does, because these proteins often bring the viruses along with them, he added.

Dr. Banks said the clinical implications of the findings are that antibodies from those who have already had COVID-19 could potentially be directed against S1. Similarly, he added, so can COVID-19 vaccines, which induce production of S1.

“When an antibody locks onto something, it prevents it from crossing the BBB,” Dr. Banks noted.
 

Confirmatory findings

Commenting on the study, Howard E. Gendelman, MD, Margaret R. Larson Professor of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases and professor and chair of the department of pharmacology and experimental neuroscience, University of Nebraska, Omaha, said the study is confirmatory.

“What this paper highlights, and we have known for a long time, is that COVID-19 is a systemic, not only a respiratory, disease involving many organs and tissues and can yield not only pulmonary problems but also a whole host of cardiac, brain, and kidney problems,” he said.

“So the fact that these proteins are getting in [the brain] and are able to induce a reaction in the brain itself, and this is part of the complex progressive nature of COVID-19, is an important finding,” added Dr. Gendelman, director of the center for neurodegenerative disorders at the university. He was not involved with the study.

The study was supported by the Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Healthcare System and by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors and Dr. Gendelman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

The United States started 2021 they way it ended 2020: Setting new records amidst the coronavirus pandemic.

Courtesy NIAID-RML

The country passed the 20 million mark for coronavirus cases on Friday, setting the mark sometime around noon, according to Johns Hopkins University’s COVID-19 tracker. The total is nearly twice as many as the next worst country – India, which has 10.28 million cases.

Along with the case count, more than 346,000 Americans have now died of COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus. That is 77% more fatalities than Brazil, which ranks second globally with 194,949 deaths.

More than 125,370 coronavirus patients were hospitalized on Thursday, the fourth record-setting day in a row, according to the COVID Tracking Project.

Going by official tallies, it took 292 days for the United States to reach its first 10 million cases, and just 54 more days to double it, CNN reported.

Meanwhile, 12.41 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been distributed in the United States as of Wednesday, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yet only 2.8 million people have received the first of a two-shot regimen.

The slower-than-hoped-for rollout of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines comes as a new variant of the coronavirus has emerged in a third state. Florida officials announced a confirmed case of the new variant – believed to have originated in the United Kingdom – in Martin County in southeast Florida.

The state health department said on Twitter that the patient is a man in his 20s with no history of travel. The department said it is working with the CDC to investigate.

The variant has also been confirmed in cases in Colorado and California. It is believed to be more contagious. The BBC reported that the new variant increases the reproduction, or “R number,” by 0.4 and 0.7. The UK’s most recent R number has been estimated at 1.1-1.3, meaning anyone who has the coronavirus could be assumed to spread it to up to 1.3 people.

The R number needs to be below 1.0 for the spread of the virus to fall.

“There is a huge difference in how easily the variant virus spreads,” Professor Axel Gandy of London’s Imperial College told BBC News. “This is the most serious change in the virus since the epidemic began.”

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Congress has ordered the holdouts among U.S. states to have their Medicaid programs cover expenses related to participation in certain clinical trials, a move that was hailed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and other groups as a boost to trials as well as to patients with serious illness who have lower incomes.

A massive wrap-up spending/COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law Dec. 27 carried with it a mandate on Medicaid. States are ordered to put in place Medicaid payment policies for routine items and services, such as the cost of physician visits or laboratory tests, that are provided in connection with participation in clinical trials for serious and life-threatening conditions. The law includes a January 2022 target date for this coverage through Medicaid.

Medicare and other large insurers already pick up the tab for these kinds of expenses, leaving Medicaid as an outlier, ASCO noted in a press statement. ASCO and other cancer groups have for years pressed Medicaid to cover routine expenses for people participating in clinical trials. Already, 15 states, including California, require their Medicaid programs to cover these expenses, according to ASCO.

“We believe that the trials can bring extra benefits to patients,” said Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Dr. Bertagnolli has worked for years to secure Medicaid coverage for expenses connected to clinical trials.

Although Medicaid covers costs of standard care for cancer patients, people enrolled in the program may have concerns about participating in clinical studies, said Dr. Bertagnolli, chair of the Association for Clinical Oncology, which was established by ASCO to promote wider access to cancer care. Having extra medical expenses may be more than these patients can tolerate.

“Many of them just say, ‘I can’t take that financial risk, so I’ll just stay with standard of care,’ “ Dr. Bertagnolli said in an interview.
 

Equity issues

Medicaid has expanded greatly, owing to financial aid provided to states through the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

To date, 38 of 50 U.S. states have accepted federal aid to lift income limits for Medicaid eligibility, according to a tally kept by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. This Medicaid expansion has given more of the nation’s working poor access to health.care, including cancer treatment. Between 2013 and January 2020, enrollment in Medicaid in expansion states increased by about 12.4 million, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission.

Medicaid is the nation’s dominant health insurer. Enrollment has been around 70 million in recent months.

That tops the 61 million enrolled in Medicare, the federal program for people aged 65 and older and those with disabilities. (There’s some overlap between Medicare and Medicaid. About 12.8 million persons were dually eligible for these programs in 2018.) UnitedHealth, a giant private insurer, has about 43 million domestic customers.

Medicaid also serves many of the groups of people for which researchers have been seeking to increase participation in clinical trials. ASCO’s Association for Clinical Oncology and dozens of its partners raised this point in a letter to congressional leaders on Feb. 15, 2020.

“Lack of participation in clinical trials from the Medicaid population means these patients are being excluded from potentially life-saving trials and are not reflected in the outcome of the clinical research,” the groups wrote. “Increased access to clinical trial participation for Medicaid enrollees helps ensure medical research results more accurately capture and reflect the populations of this country.”

The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is working to address some of the racial gaps in insurance coverage, according to a January 2020 report from the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund.

Black and Hispanic adults are almost twice as likely as are White adults to have incomes that are less than 200% of the federal poverty level, according to the Commonwealth Fund report. The report also said that people in these groups reported significantly higher rates of cost-related problems in receiving care before the Medicaid expansion began in 2014.

The uninsured rate for Black adults dropped from 24.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in 2018; the rate for Hispanic adults fell from 40.2% to 24.9%, according to the Commonwealth Fund report.

