MDedge Infectious Disease

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

For well over a year, the COVID-19 pandemic has been the biggest story in the world, costing millions of lives, impacting a presidential election, and quaking economies around the world.

But as vaccination rates increase and restrictions relax across the United States, relief is beginning to mix with reflection. Part of that contemplation means grappling with how the media depicted the crisis – in ways that were helpful, harmful, and somewhere in between.

“This story was so overwhelming, and the amount of journalism done about it was also overwhelming, and it’s going to be a while before we can do any kind of comprehensive overview of how journalism really performed,” said Maryn McKenna, an independent journalist and journalism professor at Emory University, Atlanta, who specializes in public and global health.
 

Some ‘heroically good’ reporting

The pandemic hit at a time when journalism was under a lot of pressure from external forces – undermined by politics, swimming through a sea of misinformation, and pressed by financial pressure to produce more stories more quickly, said Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, New York.

The pandemic drove enormous audiences to news outlets, as people searched for reliable information, and increased the appreciation many people felt for the work of journalists, she said.

“I think there’s been some heroically good reporting and some really empathetic reporting as well,” said Ms. Bell. She cites The New York Times stories honoring the nearly 100,000 people lost to COVID-19 in May 2020 and The Atlantic’s COVID Tracking Project as exceptionally good examples.

Journalism is part of a complex, and evolving, information ecosystem characterized by “traditional” television, radio, and newspapers but also social media, search engine results, niche online news outlets, and clickbait sites.

On the one hand, social media provided a way for physicians, nurses, and scientists to speak directly to the world about their experiences and research. On the other hand, it’s challenging to elevate the really good work of traditional media over all of the bad or unhelpful signals, said Ms. Bell.

But, at the end of the day, much of journalism is a business. There are incentives in the market for tabloids to do sensational coverage and for outlets to push misleading, clickbait headlines, Ms. Bell said.

“Sometimes we’ll criticize journalists for ‘getting it wrong,’ but they might be getting it right in their business model but getting it wrong in terms of what it’s doing for society,” she said.

“We need to do a self-examination, when or if the dust from this ever settles, [on] how much of the past year was viewed as a business opportunity and did that get in the way of informing the public adequately,” Ms. McKenna said.

Digital platforms and journalists also need to reflect on how narratives build on one another, particularly online, said Ms. Bell. If you search for side effects of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, for example, you will see a list of dozens of headlines that might give you the impression this is a major problem without the context that these effects are exceedingly rare, she notes.

There was also a personnel problem. Shrinking newsrooms over the last decade meant many outlets didn’t have dedicated science and health reporting, or very few staffers, if any. During the pandemic, suddenly general assignment and politics reporters had to be science and health reporters, too.

“You have a hard enough time with these issues if you’re a fairly seasoned science journalist,” said Gary Schwitzer, a former head of the health care news unit for CNN, journalism professor at the University of Minnesota, and founder of the watchdog site HealthNewsReview.org.

And outlets that had the staffing didn’t always put science reporters to full use, Ms. McKenna said. In March and April of 2020, major media outlets should have sent science reporters, not politics reporters, to President Donald Trump’s White House press briefings, which often included incorrect statements about COVID-19 science.

“I just don’t feel that the big outlets understood that that expertise would have made a difference,” she said.
 

New challenges, old problems

Some of the science journalism done during the pandemic has been some of the best ever seen in this country, said Mr. Schwitzer. But between the peaks of excellence, there is “the daily drumbeat coverage of dreck,” he added.

Many of the issues with this dreck coverage aren’t new or unique to the pandemic. For example, over the last year there have been far too many news stories based solely on weak information sources, like a drug company press release or a not-yet-peer-reviewed preprint article that hasn’t been put into proper context, said Mr. Schwitzer.

A quality science story should always include an independent perspective, he said, but many COVID-19 stories missed that perspective. This isn’t a new issue for science coverage – at Health News Review, Mr. Schwitzer and his colleagues saw stories without appropriate independent sources every day for 15 years.

It’s also challenging to write about uncertainty without over- or underselling what scientists know about a particular phenomenon. “We know that the media in general tends to portray science as more certain than it is,” said Dominique Brossard, PhD, professor and department chair at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and an expert on the intersection between science, media, and policy. This can lead to confusion when the science, and the advice based on that science, changes.

“The public has a really difficult time understanding what uncertainty means within science,” said Todd P. Newman, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who studies strategic communication within the context of science, technology, and the environment.

“I think the media generally has been good on the subject,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center, attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent expert voice throughout the pandemic. “I think where they’ve been imperfect is they tend to be a little more dramatic in terms of how we’re doing.”

Dr. Offit isn’t the only expert to point to the drama of COVID-19 coverage. A study published in March 2021 by the National Bureau of Economic Research found 87% of stories by major U.S. media outlets leaned negative in the tone of their COVID-19 reporting, compared with 50% of stories from non-U.S. major outlets and 64% of articles in scientific journals. The negative emphasis persists even around positive developments, like vaccine trials and school re-openings.

John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer for WebMD, said he is very proud of the way WebMD and Medscape ramped up production of video series and other content to give health care providers the most up-to-date guidance on a rapidly evolving medical situation.

“But I think as [we] started to make progress – especially in the last 6 months – the coverage was never balanced enough; any positive news was immediately proceeded by negative,” he said.