There are concerns, though, about attempts by some governors to impose onerous restrictions on adults enrolled in Medicaid, Dr. Bertagnolli said. She was president of ASCO in 2018 when the group called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reject state requests to create restrictions that could hinder people’s access to cancer screening or care.

The Trump administration encouraged governors to adopt work requirements. As a result, a dozen states approved these policies, according to a November report from the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The efforts were blocked by courts.

Data from the limited period of implementation in Arkansas, Michigan, and New Hampshire provide evidence that these kinds of requirements don’t work as intended, according to the CBPP report.

“In all three states, evidence suggests that people who were working and people with serious health needs who should have been eligible for exemptions lost coverage or were at risk of losing coverage due to red tape,” CBPP analysts Jennifer Wagner and Jessica Schubel wrote in their report.

In 2019, The New England Journal of Medicine published an article about the early stages of the Arkansas experiment with Medicaid work rules. Almost 17,000 adults lost their health care coverage in the initial months of implementation, but there appeared to be no significant difference in employment, Benjamin Sommers, MD, PhD, of the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues wrote in their article.

For many people in Arkansas, coverage was lost because of difficulties in reporting compliance with the Medicaid work rule, not because of the employment mandate itself, according to the authors. More than 95% of persons who were targeted by Arkansas’ Medicaid work policy already met its requirements or should have been exempt, they wrote.

Democrats have tended to oppose efforts to attach work requirements, which can include volunteer activities or career training, to Medicaid. Dr. Bertagnolli said there is a need to guard against any future bid to add work requirements to the program.

Extra bureaucratic hurdles may pose an especially tough burden on working adults enrolled in Medicaid, she said.

People who qualify for the program may already be worried about their finances while juggling continued demands of child care and employment, she said. They don’t need to be put at risk of losing access to medical care over administrative rules while undergoing cancer treatment, she said.

“We have to take care of people who are sick. That’s just the way it is,” Dr. Bertagnolli said.

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

Millions of Americans with treatment-resistant hypertension are likely not being tested to determine whether their high blood pressure is driven by primary aldosteronism (PA), despite guidelines that call for such an approach, according to findings from the first reported large-scale, multicenter study of PA testing practices.

Researchers ran a retrospective review of PA testing among 269,010 patients who met the definition as having treatment-resistant hypertension and were managed at any one of 130 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers from 2000 to 2017.

The results showed that, despite the fact that primary aldosteronism is highly prevalent among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, only 4,277 (1.6%) underwent assessment for PA during a median of 3.3 years’ follow-up after they first met the defining criteria, Jordana B. Cohen, MD, and her associates reported in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine on December 28.

“Testing rates also did not change meaningfully over nearly 2 decades ... despite an increasing number of guidelines recommending testing for primary aldosteronism in this population,” including the most recent recommendations from the Endocrine Society, issued in 2016, noted Dr. Cohen, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Most patients in the study (almost 90%) were seen by a primary care practitioner (PCP).

The small percentage of patients seen by a nephrologist or endocrinologist were more than twice as likely to be tested for PA than those seen by a PCP or cardiologist.

Those clinicians who did order a test for PA were much more likely to treat patients with the appropriate medication, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). In addition, therapy was started sooner, the researchers found.

“Our results corroborate” earlier reports from smaller health systems and suggest that dramatic underuse of PA assessment “is an issue across the US,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The VHA experience “is very representative of what we think goes on across U.S. practice” and contrasts with the VHA’s reputation for “doing a pretty good job managing hypertension” in general, she noted.
 

Missed diagnosis, missed treatment

Dr. Cohen believes a number of factors likely help drive the abysmally low rate of PA testing they observed in the VHA system. She believes rates of PA testing are low elsewhere as well.

First, optimal hypertension management “is often taken for granted” but is challenging in busy primary care practices, so many of patients likely fall through the cracks, she said.

Dr. Cohen cited efforts at her institution, as well as by the VHA system, to better employ electronic health records to flag patients with treatment-resistant hypertension – defined as patients whose systolic or diastolic blood pressure remains at or above 140/90 mm Hg on at least two successive measurements at least a month apart while the patient is undergoing treatment with three conventional antihypertensive drugs – and to guide clinicians to order the right tests and treatments for these patients.

Many care providers mistakenly “see treatment-resistant hypertension as a disease of noncompliance,” although it is much more often the result of a missed diagnosis and inadequate intervention, she explained.
 

Physicians in denial; side effects of MRAs may deter prescribing

A second big cause of low PA testing rates is that doctors make the mistake of thinking a PA test result won’t change how they manage these patients.

The established treatment for most patients with treatment-resistant hypertension as well as PA is adding an MRA, either spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra).

Many providers cling to the belief that they will start an MRA in these patients without first determining their PA status, says Dr. Cohen, but the data she and her colleagues collected show the opposite.

Overall, about 13% of all patients in the study began treatment with an MRA during follow-up. The likelihood of starting treatment with this drug class was fourfold higher among the patients tested for PA compared with those who were not tested.

PA testing also hastened the start of MRA use by more than a year, compared with untested patients.

“Providers think they prescribe an MRA” to treatment-resistant patients, “but it’s part of their denial. They are not using the evidence-based treatments [spironolactone or eplerenone], perhaps because of concerns about MRA side effects, although those have been pretty well overcome during the past 20 years,” she observed.

Dr. Cohen says gynecomastia is one adverse effect that gives pause to VHA clinicians who see a heavily male patient population. “It’s probably the biggest concern and why PA testing and MRA use is low” in the VHA system, she said.

“You can use a lower dosage of spironolactone, and the incidence is less common with eplerenone,” although using eplerenone does not completely eliminate all gynecomastia cases, she noted.

At the University of Pennsylvania hospitals, men often start on spironolactone first because it retains a significant price advantage, even though eplerenone is now generic, but “if there is a hint of gynecomastia, we quickly switch to eplerenone, which is usually well tolerated,” she explained.

And while eplerenone has a reputation of being less effective than spironolactone, “I’ve prescribed a lot of eplerenone and have had good results,” Dr. Cohen said. “Even if the blood pressure lowering is not as great compared with spironolactone, it still blunts the toxic effects of aldosterone on target organs.”

Hyperkalemia is the other big concern about spironolactone and eplerenone. Both agents cause it at roughly the same rate, although the rate is lower in patients without chronic kidney disease.

A new, nonsteroidal MRA, finerenone, caused substantially less hyperkalemia in a recent phase 3 trial, FIDELIO-DKD, and as a nonsteroidal MRA, it does not cause gynecomastia. Finerenone has promise as a potentially safer option for treating PA and treatment-resistant hypertension, noted Cohen, but so far, no advanced clinical trials have been launched to examine its efficacy for these indications.
 

PA testing allows a surgical option

A third reason to test patients with treatment-resistant hypertension for PA is that jumping straight to MRA treatment denies the patient assessment for a unilateral adrenal adenoma as the cause of excess aldosterone.

When unilateral adenomas exist, patients are candidates for adrenalectomy. Despite the potential advantage this gives patients to eliminate the cause of their PA without the need for additional drug treatment, some clinicians don’t see this as a compelling rationale to test for PA because they have a bias against surgery or have seen too many cases in which surgery failed to produce full hypertension resolution.

“It’s all about setting expectations appropriately” for the impact of this surgery, Dr. Cohen said.

“Adrenalectomy is not a cure; it just gets rid of the source of excess aldosterone.” But in patients with long-standing PA and hypertension, this is often not enough to completely resolve entrenched cardiovascular pathology.
 

PCPs, cardiologists in rural locations least likely to order PA testing

Of the 269,010 patients analyzed by Dr. Cohen and her coauthors, the average age was 65 years; 96% were men; half were obese; and 40% had diabetes. The researchers excluded patients who had already been tested for PA, as well as those who were already receiving treatment with an MRA.

For 88% of the patients, the main physician overseeing care was a PCP. A cardiologist was the main physician for 10%; a nephrologist, for 1%; and an endocrinologist, for fewer than 1%.

The rate of testing for PA varied across the 130 VHA centers that contributed data, ranging from 0% to 6%. The testing data showed that endocrinologists were most likely to order PA testing, doing it 2.48-fold more often than PCPs. Nephrologists were roughly twice as likely to order PA testing than PCPs, and cardiologists ordered testing at about the same rate as PCPs.

Patients managed at VHA centers in rural locations were nearly half as likely to undergo testing as patients managed at nonrural centers. The number of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension seen by a physician or at a center had no significant relationship to PA testing frequency.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Millions of Americans with treatment-resistant hypertension are likely not being tested to determine whether their high blood pressure is driven by primary aldosteronism (PA), despite guidelines that call for such an approach, according to findings from the first reported large-scale, multicenter study of PA testing practices.

Researchers ran a retrospective review of PA testing among 269,010 patients who met the definition as having treatment-resistant hypertension and were managed at any one of 130 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers from 2000 to 2017.

The results showed that, despite the fact that primary aldosteronism is highly prevalent among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, only 4,277 (1.6%) underwent assessment for PA during a median of 3.3 years’ follow-up after they first met the defining criteria, Jordana B. Cohen, MD, and her associates reported in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine on December 28.

“Testing rates also did not change meaningfully over nearly 2 decades ... despite an increasing number of guidelines recommending testing for primary aldosteronism in this population,” including the most recent recommendations from the Endocrine Society, issued in 2016, noted Dr. Cohen, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Most patients in the study (almost 90%) were seen by a primary care practitioner (PCP).

The small percentage of patients seen by a nephrologist or endocrinologist were more than twice as likely to be tested for PA than those seen by a PCP or cardiologist.

Those clinicians who did order a test for PA were much more likely to treat patients with the appropriate medication, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). In addition, therapy was started sooner, the researchers found.

“Our results corroborate” earlier reports from smaller health systems and suggest that dramatic underuse of PA assessment “is an issue across the US,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The VHA experience “is very representative of what we think goes on across U.S. practice” and contrasts with the VHA’s reputation for “doing a pretty good job managing hypertension” in general, she noted.
 

Missed diagnosis, missed treatment

Dr. Cohen believes a number of factors likely help drive the abysmally low rate of PA testing they observed in the VHA system. She believes rates of PA testing are low elsewhere as well.

First, optimal hypertension management “is often taken for granted” but is challenging in busy primary care practices, so many of patients likely fall through the cracks, she said.

Dr. Cohen cited efforts at her institution, as well as by the VHA system, to better employ electronic health records to flag patients with treatment-resistant hypertension – defined as patients whose systolic or diastolic blood pressure remains at or above 140/90 mm Hg on at least two successive measurements at least a month apart while the patient is undergoing treatment with three conventional antihypertensive drugs – and to guide clinicians to order the right tests and treatments for these patients.

Many care providers mistakenly “see treatment-resistant hypertension as a disease of noncompliance,” although it is much more often the result of a missed diagnosis and inadequate intervention, she explained.
 

Physicians in denial; side effects of MRAs may deter prescribing

A second big cause of low PA testing rates is that doctors make the mistake of thinking a PA test result won’t change how they manage these patients.

The established treatment for most patients with treatment-resistant hypertension as well as PA is adding an MRA, either spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra).

Many providers cling to the belief that they will start an MRA in these patients without first determining their PA status, says Dr. Cohen, but the data she and her colleagues collected show the opposite.

Overall, about 13% of all patients in the study began treatment with an MRA during follow-up. The likelihood of starting treatment with this drug class was fourfold higher among the patients tested for PA compared with those who were not tested.

PA testing also hastened the start of MRA use by more than a year, compared with untested patients.

“Providers think they prescribe an MRA” to treatment-resistant patients, “but it’s part of their denial. They are not using the evidence-based treatments [spironolactone or eplerenone], perhaps because of concerns about MRA side effects, although those have been pretty well overcome during the past 20 years,” she observed.

Dr. Cohen says gynecomastia is one adverse effect that gives pause to VHA clinicians who see a heavily male patient population. “It’s probably the biggest concern and why PA testing and MRA use is low” in the VHA system, she said.

“You can use a lower dosage of spironolactone, and the incidence is less common with eplerenone,” although using eplerenone does not completely eliminate all gynecomastia cases, she noted.

At the University of Pennsylvania hospitals, men often start on spironolactone first because it retains a significant price advantage, even though eplerenone is now generic, but “if there is a hint of gynecomastia, we quickly switch to eplerenone, which is usually well tolerated,” she explained.