“You want to be honest, but you also don’t want to be alarmist – and that’s where I think the challenge is at times in the media,” said Dr. Whyte. “We didn’t put enough optimism in at times, especially in recent months.”

“Any good coverage on vaccines immediately [was] covered by ‘[we] might need boosters in the fall.’ Why can’t [we] have an opportunity to breathe for a little while and see the good news?” he asked.
 

Variants or scariants?

Negativity and fear shaped much of the coverage around variants and vaccines earlier this year. In February 2021, Zeynep Tufekci, PhD, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill school of information and library science, wrote in The Atlantic about how much reporting has not reflected “the truly amazing reality of these vaccines,” and has instead highlighted “a chorus of relentless pessimism.”

This felt especially true earlier in 2021, when lots of coverage repeatedly emphasized what vaccinated people still could not do.

Eric Topol, MD, editor-in-chief of Medscape and executive vice president of Scripps Research in La Jolla, California, said New York Times editors told him earlier in the pandemic that he couldn’t use the word “scariant” in an opinion piece about the media’s overly fearful and sometimes inaccurate reporting around COVID-19 variants because they worried it would seem like the Times was coming after other media outlets.

“A variant is innocent until proven guilty,” said Dr. Topol. Had journalists approached the subject from that point of view, he said we would have seen “much more faithful reporting.”

Dr. Brossard and Dr. Newman worry that focusing on uncommon negative behavior, like people who break social distancing and mask rules by gathering at the beach or the bar, makes those actions seem more common than they actually are.

The evidence suggests that “if you show these kinds of things to people, you encourage them to do the same behavior,” said Dr. Brossard.

There have been other mistakes along the way, too. Early in the pandemic, many outlets pointed viewers to official government sources of information, some of which, like the White House press briefings in March and April of 2020, ended up being some of the most virulent spreaders of misinformation, said Ms. Bell.

Before that, a handful of journalists like Roxanne Khamsi were the few pushing back against the dominant media narrative in early 2020 that the novel coronavirus was less concerning than the seasonal flu.

“Science journalists have always been writing about studies that sometimes contradict each other, and what’s happened is that has only been condensed in time,” said Ms. Khamsi, a health care reporter for outlets like WIRED magazine and The New York Times and a former chief news editor for Nature Medicine.
 

Politics and misinformation

It’s impossible to talk about media coverage of COVID-19 without touching on politics and misinformation.

Coverage of the pandemic was politicized and polarized from the very beginning, said Sedona Chinn, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison who researches the prevalence and effects of scientific disagreements in media.

By looking at network news transcripts and articles from national outlets like the Washington Post and The New York Times, Dr. Chinn and her colleagues were able to determine politicization of coverage by counting the mentions of politicians versus scientists in COVID-19 coverage and polarization by looking at how different or similar the language was surrounding mentions of Republicans and Democrats.

If the two parties were working together or on the same page, they reasoned, the language would be similar.

From mid-March through May 2020, Dr. Chinn and fellow researchers found politicians were featured more often than scientists in newspaper coverage and as frequently as scientists in network news coverage. They also found polarized language around Republicans and Democrats, particularly in stories describing duels between the (at the time) Republican national government and Democratic state and local leaders.

It’s possible that polarization in news coverage helped contribute to polarized attitudes around the virus, the authors write in the study, which was published in August 2020 in the journal Science Communication.

The politicization and polarization of the issue is mirrored in our fractured media environment, where people tend to read, listen, and watch outlets that align with their political leanings. If that trusted outlet features misinformation, the people who follow it are more likely to accept that false information as truth, said Matt Motta, PhD, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University whose research includes public opinion and science communication.

This is true across the political spectrum, he said. When it comes to COVID-19, however, right-wing media outlets like Fox News and Breitbart are more likely to promote conspiratorial tropes and misinformation about the pandemic, according to Dr. Motta and his collaborator Dominik Stecula, PhD, a political scientist at Colorado State University who studies the news media environment and its effects on society.

Across the media ecosystem, reporting on the “infodemic” accompanying the pandemic – the rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation about the virus – has been a major challenge. Outlets may not be creating the misinformation, but they are the ones choosing to give it a platform, said Dr. Motta.

By repeating a false idea, even with the goal of debunking it, you can unintentionally cause the information to stick in people’s minds, said Dr. Brossard.

“Just because something is controversial doesn’t mean it’s worth covering,” said Dr. Motta. Using vaccines as an example, he said many reporters and scientists alike assume that if people have all the facts, they’ll land on the side of science.

“That is just fundamentally not how people think about the decision to get vaccinated,” he said. Instead, the choice is wrapped up with cultural factors, religious beliefs, political identity, and more.

The factors and challenges that shaped the media’s coverage of the pandemic aren’t going anywhere. Improving science and medical coverage in the future is a collective project for journalists, scientists, and everyone in between, said Dr. Newman.

“I call on scientists, too, to think really deeply about how they’re communicating – and especially how they’re communicating what they know and don’t know,” he said.

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

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib reduces the risk of both death and respiratory failure in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia, a new Brazilian study has found.