And while eplerenone has a reputation of being less effective than spironolactone, “I’ve prescribed a lot of eplerenone and have had good results,” Dr. Cohen said. “Even if the blood pressure lowering is not as great compared with spironolactone, it still blunts the toxic effects of aldosterone on target organs.”

Hyperkalemia is the other big concern about spironolactone and eplerenone. Both agents cause it at roughly the same rate, although the rate is lower in patients without chronic kidney disease.

A new, nonsteroidal MRA, finerenone, caused substantially less hyperkalemia in a recent phase 3 trial, FIDELIO-DKD, and as a nonsteroidal MRA, it does not cause gynecomastia. Finerenone has promise as a potentially safer option for treating PA and treatment-resistant hypertension, noted Cohen, but so far, no advanced clinical trials have been launched to examine its efficacy for these indications.
 

PA testing allows a surgical option

A third reason to test patients with treatment-resistant hypertension for PA is that jumping straight to MRA treatment denies the patient assessment for a unilateral adrenal adenoma as the cause of excess aldosterone.

When unilateral adenomas exist, patients are candidates for adrenalectomy. Despite the potential advantage this gives patients to eliminate the cause of their PA without the need for additional drug treatment, some clinicians don’t see this as a compelling rationale to test for PA because they have a bias against surgery or have seen too many cases in which surgery failed to produce full hypertension resolution.

“It’s all about setting expectations appropriately” for the impact of this surgery, Dr. Cohen said.

“Adrenalectomy is not a cure; it just gets rid of the source of excess aldosterone.” But in patients with long-standing PA and hypertension, this is often not enough to completely resolve entrenched cardiovascular pathology.
 

PCPs, cardiologists in rural locations least likely to order PA testing

Of the 269,010 patients analyzed by Dr. Cohen and her coauthors, the average age was 65 years; 96% were men; half were obese; and 40% had diabetes. The researchers excluded patients who had already been tested for PA, as well as those who were already receiving treatment with an MRA.

For 88% of the patients, the main physician overseeing care was a PCP. A cardiologist was the main physician for 10%; a nephrologist, for 1%; and an endocrinologist, for fewer than 1%.

The rate of testing for PA varied across the 130 VHA centers that contributed data, ranging from 0% to 6%. The testing data showed that endocrinologists were most likely to order PA testing, doing it 2.48-fold more often than PCPs. Nephrologists were roughly twice as likely to order PA testing than PCPs, and cardiologists ordered testing at about the same rate as PCPs.

Patients managed at VHA centers in rural locations were nearly half as likely to undergo testing as patients managed at nonrural centers. The number of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension seen by a physician or at a center had no significant relationship to PA testing frequency.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Millions of Americans with treatment-resistant hypertension are likely not being tested to determine whether their high blood pressure is driven by primary aldosteronism (PA), despite guidelines that call for such an approach, according to findings from the first reported large-scale, multicenter study of PA testing practices.

Researchers ran a retrospective review of PA testing among 269,010 patients who met the definition as having treatment-resistant hypertension and were managed at any one of 130 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical centers from 2000 to 2017.

The results showed that, despite the fact that primary aldosteronism is highly prevalent among patients with treatment-resistant hypertension, only 4,277 (1.6%) underwent assessment for PA during a median of 3.3 years’ follow-up after they first met the defining criteria, Jordana B. Cohen, MD, and her associates reported in a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine on December 28.

“Testing rates also did not change meaningfully over nearly 2 decades ... despite an increasing number of guidelines recommending testing for primary aldosteronism in this population,” including the most recent recommendations from the Endocrine Society, issued in 2016, noted Dr. Cohen, a nephrologist and hypertension researcher at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and colleagues.

Most patients in the study (almost 90%) were seen by a primary care practitioner (PCP).

The small percentage of patients seen by a nephrologist or endocrinologist were more than twice as likely to be tested for PA than those seen by a PCP or cardiologist.

Those clinicians who did order a test for PA were much more likely to treat patients with the appropriate medication, a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). In addition, therapy was started sooner, the researchers found.

“Our results corroborate” earlier reports from smaller health systems and suggest that dramatic underuse of PA assessment “is an issue across the US,” Dr. Cohen said in an interview.

The VHA experience “is very representative of what we think goes on across U.S. practice” and contrasts with the VHA’s reputation for “doing a pretty good job managing hypertension” in general, she noted.
 

Missed diagnosis, missed treatment

Dr. Cohen believes a number of factors likely help drive the abysmally low rate of PA testing they observed in the VHA system. She believes rates of PA testing are low elsewhere as well.

First, optimal hypertension management “is often taken for granted” but is challenging in busy primary care practices, so many of patients likely fall through the cracks, she said.

Dr. Cohen cited efforts at her institution, as well as by the VHA system, to better employ electronic health records to flag patients with treatment-resistant hypertension – defined as patients whose systolic or diastolic blood pressure remains at or above 140/90 mm Hg on at least two successive measurements at least a month apart while the patient is undergoing treatment with three conventional antihypertensive drugs – and to guide clinicians to order the right tests and treatments for these patients.

Many care providers mistakenly “see treatment-resistant hypertension as a disease of noncompliance,” although it is much more often the result of a missed diagnosis and inadequate intervention, she explained.
 

Physicians in denial; side effects of MRAs may deter prescribing

A second big cause of low PA testing rates is that doctors make the mistake of thinking a PA test result won’t change how they manage these patients.

The established treatment for most patients with treatment-resistant hypertension as well as PA is adding an MRA, either spironolactone or eplerenone (Inspra).

Many providers cling to the belief that they will start an MRA in these patients without first determining their PA status, says Dr. Cohen, but the data she and her colleagues collected show the opposite.

Overall, about 13% of all patients in the study began treatment with an MRA during follow-up. The likelihood of starting treatment with this drug class was fourfold higher among the patients tested for PA compared with those who were not tested.

PA testing also hastened the start of MRA use by more than a year, compared with untested patients.

“Providers think they prescribe an MRA” to treatment-resistant patients, “but it’s part of their denial. They are not using the evidence-based treatments [spironolactone or eplerenone], perhaps because of concerns about MRA side effects, although those have been pretty well overcome during the past 20 years,” she observed.