“Whether the use of JAK inhibitors is superior or additive to other specific immunomodulatory therapies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains to be determined,” Patrícia O. Guimarães, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, and coauthors wrote. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of previous trials that tested JAK inhibitors as therapies for COVID-19 have been mixed. The second iteration of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) found that a combination treatment of baricitinib and the Food and Drug Administration–authorized remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone, but ACTT-4 – which compared baricitinib plus remdesivir with dexamethasone plus remdesivir – was stopped for futility in April 2021.

To assess the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial made up of 289 patients from 15 sites in Brazil. The Study of Tofacitinib in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia (STOP-COVID) split its participants into two groups: one (n = 144) received 10 mg of oral tofacitinib twice daily and the other (n = 145) received placebo. Treatment was to be administered for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The participants’ mean age was 56 years, and 34.9% were women.

Over 89% of participants received glucocorticoids during hospitalization, a significant increase, compared with ACTT-2’s 12%. Through 28 days, death or respiratory failure occurred in 18.1% of the tofacitinib group and in 29.0% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the tofacitinib group and 5.5% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.63). The median number of days that treatment was administered was 5 in the tofacitinib group and 6 in the placebo group, and the median duration of hospital and ICU stays were similar across groups.

On the eight-level National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale of disease severity, the proportional odds of having a worse score with tofacitinib, compared with placebo, was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.36-1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27-1.06) at day 28. Adverse events occurred in 26.1% of the tofacitinib group and 22.5% of the placebo group, with serious adverse events occurring in 20 patients (14.1%) on tofacitinib and 17 patients (12%) on placebo. Patients on tofacitinib suffered from events like deep vein thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia, and myocarditis, each of which affected one person, while one placebo patient each suffered from hemorrhagic stroke and cardiogenic shock. The incidence of serious infection was 3.5% in the tofacitinib group and 4.2% in the placebo group.
 

Timing may be everything

“There is a lot of interest in repurposing a variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, which includes JAK inhibitors,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, of the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ACTT-2 data was compelling; it did suggest perhaps a benefit associated with baricitinib for COVID. This study certainly is more compelling.”

“For many people, there is this hyperinflammatory response in COVID-19 that seems to drive a lot of the morbidity and mortality that we see,” he added. “I think we all hypothesize that some of our treatments may be beneficial there. The challenge that we face is figuring out when the best time is to administer these medicines, and whether they need to be administered as part of a cocktail of therapy.”

Along those lines, Dr. Wallace cited a recent study he coauthored in which rheumatoid arthritis patients who were on JAK inhibitors at baseline had worse COVID-19 severity. But he emphasized that, despite their differing findings, the two studies are not irreconcilable.

“What this might speak to is, the timing of your exposure may be really important,” he said. “At the time of your initial infection, you may need certain aspects of your immune system that a JAK inhibitor may interfere with. But when you initiate a JAK inhibitor, once that phase is complete and you’re in this hyperinflammatory phase, you may have more benefit to target and treat the intense inflammation that we observe in patients who have COVID.”

He also offered up another variable potentially in play: different JAK inhibitors having different targets among the JAK receptors. “It may be that targeting specific JAKs is more beneficial when it comes to treating the hyperinflammatory response of COVID-19.”

The trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from Pfizer and various other pharmaceutical companies.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib reduces the risk of both death and respiratory failure in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia, a new Brazilian study has found.

“Whether the use of JAK inhibitors is superior or additive to other specific immunomodulatory therapies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains to be determined,” Patrícia O. Guimarães, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, and coauthors wrote. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of previous trials that tested JAK inhibitors as therapies for COVID-19 have been mixed. The second iteration of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) found that a combination treatment of baricitinib and the Food and Drug Administration–authorized remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone, but ACTT-4 – which compared baricitinib plus remdesivir with dexamethasone plus remdesivir – was stopped for futility in April 2021.

To assess the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial made up of 289 patients from 15 sites in Brazil. The Study of Tofacitinib in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia (STOP-COVID) split its participants into two groups: one (n = 144) received 10 mg of oral tofacitinib twice daily and the other (n = 145) received placebo. Treatment was to be administered for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The participants’ mean age was 56 years, and 34.9% were women.

Over 89% of participants received glucocorticoids during hospitalization, a significant increase, compared with ACTT-2’s 12%. Through 28 days, death or respiratory failure occurred in 18.1% of the tofacitinib group and in 29.0% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the tofacitinib group and 5.5% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.63). The median number of days that treatment was administered was 5 in the tofacitinib group and 6 in the placebo group, and the median duration of hospital and ICU stays were similar across groups.

On the eight-level National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale of disease severity, the proportional odds of having a worse score with tofacitinib, compared with placebo, was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.36-1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27-1.06) at day 28. Adverse events occurred in 26.1% of the tofacitinib group and 22.5% of the placebo group, with serious adverse events occurring in 20 patients (14.1%) on tofacitinib and 17 patients (12%) on placebo. Patients on tofacitinib suffered from events like deep vein thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia, and myocarditis, each of which affected one person, while one placebo patient each suffered from hemorrhagic stroke and cardiogenic shock. The incidence of serious infection was 3.5% in the tofacitinib group and 4.2% in the placebo group.
 

Timing may be everything

“There is a lot of interest in repurposing a variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, which includes JAK inhibitors,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, of the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ACTT-2 data was compelling; it did suggest perhaps a benefit associated with baricitinib for COVID. This study certainly is more compelling.”

“For many people, there is this hyperinflammatory response in COVID-19 that seems to drive a lot of the morbidity and mortality that we see,” he added. “I think we all hypothesize that some of our treatments may be beneficial there. The challenge that we face is figuring out when the best time is to administer these medicines, and whether they need to be administered as part of a cocktail of therapy.”

Along those lines, Dr. Wallace cited a recent study he coauthored in which rheumatoid arthritis patients who were on JAK inhibitors at baseline had worse COVID-19 severity. But he emphasized that, despite their differing findings, the two studies are not irreconcilable.

“What this might speak to is, the timing of your exposure may be really important,” he said. “At the time of your initial infection, you may need certain aspects of your immune system that a JAK inhibitor may interfere with. But when you initiate a JAK inhibitor, once that phase is complete and you’re in this hyperinflammatory phase, you may have more benefit to target and treat the intense inflammation that we observe in patients who have COVID.”

He also offered up another variable potentially in play: different JAK inhibitors having different targets among the JAK receptors. “It may be that targeting specific JAKs is more beneficial when it comes to treating the hyperinflammatory response of COVID-19.”

The trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from Pfizer and various other pharmaceutical companies.

The Janus kinase inhibitor tofacitinib reduces the risk of both death and respiratory failure in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia, a new Brazilian study has found.

“Whether the use of JAK inhibitors is superior or additive to other specific immunomodulatory therapies in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 remains to be determined,” Patrícia O. Guimarães, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein in São Paulo, and coauthors wrote. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The results of previous trials that tested JAK inhibitors as therapies for COVID-19 have been mixed. The second iteration of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT-2) found that a combination treatment of baricitinib and the Food and Drug Administration–authorized remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone, but ACTT-4 – which compared baricitinib plus remdesivir with dexamethasone plus remdesivir – was stopped for futility in April 2021.

To assess the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as a potential treatment for COVID-19, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial made up of 289 patients from 15 sites in Brazil. The Study of Tofacitinib in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia (STOP-COVID) split its participants into two groups: one (n = 144) received 10 mg of oral tofacitinib twice daily and the other (n = 145) received placebo. Treatment was to be administered for up to 14 days or until hospital discharge. The participants’ mean age was 56 years, and 34.9% were women.

Over 89% of participants received glucocorticoids during hospitalization, a significant increase, compared with ACTT-2’s 12%. Through 28 days, death or respiratory failure occurred in 18.1% of the tofacitinib group and in 29.0% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the tofacitinib group and 5.5% of the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.63). The median number of days that treatment was administered was 5 in the tofacitinib group and 6 in the placebo group, and the median duration of hospital and ICU stays were similar across groups.

On the eight-level National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ordinal scale of disease severity, the proportional odds of having a worse score with tofacitinib, compared with placebo, was 0.6 (95% CI, 0.36-1.00) at day 14 and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.27-1.06) at day 28. Adverse events occurred in 26.1% of the tofacitinib group and 22.5% of the placebo group, with serious adverse events occurring in 20 patients (14.1%) on tofacitinib and 17 patients (12%) on placebo. Patients on tofacitinib suffered from events like deep vein thrombosis, acute myocardial infarction, ventricular tachycardia, and myocarditis, each of which affected one person, while one placebo patient each suffered from hemorrhagic stroke and cardiogenic shock. The incidence of serious infection was 3.5% in the tofacitinib group and 4.2% in the placebo group.
 

Timing may be everything

“There is a lot of interest in repurposing a variety of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for the treatment of COVID-19, which includes JAK inhibitors,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, of the rheumatology unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “The ACTT-2 data was compelling; it did suggest perhaps a benefit associated with baricitinib for COVID. This study certainly is more compelling.”

“For many people, there is this hyperinflammatory response in COVID-19 that seems to drive a lot of the morbidity and mortality that we see,” he added. “I think we all hypothesize that some of our treatments may be beneficial there. The challenge that we face is figuring out when the best time is to administer these medicines, and whether they need to be administered as part of a cocktail of therapy.”

Along those lines, Dr. Wallace cited a recent study he coauthored in which rheumatoid arthritis patients who were on JAK inhibitors at baseline had worse COVID-19 severity. But he emphasized that, despite their differing findings, the two studies are not irreconcilable.

“What this might speak to is, the timing of your exposure may be really important,” he said. “At the time of your initial infection, you may need certain aspects of your immune system that a JAK inhibitor may interfere with. But when you initiate a JAK inhibitor, once that phase is complete and you’re in this hyperinflammatory phase, you may have more benefit to target and treat the intense inflammation that we observe in patients who have COVID.”

He also offered up another variable potentially in play: different JAK inhibitors having different targets among the JAK receptors. “It may be that targeting specific JAKs is more beneficial when it comes to treating the hyperinflammatory response of COVID-19.”

The trial was sponsored by Pfizer. Several authors acknowledged potential conflicts of interest, including receiving grants and personal fees from Pfizer and various other pharmaceutical companies.

The proportion of children aged 12-15 years who have completed their COVID-19 vaccine regimen jumped by over 50% in just 1 week, but there has been a slowdown in first vaccinations, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As more adolescents became eligible for a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine since it received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in mid-May, the share of 12- to 15-year-olds considered fully vaccinated rose from 11.4% on June 14 to 17.8% on June 28, an increase of 56%, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicated June 22.