Dr. Cohen says gynecomastia is one adverse effect that gives pause to VHA clinicians who see a heavily male patient population. “It’s probably the biggest concern and why PA testing and MRA use is low” in the VHA system, she said.

“You can use a lower dosage of spironolactone, and the incidence is less common with eplerenone,” although using eplerenone does not completely eliminate all gynecomastia cases, she noted.

At the University of Pennsylvania hospitals, men often start on spironolactone first because it retains a significant price advantage, even though eplerenone is now generic, but “if there is a hint of gynecomastia, we quickly switch to eplerenone, which is usually well tolerated,” she explained.

And while eplerenone has a reputation of being less effective than spironolactone, “I’ve prescribed a lot of eplerenone and have had good results,” Dr. Cohen said. “Even if the blood pressure lowering is not as great compared with spironolactone, it still blunts the toxic effects of aldosterone on target organs.”

Hyperkalemia is the other big concern about spironolactone and eplerenone. Both agents cause it at roughly the same rate, although the rate is lower in patients without chronic kidney disease.

A new, nonsteroidal MRA, finerenone, caused substantially less hyperkalemia in a recent phase 3 trial, FIDELIO-DKD, and as a nonsteroidal MRA, it does not cause gynecomastia. Finerenone has promise as a potentially safer option for treating PA and treatment-resistant hypertension, noted Cohen, but so far, no advanced clinical trials have been launched to examine its efficacy for these indications.
 

PA testing allows a surgical option

A third reason to test patients with treatment-resistant hypertension for PA is that jumping straight to MRA treatment denies the patient assessment for a unilateral adrenal adenoma as the cause of excess aldosterone.

When unilateral adenomas exist, patients are candidates for adrenalectomy. Despite the potential advantage this gives patients to eliminate the cause of their PA without the need for additional drug treatment, some clinicians don’t see this as a compelling rationale to test for PA because they have a bias against surgery or have seen too many cases in which surgery failed to produce full hypertension resolution.

“It’s all about setting expectations appropriately” for the impact of this surgery, Dr. Cohen said.

“Adrenalectomy is not a cure; it just gets rid of the source of excess aldosterone.” But in patients with long-standing PA and hypertension, this is often not enough to completely resolve entrenched cardiovascular pathology.
 

PCPs, cardiologists in rural locations least likely to order PA testing

Of the 269,010 patients analyzed by Dr. Cohen and her coauthors, the average age was 65 years; 96% were men; half were obese; and 40% had diabetes. The researchers excluded patients who had already been tested for PA, as well as those who were already receiving treatment with an MRA.

For 88% of the patients, the main physician overseeing care was a PCP. A cardiologist was the main physician for 10%; a nephrologist, for 1%; and an endocrinologist, for fewer than 1%.

The rate of testing for PA varied across the 130 VHA centers that contributed data, ranging from 0% to 6%. The testing data showed that endocrinologists were most likely to order PA testing, doing it 2.48-fold more often than PCPs. Nephrologists were roughly twice as likely to order PA testing than PCPs, and cardiologists ordered testing at about the same rate as PCPs.

Patients managed at VHA centers in rural locations were nearly half as likely to undergo testing as patients managed at nonrural centers. The number of patients with treatment-resistant hypertension seen by a physician or at a center had no significant relationship to PA testing frequency.

The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Cohen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with obesity who lost weight as a result of bariatric surgery and who subsequently contracted COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to the hospital for COVID, and the disease was less severe than among COVID patients with obesity who had not undergone the surgery, a new retrospective analysis shows.

The research was published in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases.

Because obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Ali Aminian, MD, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues decided to study whether weight-loss surgery had a bearing on outcomes of patients with COVID-19.

They matched 33 COVID-19 patients who had undergone metabolic surgery with 330 control patients with obesity who were infected with the virus during the first wave of the pandemic.

Surgery was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized as a result of COVID-19. None of the surgery patients required intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis, and none died.

“Patients after bariatric surgery become significantly healthier and can fight the virus better,” said Dr. Aminian in a statement from his institution. “If confirmed by future studies, this can be added to the long list of health benefits of bariatric surgery.”
 

COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the consequences of obesity

Dr. Aminian said in an interview that COVID-19 is a “wake-up call to show the public and health care professionals that obesity is a major health problem and has multiple health consequences.”

More than 300 articles in the literature show that obesity is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Dr. Aminian said the pandemic has “improved public awareness about the consequences of obesity.”

Compared with last year at his institution, the intake of new patients “who would like to join a program to have surgery or have some tools to help them to lose weight is almost double,” he noted.

Furthermore, referrals to their unit from primary care physicians, as well as from endocrinologists and cardiologists, for bariatric surgery nearly doubled in recent months.

Although the unit had to stop all bariatric surgeries for around 6 weeks in April because of COVID-19, it has performed the same number of procedures this year as in 2019 and 2018.

Because of the recent surge in COVID cases in Ohio, bariatric procedures are once again on hold. “Elective operations that require hospital beds after surgery have been paused to provide beds for patients who have COVID-19,” he explained.
 

Small sample size, study should be repeated

For their study, Dr. Aminian and colleagues examined the records of 4,365 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Health System who tested positive for the virus between March 8 and July 22, 2020.

Of these, 1,003 had a body mass index of at least 35 mg/kg2; 482 had a BMI of at least 40. The team identified 33 patients who had previously undergone metabolic surgery, comprising 20 sleeve gastrectomies and 13 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses.

The surgical patients were propensity matched in a 1:10 ratio with nonsurgical control patients with a BMI of at least 40. The patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, location, smoking status, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The mean BMI of surgical patients was 49.1 before their procedure. It fell to 37.2 by the time they tested positive for COVID-19. This compares with an average of 46.7 in the control group at the time they tested positive for the virus.

The team found that 18.2% of metabolic surgery patients were admitted to hospital versus 42.1% of control patients (P = .013).

Moreover, metabolic surgery patients did not require admission to the intensive care unit, nor did they require mechanical ventilation or dialysis, and none died. This compares with 13.0% (P = .021), 6.7% (P = .24), 1.5%, and 2.4%, respectively, of patients in the control group.

Multivariate analysis indicated that prior metabolic surgery was associated with lower hospital admission, at an odds ratio of 0.31 (P = .028), in comparison with control patients with obesity.