For children aged 16-17 years, who have been receiving the vaccine since early April, full vaccination rose by 9.6% in that same week, going from 29.1% on June 14 to 31.9% on June 21. The cumulative numbers for first vaccinations are higher, of course, but are rising more slowly in both age groups: 41.5% of those aged 16-17 had received at least one dose by June 21 (up by 4.3%), with the 12- to 15-year-olds at 28.3% (up by 10.5%), based on the CDC data.

Limiting the time frame to just the last 2 weeks, however, shows the opposite of rising among the younger children. During the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of those initiating a first dose were 12-15 years old, but that 2-week figure slipped to 17.1% as of June 14 and was down to 16.0% on June 21. The older group was slow but steady over that time: 4.8%, 4.7%, and 4.8%, the CDC said. To give those figures some context, those aged 25-39 years represented 23.7% of past-2-week initiations on June 7 and 24.3% on June 21.

Although no COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for children under 12 years, about 0.4% of that age group – just over 167,000 children – have received a first dose and almost 91,000 are fully vaccinated, according to CDC data.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The proportion of children aged 12-15 years who have completed their COVID-19 vaccine regimen jumped by over 50% in just 1 week, but there has been a slowdown in first vaccinations, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As more adolescents became eligible for a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine since it received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in mid-May, the share of 12- to 15-year-olds considered fully vaccinated rose from 11.4% on June 14 to 17.8% on June 28, an increase of 56%, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicated June 22.

For children aged 16-17 years, who have been receiving the vaccine since early April, full vaccination rose by 9.6% in that same week, going from 29.1% on June 14 to 31.9% on June 21. The cumulative numbers for first vaccinations are higher, of course, but are rising more slowly in both age groups: 41.5% of those aged 16-17 had received at least one dose by June 21 (up by 4.3%), with the 12- to 15-year-olds at 28.3% (up by 10.5%), based on the CDC data.

Limiting the time frame to just the last 2 weeks, however, shows the opposite of rising among the younger children. During the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of those initiating a first dose were 12-15 years old, but that 2-week figure slipped to 17.1% as of June 14 and was down to 16.0% on June 21. The older group was slow but steady over that time: 4.8%, 4.7%, and 4.8%, the CDC said. To give those figures some context, those aged 25-39 years represented 23.7% of past-2-week initiations on June 7 and 24.3% on June 21.

Although no COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for children under 12 years, about 0.4% of that age group – just over 167,000 children – have received a first dose and almost 91,000 are fully vaccinated, according to CDC data.

rfranki@mdedge.com

The proportion of children aged 12-15 years who have completed their COVID-19 vaccine regimen jumped by over 50% in just 1 week, but there has been a slowdown in first vaccinations, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As more adolescents became eligible for a second dose of the Pfizer vaccine since it received approval from the Food and Drug Administration in mid-May, the share of 12- to 15-year-olds considered fully vaccinated rose from 11.4% on June 14 to 17.8% on June 28, an increase of 56%, the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker indicated June 22.

For children aged 16-17 years, who have been receiving the vaccine since early April, full vaccination rose by 9.6% in that same week, going from 29.1% on June 14 to 31.9% on June 21. The cumulative numbers for first vaccinations are higher, of course, but are rising more slowly in both age groups: 41.5% of those aged 16-17 had received at least one dose by June 21 (up by 4.3%), with the 12- to 15-year-olds at 28.3% (up by 10.5%), based on the CDC data.

Limiting the time frame to just the last 2 weeks, however, shows the opposite of rising among the younger children. During the 2 weeks ending June 7, 17.9% of those initiating a first dose were 12-15 years old, but that 2-week figure slipped to 17.1% as of June 14 and was down to 16.0% on June 21. The older group was slow but steady over that time: 4.8%, 4.7%, and 4.8%, the CDC said. To give those figures some context, those aged 25-39 years represented 23.7% of past-2-week initiations on June 7 and 24.3% on June 21.

Although no COVID-19 vaccine has been approved for children under 12 years, about 0.4% of that age group – just over 167,000 children – have received a first dose and almost 91,000 are fully vaccinated, according to CDC data.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience cognitive and behavioral problems post discharge, new research shows.

Investigators found cognitive changes, depression, and PTSD in infected patients, both in the subacute phase and 10 months after hospital discharge.

“We showed that cognitive and behavioral alterations are associated with COVID-19 infection within 2 months from hospital discharge and that they partially persist in the post-COVID phase,” study investigator Elisa Canu, PhD, neuroimaging research unit, division of neuroscience, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, told a press briefing.

The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Executive dysfunction

Previous research suggests about 30% of COVID-19 survivors have cognitive disturbances and 30%-40% have psychopathological disorders including anxiety and depression, said Dr. Canu.

These disturbances have been associated with the severity of acute-phase respiratory symptoms, infection-triggered neuroinflammation, cerebrovascular alterations, and/or neurodegeneration.

However, it’s unclear whether these disturbances persist in the post-COVID phase.

To investigate, the researchers explored cognitive and psychopathological features in 49 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to a hospital ED. They examined these factors at 2 months (subacute phase) and at 10 months (post-COVID phase).

Participants had an average age of 61 years (age range, 40-75 years) and 73% were men. Most had at least one cardiovascular risk factor such as hypertension (55%), smoking (22%), and dyslipidemia (18%).

At hospital admission, 71% had an abnormal neurologic exam, 59% had hypogeusia (reduced sense of taste), 45% hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), 39% headache, and 20% confusion or drowsiness. During hospitalization, 27% had noninvasive ventilation.

In addition to cognitive and neurologic assessments, participants underwent MRI 2 months after hospital discharge. Researchers obtained data on gray matter, white matter, and total brain volume.

At 2 months post discharge, 53% of patients presented with at least one cognitive deficit. Many deficits related to executive function including difficulty planning, attention, and problem solving (16%).

However, some participants had memory issues (6%) or visuospatial disturbances (6%). Almost a quarter (23%) presented with a combination of symptoms related to executive dysfunction.
 

Low oxygen tied to more cognitive deficits

More than one-third of patients experienced symptoms of depression (16%) or PTSD (18%).

Patients younger than 50 years had more executive dysfunction, with these symptoms affecting 75% of younger patients. “Our explanation for that is that younger people had a milder clinical profile regarding COVID, so they were cared for at home,” said Dr. Canu.

While in hospital, patients may be on “continued alert” and receive structured interventions for cognitive and behavioral issues, she said.

More severe respiratory symptoms at hospital admission were significantly associated with deficits during the subacute phase (P = .002 for information processing).

“Low levels of oxygen in the brain could lead to confusion, headache, and brain fog, and cause the cognitive disturbances that we see,” said Dr. Canu.

White-matter hyperintensities were linked to cognitive deficits during this phase (P < .001 for verbal memory and delayed recall).

“These white-matter lesions are probably preexisting due to cardiovascular risk factors that were present in our population and may have amplified the memory disturbances we saw,” commented Dr. Canu.

The investigators did not find a significant relationship between cognitive performance and brain volume. Dr. Canu noted that cognitive and psychopathological disturbances are linked. For instance, she said, a patient with PTSD or depression may also have problems with attention or memory.

In the post-COVID phase, cognitive symptoms were reduced from 53% to 36%; again, the most common deficit was combined executive dysfunction symptoms. Depression persisted in 15% of patients and PTSD in 18%.

“We still don’t know if these alterations are a consequence of the infection,” said Dr. Canu. “And we don’t know whether the deficits are reversible or are part of a neurodegenerative process.”

The researchers plan to follow these patients further. “We definitely need longer follow-up and bigger populations, if possible, to see if these cognitive and psychopathological disturbances can improve in some way,” said Dr. Canu.

The study results underline the need for neuropsychological and neurologic monitoring in COVID patients. Cognitive stimulation training and physical activity, preferably outdoors, could be beneficial, Dr. Canu added.

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

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience cognitive and behavioral problems post discharge, new research shows.

Investigators found cognitive changes, depression, and PTSD in infected patients, both in the subacute phase and 10 months after hospital discharge.

“We showed that cognitive and behavioral alterations are associated with COVID-19 infection within 2 months from hospital discharge and that they partially persist in the post-COVID phase,” study investigator Elisa Canu, PhD, neuroimaging research unit, division of neuroscience, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, told a press briefing.

The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Executive dysfunction

Previous research suggests about 30% of COVID-19 survivors have cognitive disturbances and 30%-40% have psychopathological disorders including anxiety and depression, said Dr. Canu.

These disturbances have been associated with the severity of acute-phase respiratory symptoms, infection-triggered neuroinflammation, cerebrovascular alterations, and/or neurodegeneration.

However, it’s unclear whether these disturbances persist in the post-COVID phase.

To investigate, the researchers explored cognitive and psychopathological features in 49 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to a hospital ED. They examined these factors at 2 months (subacute phase) and at 10 months (post-COVID phase).

Participants had an average age of 61 years (age range, 40-75 years) and 73% were men. Most had at least one cardiovascular risk factor such as hypertension (55%), smoking (22%), and dyslipidemia (18%).

At hospital admission, 71% had an abnormal neurologic exam, 59% had hypogeusia (reduced sense of taste), 45% hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), 39% headache, and 20% confusion or drowsiness. During hospitalization, 27% had noninvasive ventilation.

In addition to cognitive and neurologic assessments, participants underwent MRI 2 months after hospital discharge. Researchers obtained data on gray matter, white matter, and total brain volume.

At 2 months post discharge, 53% of patients presented with at least one cognitive deficit. Many deficits related to executive function including difficulty planning, attention, and problem solving (16%).

However, some participants had memory issues (6%) or visuospatial disturbances (6%). Almost a quarter (23%) presented with a combination of symptoms related to executive dysfunction.
 

Low oxygen tied to more cognitive deficits

More than one-third of patients experienced symptoms of depression (16%) or PTSD (18%).

Patients younger than 50 years had more executive dysfunction, with these symptoms affecting 75% of younger patients. “Our explanation for that is that younger people had a milder clinical profile regarding COVID, so they were cared for at home,” said Dr. Canu.

While in hospital, patients may be on “continued alert” and receive structured interventions for cognitive and behavioral issues, she said.

More severe respiratory symptoms at hospital admission were significantly associated with deficits during the subacute phase (P = .002 for information processing).