Acknowledging the limited sample size of their study, the team wrote: “As this study reflects findings early in the course of the pandemic, it will be of interest to repeat this study with larger data sets and later in the course of the pandemic.”
 

Continue as many aspects of obesity management as possible during pandemic

Dr. Aminian underlined that, for him, the take-home message from the study is that health care professionals should “ideally” continue all aspects of obesity management during the pandemic, including “medical management, behavioral therapy, lifestyle changes, and access to bariatric surgery.”

This is despite the fact that insurance coverage for bariatric surgery has “always been a challenge for many patients, since many insurance plans do not cover” bariatric procedures, he noted.

In July, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery should not be considered an elective procedure and should be resumed as soon as it’s safe to do so during any resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with obesity who lost weight as a result of bariatric surgery and who subsequently contracted COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to the hospital for COVID, and the disease was less severe than among COVID patients with obesity who had not undergone the surgery, a new retrospective analysis shows.

The research was published in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases.

Because obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Ali Aminian, MD, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues decided to study whether weight-loss surgery had a bearing on outcomes of patients with COVID-19.

They matched 33 COVID-19 patients who had undergone metabolic surgery with 330 control patients with obesity who were infected with the virus during the first wave of the pandemic.

Surgery was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized as a result of COVID-19. None of the surgery patients required intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis, and none died.

“Patients after bariatric surgery become significantly healthier and can fight the virus better,” said Dr. Aminian in a statement from his institution. “If confirmed by future studies, this can be added to the long list of health benefits of bariatric surgery.”
 

COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the consequences of obesity

Dr. Aminian said in an interview that COVID-19 is a “wake-up call to show the public and health care professionals that obesity is a major health problem and has multiple health consequences.”

More than 300 articles in the literature show that obesity is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Dr. Aminian said the pandemic has “improved public awareness about the consequences of obesity.”

Compared with last year at his institution, the intake of new patients “who would like to join a program to have surgery or have some tools to help them to lose weight is almost double,” he noted.

Furthermore, referrals to their unit from primary care physicians, as well as from endocrinologists and cardiologists, for bariatric surgery nearly doubled in recent months.

Although the unit had to stop all bariatric surgeries for around 6 weeks in April because of COVID-19, it has performed the same number of procedures this year as in 2019 and 2018.

Because of the recent surge in COVID cases in Ohio, bariatric procedures are once again on hold. “Elective operations that require hospital beds after surgery have been paused to provide beds for patients who have COVID-19,” he explained.
 

Small sample size, study should be repeated

For their study, Dr. Aminian and colleagues examined the records of 4,365 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Health System who tested positive for the virus between March 8 and July 22, 2020.

Of these, 1,003 had a body mass index of at least 35 mg/kg2; 482 had a BMI of at least 40. The team identified 33 patients who had previously undergone metabolic surgery, comprising 20 sleeve gastrectomies and 13 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses.

The surgical patients were propensity matched in a 1:10 ratio with nonsurgical control patients with a BMI of at least 40. The patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, location, smoking status, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The mean BMI of surgical patients was 49.1 before their procedure. It fell to 37.2 by the time they tested positive for COVID-19. This compares with an average of 46.7 in the control group at the time they tested positive for the virus.

The team found that 18.2% of metabolic surgery patients were admitted to hospital versus 42.1% of control patients (P = .013).

Moreover, metabolic surgery patients did not require admission to the intensive care unit, nor did they require mechanical ventilation or dialysis, and none died. This compares with 13.0% (P = .021), 6.7% (P = .24), 1.5%, and 2.4%, respectively, of patients in the control group.

Multivariate analysis indicated that prior metabolic surgery was associated with lower hospital admission, at an odds ratio of 0.31 (P = .028), in comparison with control patients with obesity.

Acknowledging the limited sample size of their study, the team wrote: “As this study reflects findings early in the course of the pandemic, it will be of interest to repeat this study with larger data sets and later in the course of the pandemic.”
 

Continue as many aspects of obesity management as possible during pandemic

Dr. Aminian underlined that, for him, the take-home message from the study is that health care professionals should “ideally” continue all aspects of obesity management during the pandemic, including “medical management, behavioral therapy, lifestyle changes, and access to bariatric surgery.”

This is despite the fact that insurance coverage for bariatric surgery has “always been a challenge for many patients, since many insurance plans do not cover” bariatric procedures, he noted.

In July, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery should not be considered an elective procedure and should be resumed as soon as it’s safe to do so during any resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with obesity who lost weight as a result of bariatric surgery and who subsequently contracted COVID-19 were less likely to be admitted to the hospital for COVID, and the disease was less severe than among COVID patients with obesity who had not undergone the surgery, a new retrospective analysis shows.

The research was published in Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases.

Because obesity is a well-known risk factor for poor COVID-19 outcomes, Ali Aminian, MD, Bariatric and Metabolic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues decided to study whether weight-loss surgery had a bearing on outcomes of patients with COVID-19.

They matched 33 COVID-19 patients who had undergone metabolic surgery with 330 control patients with obesity who were infected with the virus during the first wave of the pandemic.

Surgery was associated with a 69% reduction in the risk of being hospitalized as a result of COVID-19. None of the surgery patients required intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or dialysis, and none died.

“Patients after bariatric surgery become significantly healthier and can fight the virus better,” said Dr. Aminian in a statement from his institution. “If confirmed by future studies, this can be added to the long list of health benefits of bariatric surgery.”
 

COVID-19 is a wake-up call for the consequences of obesity

Dr. Aminian said in an interview that COVID-19 is a “wake-up call to show the public and health care professionals that obesity is a major health problem and has multiple health consequences.”

More than 300 articles in the literature show that obesity is a major risk factor for poor outcomes following COVID-19 infection. Dr. Aminian said the pandemic has “improved public awareness about the consequences of obesity.”

Compared with last year at his institution, the intake of new patients “who would like to join a program to have surgery or have some tools to help them to lose weight is almost double,” he noted.

Furthermore, referrals to their unit from primary care physicians, as well as from endocrinologists and cardiologists, for bariatric surgery nearly doubled in recent months.

Although the unit had to stop all bariatric surgeries for around 6 weeks in April because of COVID-19, it has performed the same number of procedures this year as in 2019 and 2018.