“Low levels of oxygen in the brain could lead to confusion, headache, and brain fog, and cause the cognitive disturbances that we see,” said Dr. Canu.

White-matter hyperintensities were linked to cognitive deficits during this phase (P < .001 for verbal memory and delayed recall).

“These white-matter lesions are probably preexisting due to cardiovascular risk factors that were present in our population and may have amplified the memory disturbances we saw,” commented Dr. Canu.

The investigators did not find a significant relationship between cognitive performance and brain volume. Dr. Canu noted that cognitive and psychopathological disturbances are linked. For instance, she said, a patient with PTSD or depression may also have problems with attention or memory.

In the post-COVID phase, cognitive symptoms were reduced from 53% to 36%; again, the most common deficit was combined executive dysfunction symptoms. Depression persisted in 15% of patients and PTSD in 18%.

“We still don’t know if these alterations are a consequence of the infection,” said Dr. Canu. “And we don’t know whether the deficits are reversible or are part of a neurodegenerative process.”

The researchers plan to follow these patients further. “We definitely need longer follow-up and bigger populations, if possible, to see if these cognitive and psychopathological disturbances can improve in some way,” said Dr. Canu.

The study results underline the need for neuropsychological and neurologic monitoring in COVID patients. Cognitive stimulation training and physical activity, preferably outdoors, could be beneficial, Dr. Canu added.

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

Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 experience cognitive and behavioral problems post discharge, new research shows.

Investigators found cognitive changes, depression, and PTSD in infected patients, both in the subacute phase and 10 months after hospital discharge.

“We showed that cognitive and behavioral alterations are associated with COVID-19 infection within 2 months from hospital discharge and that they partially persist in the post-COVID phase,” study investigator Elisa Canu, PhD, neuroimaging research unit, division of neuroscience, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, told a press briefing.

The findings were presented at the annual congress of the European Academy of Neurology.
 

Executive dysfunction

Previous research suggests about 30% of COVID-19 survivors have cognitive disturbances and 30%-40% have psychopathological disorders including anxiety and depression, said Dr. Canu.

These disturbances have been associated with the severity of acute-phase respiratory symptoms, infection-triggered neuroinflammation, cerebrovascular alterations, and/or neurodegeneration.

However, it’s unclear whether these disturbances persist in the post-COVID phase.

To investigate, the researchers explored cognitive and psychopathological features in 49 patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to a hospital ED. They examined these factors at 2 months (subacute phase) and at 10 months (post-COVID phase).

Participants had an average age of 61 years (age range, 40-75 years) and 73% were men. Most had at least one cardiovascular risk factor such as hypertension (55%), smoking (22%), and dyslipidemia (18%).

At hospital admission, 71% had an abnormal neurologic exam, 59% had hypogeusia (reduced sense of taste), 45% hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), 39% headache, and 20% confusion or drowsiness. During hospitalization, 27% had noninvasive ventilation.

In addition to cognitive and neurologic assessments, participants underwent MRI 2 months after hospital discharge. Researchers obtained data on gray matter, white matter, and total brain volume.

At 2 months post discharge, 53% of patients presented with at least one cognitive deficit. Many deficits related to executive function including difficulty planning, attention, and problem solving (16%).

However, some participants had memory issues (6%) or visuospatial disturbances (6%). Almost a quarter (23%) presented with a combination of symptoms related to executive dysfunction.
 

Low oxygen tied to more cognitive deficits

More than one-third of patients experienced symptoms of depression (16%) or PTSD (18%).

Patients younger than 50 years had more executive dysfunction, with these symptoms affecting 75% of younger patients. “Our explanation for that is that younger people had a milder clinical profile regarding COVID, so they were cared for at home,” said Dr. Canu.

While in hospital, patients may be on “continued alert” and receive structured interventions for cognitive and behavioral issues, she said.

More severe respiratory symptoms at hospital admission were significantly associated with deficits during the subacute phase (P = .002 for information processing).

“Low levels of oxygen in the brain could lead to confusion, headache, and brain fog, and cause the cognitive disturbances that we see,” said Dr. Canu.

White-matter hyperintensities were linked to cognitive deficits during this phase (P < .001 for verbal memory and delayed recall).

“These white-matter lesions are probably preexisting due to cardiovascular risk factors that were present in our population and may have amplified the memory disturbances we saw,” commented Dr. Canu.

The investigators did not find a significant relationship between cognitive performance and brain volume. Dr. Canu noted that cognitive and psychopathological disturbances are linked. For instance, she said, a patient with PTSD or depression may also have problems with attention or memory.

In the post-COVID phase, cognitive symptoms were reduced from 53% to 36%; again, the most common deficit was combined executive dysfunction symptoms. Depression persisted in 15% of patients and PTSD in 18%.

“We still don’t know if these alterations are a consequence of the infection,” said Dr. Canu. “And we don’t know whether the deficits are reversible or are part of a neurodegenerative process.”

The researchers plan to follow these patients further. “We definitely need longer follow-up and bigger populations, if possible, to see if these cognitive and psychopathological disturbances can improve in some way,” said Dr. Canu.

The study results underline the need for neuropsychological and neurologic monitoring in COVID patients. Cognitive stimulation training and physical activity, preferably outdoors, could be beneficial, Dr. Canu added.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) was associated with reduced 60-day mortality in patients with COVID-19 who were ill enough to require hospitalization, a new report shows.