Because of the recent surge in COVID cases in Ohio, bariatric procedures are once again on hold. “Elective operations that require hospital beds after surgery have been paused to provide beds for patients who have COVID-19,” he explained.
 

Small sample size, study should be repeated

For their study, Dr. Aminian and colleagues examined the records of 4,365 patients at the Cleveland Clinic Health System who tested positive for the virus between March 8 and July 22, 2020.

Of these, 1,003 had a body mass index of at least 35 mg/kg2; 482 had a BMI of at least 40. The team identified 33 patients who had previously undergone metabolic surgery, comprising 20 sleeve gastrectomies and 13 Roux-en-Y gastric bypasses.

The surgical patients were propensity matched in a 1:10 ratio with nonsurgical control patients with a BMI of at least 40. The patients were matched on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, location, smoking status, and history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The mean BMI of surgical patients was 49.1 before their procedure. It fell to 37.2 by the time they tested positive for COVID-19. This compares with an average of 46.7 in the control group at the time they tested positive for the virus.

The team found that 18.2% of metabolic surgery patients were admitted to hospital versus 42.1% of control patients (P = .013).

Moreover, metabolic surgery patients did not require admission to the intensive care unit, nor did they require mechanical ventilation or dialysis, and none died. This compares with 13.0% (P = .021), 6.7% (P = .24), 1.5%, and 2.4%, respectively, of patients in the control group.

Multivariate analysis indicated that prior metabolic surgery was associated with lower hospital admission, at an odds ratio of 0.31 (P = .028), in comparison with control patients with obesity.

Acknowledging the limited sample size of their study, the team wrote: “As this study reflects findings early in the course of the pandemic, it will be of interest to repeat this study with larger data sets and later in the course of the pandemic.”
 

Continue as many aspects of obesity management as possible during pandemic

Dr. Aminian underlined that, for him, the take-home message from the study is that health care professionals should “ideally” continue all aspects of obesity management during the pandemic, including “medical management, behavioral therapy, lifestyle changes, and access to bariatric surgery.”

This is despite the fact that insurance coverage for bariatric surgery has “always been a challenge for many patients, since many insurance plans do not cover” bariatric procedures, he noted.

In July, the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery issued a statement declaring that obesity surgery should not be considered an elective procedure and should be resumed as soon as it’s safe to do so during any resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Those who are found to have type 2 diabetes at a younger age face “hidden” dangers. The issue is becoming more and more important, “since new diagnoses in this younger age group continue to rise,” said the authors of a new study, led by Natalie Nanayakkara, MD.

They believe clinical approaches should be based on age at diagnosis. The results of their new meta-analysis, published online in Diabetologia, reveal the extent of the problem.

Believed to be the first systematic review of its kind, the study showed that the younger the age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, the greater the risks of dying and of having either microvascular or macrovascular complications each subsequent year (adjusted for current age).

“This difference in risk between younger and older people in terms of absolute versus lifetime risks of type 2 diabetes complications should perhaps be recognized in diabetes management guidelines,” wrote Dr. Nanayakkara, an endocrinologist at Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues.

Those diagnosed at younger ages are more likely to develop complications that cause greater disability and lead to loss of productivity compared with people diagnosed at an older age, they stressed.

Hence, they suggested “a greater emphasis on preventive measures for younger people with type 2 diabetes,” with “early intensive multifactorial risk factor intervention ... sustained long term to minimize risks over time.”
 

Large dataset: Use age at diagnosis to risk stratify patients

Rates of type 2 diabetes have increased in all age groups and virtually all countries over the past 3 decades. Particularly worrying is a trend toward increased rates among adults aged 20-44 years. The increases are associated with higher rates of overweight and obesity, poor diet, and decreasing levels of physical activity, numerous studies have shown.

But few studies have examined the association between age at diagnosis and subsequent complications from type 2 diabetes, the authors noted.

Their review included 26 observational studies involving more than one million individuals from 30 countries in the Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America. The investigators found that each 1-year increase in age at diabetes diagnosis was significantly associated with a 4%, 3%, and 5% decreased risk for all-cause mortality, macrovascular disease, and microvascular disease, respectively, adjusted for current age (all P < .001).

Similar decreases in risk per 1-year increase in age at diabetes diagnosis were seen for coronary heart disease (2%), cerebrovascular disease (2%), peripheral vascular disease (3%), retinopathy (8%), nephropathy (6%), and neuropathy (5%); all associations were significant (P < .001).

Dr. Nanayakkara and colleagues noted that current treatment guidelines are limited in that they’re related to the management of patients with suboptimal blood glucose control, and there is no way to predict which people require intensified treatment.

Therefore, they said, “refined stratification using age at diagnosis may provide a method of identifying, at diagnosis, those at greatest risk of complications who would most benefit from targeted, individualized treatment regimens.”

Awareness of this “hidden” danger to younger adults with type 2 diabetes is becoming more and more important, because such cases continue to rise, they reiterated.

They also advised that “public health measures to delay and/or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes until older age may yield benefits by reducing the duration of diabetes and the burden of complications.”

Dr. Nanayakkara disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Those who are found to have type 2 diabetes at a younger age face “hidden” dangers. The issue is becoming more and more important, “since new diagnoses in this younger age group continue to rise,” said the authors of a new study, led by Natalie Nanayakkara, MD.

They believe clinical approaches should be based on age at diagnosis. The results of their new meta-analysis, published online in Diabetologia, reveal the extent of the problem.

Believed to be the first systematic review of its kind, the study showed that the younger the age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, the greater the risks of dying and of having either microvascular or macrovascular complications each subsequent year (adjusted for current age).

“This difference in risk between younger and older people in terms of absolute versus lifetime risks of type 2 diabetes complications should perhaps be recognized in diabetes management guidelines,” wrote Dr. Nanayakkara, an endocrinologist at Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues.

Those diagnosed at younger ages are more likely to develop complications that cause greater disability and lead to loss of productivity compared with people diagnosed at an older age, they stressed.

Hence, they suggested “a greater emphasis on preventive measures for younger people with type 2 diabetes,” with “early intensive multifactorial risk factor intervention ... sustained long term to minimize risks over time.”
 

Large dataset: Use age at diagnosis to risk stratify patients

Rates of type 2 diabetes have increased in all age groups and virtually all countries over the past 3 decades. Particularly worrying is a trend toward increased rates among adults aged 20-44 years. The increases are associated with higher rates of overweight and obesity, poor diet, and decreasing levels of physical activity, numerous studies have shown.

But few studies have examined the association between age at diagnosis and subsequent complications from type 2 diabetes, the authors noted.

Their review included 26 observational studies involving more than one million individuals from 30 countries in the Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America. The investigators found that each 1-year increase in age at diabetes diagnosis was significantly associated with a 4%, 3%, and 5% decreased risk for all-cause mortality, macrovascular disease, and microvascular disease, respectively, adjusted for current age (all P < .001).

Similar decreases in risk per 1-year increase in age at diabetes diagnosis were seen for coronary heart disease (2%), cerebrovascular disease (2%), peripheral vascular disease (3%), retinopathy (8%), nephropathy (6%), and neuropathy (5%); all associations were significant (P < .001).

Dr. Nanayakkara and colleagues noted that current treatment guidelines are limited in that they’re related to the management of patients with suboptimal blood glucose control, and there is no way to predict which people require intensified treatment.

Therefore, they said, “refined stratification using age at diagnosis may provide a method of identifying, at diagnosis, those at greatest risk of complications who would most benefit from targeted, individualized treatment regimens.”

Awareness of this “hidden” danger to younger adults with type 2 diabetes is becoming more and more important, because such cases continue to rise, they reiterated.

They also advised that “public health measures to delay and/or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes until older age may yield benefits by reducing the duration of diabetes and the burden of complications.”

Dr. Nanayakkara disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Those who are found to have type 2 diabetes at a younger age face “hidden” dangers. The issue is becoming more and more important, “since new diagnoses in this younger age group continue to rise,” said the authors of a new study, led by Natalie Nanayakkara, MD.

They believe clinical approaches should be based on age at diagnosis. The results of their new meta-analysis, published online in Diabetologia, reveal the extent of the problem.

Believed to be the first systematic review of its kind, the study showed that the younger the age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, the greater the risks of dying and of having either microvascular or macrovascular complications each subsequent year (adjusted for current age).

“This difference in risk between younger and older people in terms of absolute versus lifetime risks of type 2 diabetes complications should perhaps be recognized in diabetes management guidelines,” wrote Dr. Nanayakkara, an endocrinologist at Monash University, Melbourne, and colleagues.

Those diagnosed at younger ages are more likely to develop complications that cause greater disability and lead to loss of productivity compared with people diagnosed at an older age, they stressed.

Hence, they suggested “a greater emphasis on preventive measures for younger people with type 2 diabetes,” with “early intensive multifactorial risk factor intervention ... sustained long term to minimize risks over time.”
 

Large dataset: Use age at diagnosis to risk stratify patients

Rates of type 2 diabetes have increased in all age groups and virtually all countries over the past 3 decades. Particularly worrying is a trend toward increased rates among adults aged 20-44 years. The increases are associated with higher rates of overweight and obesity, poor diet, and decreasing levels of physical activity, numerous studies have shown.

But few studies have examined the association between age at diagnosis and subsequent complications from type 2 diabetes, the authors noted.

Their review included 26 observational studies involving more than one million individuals from 30 countries in the Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America. The investigators found that each 1-year increase in age at diabetes diagnosis was significantly associated with a 4%, 3%, and 5% decreased risk for all-cause mortality, macrovascular disease, and microvascular disease, respectively, adjusted for current age (all P < .001).

Similar decreases in risk per 1-year increase in age at diabetes diagnosis were seen for coronary heart disease (2%), cerebrovascular disease (2%), peripheral vascular disease (3%), retinopathy (8%), nephropathy (6%), and neuropathy (5%); all associations were significant (P < .001).

Dr. Nanayakkara and colleagues noted that current treatment guidelines are limited in that they’re related to the management of patients with suboptimal blood glucose control, and there is no way to predict which people require intensified treatment.

Therefore, they said, “refined stratification using age at diagnosis may provide a method of identifying, at diagnosis, those at greatest risk of complications who would most benefit from targeted, individualized treatment regimens.”

Awareness of this “hidden” danger to younger adults with type 2 diabetes is becoming more and more important, because such cases continue to rise, they reiterated.

They also advised that “public health measures to delay and/or prevent the onset of type 2 diabetes until older age may yield benefits by reducing the duration of diabetes and the burden of complications.”

Dr. Nanayakkara disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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

The COVID-19 vaccine distribution process in the United States is moving more slowly than anticipated, falling short of Operation Warp Speed’s goal to vaccinate 20 million Americans by the end of the year.

If the current pace of vaccination continues, “it’s going to take years, not months, to vaccinate the American people,” President-elect Joe Biden said during a briefing Dec. 29.

In fact, at the current rate, it would take nearly 10 years to vaccinate enough Americans to bring the pandemic under control, according to NBC News. To reach 80% of the country by late June, 3 million people would need to receive a COVID-19 vaccine each day.

“As I long feared and warned, the effort to distribute and administer the vaccine is not progressing as it should,” Mr. Biden said, reemphasizing his pledge to get 100 million doses to Americans during his first 100 days as president.

So far, 11.4 million doses have been distributed and 2.1 million people have received a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most states have administered a fraction of the doses they’ve received, according to data compiled by The New York Times.

Federal officials have said there’s an “expected lag” between delivery of doses, shots going into arms, and the data being reported to the CDC, according to CNN. The Food and Drug Administration must assess each shipment for quality control, which has slowed down distribution, and the CDC data are just now beginning to include the Moderna vaccine, which the FDA authorized for emergency use on Dec. 18.

The 2.1 million number is “an underestimate,” Brett Giroir, MD, the assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, told NBC News Dec. 29. At the same time, the U.S. won’t meet the goal of vaccinating 20 million people in the next few days, he said.

Another 30 million doses will go out in January, Dr. Giroir said, followed by 50 million in February.

Some vaccine experts have said they’re not surprised by the speed of vaccine distribution.

“It had to go this way,” Paul Offit, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told STAT. “We had to trip and fall and stumble and figure this out.”

To speed up distribution in 2021, the federal government will need to help states, Mr. Biden said Dec. 29. He plans to use the Defense Authorization Act to ramp up production of vaccine supplies. Even still, the process will take months, he said.

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