In a cohort study of more than 1,300 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection across 30 hospitals in Michigan, both prophylactic- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were associated with reduced in-hospital mortality; however, at 60 days, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality.

And adherence was key; nonadherence, or missing 2 days or more of anticoagulation, was linked to more deaths at 60 days.

The findings, which were published online June 11 in JAMA Network Open, are final proof that a prophylactic anticoagulation strategy for the hospitalized COVID population is, indeed, the right one, Valerie M. Vaughn, MD, director of hospital medicine research at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said in an interview.

“We’ve probably always known that patients with COVID need prophylaxis for VTE, but we found that early on, unfortunately, that wasn’t being done,” Dr. Vaughn said.

“Now, we see that prophylactic rates have increased. We always knew to use anticoagulation prophylactically in patients who were hospitalized with infection because of their risk for VTE, so this study just drives home that proper adherence to an anticoagulation protocol improves mortality,” she said.

Dr. Vaughn was on the front lines when COVID-19 came to Michigan, where the research was conducted.

“We probably should have been anticoagulating from the get-go, but you have to remember that in the early days of COVID, the hospitals in Michigan were being overwhelmed. They didn’t have PPE. They were taking care of patients outside of their typical hospital beds or setting up field hospitals,” she said. “It was not quite as bad as New York, but at the University of Michigan, we set up four or five ICUs outside of our normal care.”

They also converted the top floor of their pediatric hospital into an ICU to take care of patients with COVID during the first surge, she added. “We didn’t know much about this disease, but faced with this influx of patients, many of whom were dying with blood clots, we had to do something.”  

Some hospitals began prophylactically anticoagulating their patients, but others hesitated before adopting the strategy. “But now we feel confident that prophylactic anticoagulation, done according to the right protocol, with no interruptions in the treatment, is beneficial,” Dr. Vaughn said.

The best medication choice is enoxaparin (Lovenox), which can be given once a day, as opposed to heparin, which needs to be given via injection three times a day, she said.

“Prophylactic dose anticoagulation is typically given by an injection under the skin, but a lot of times, I’ve had patients tell me they feel like a human pin cushion and have all these bruises from being stuck with needles every day, which I can totally relate to,” she said.

“It is important for us as clinicians to explain that we’re having to poke our patients because it is good for them and will help them fight COVID,” she added. “Also having the once-a-day option is going to be a lot better for adherence, and adherence to the protocol, not missing any days, is key to the better outcome.”

Dr. Vaughn and her team reviewed the charts of 1,351 patients (48% women, 49% Black, median age 64 [range 52-75]) who were hospitalized throughout Michigan during the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic, from March to June 2020.

Only 18 patients (1.3%) had a confirmed VTE and 219 patients (16.2%) received treatment-dose anticoagulation.

The researchers noted that use of treatment-dose anticoagulation without imaging ranged from 0% to 29% across hospitals and increased significantly over time.

Of the 1,127 patients who received anticoagulation, 392 (34.8%) missed 2 days or more of prophylaxis.

In addition, there were varying rates of missed prophylaxis among the hospitals, from 11% to 61%, but these rates decreased markedly over time.

Missed doses were associated with a higher 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.67), but not in-hospital mortality (aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.91-1.03).

Compared with no anticoagulation, receiving any dose of anticoagulation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.

However, only prophylactic-dose anticoagulation remained associated with lower mortality at 60 days. The adjusted hazard ratio for prophylactic-dose anticoagulation was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.51-0.90), compared with 0.92 (95% CI, 0.63-1.35) for treatment-dose anticoagulation.
 

Study boosts confidence

Despite its limitations, the study should make clinicians more confident that the use of prophylactic anticoagulation is warranted for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, write Andrew B. Dicks, MD, and Ido Weinberg, MD, from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, in an invited commentary.

“Practically, we still lack the granular data we need to help guide us in patient-by-patient decision-making – such as anticoagulation agent choice, dosage, and duration of therapy – especially as dictated by acuity of patient illness,” Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg note.

“While we still await the data from randomized controlled trials to guide the optimal anticoagulation dose and duration, this study adds significant merit to the previously published recommendations from several different medical organizations regarding the use of prophylactic anticoagulation in hospitalized patients with COVID-19,” Dr. Dicks told this news organization.

The study was supported by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of their Value Partnerships program. Dr. Vaughn has reported receiving speaking fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific. Dr. Dicks and Dr. Weinberg have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the absence of formal clinical trials, pediatricians are racing to determine the efficacy and risks of currently used therapies for the SARS-CoV-2–linked multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C).

That requires rapid pragmatic evaluation of therapies. Two real-world observational studies published online June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine do that, with differing results.

In the Overcoming COVID-19 study, investigators assessed initial therapy and outcomes for patients with MIS-C using surveillance data from 58 pediatric hospitals nationwide.

The results suggest that patients with MIS-C who were younger than 21 years of age and who were initially treated with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) plus glucocorticoids fared better in terms of cardiovascular function.

The study included 518 children (median age, 8.7 years) who were admitted to the hospital between March and October 2020 and who received at least one immunomodulatory therapy. In a propensity score–matched analysis, those given IVIG plus glucocorticoids (n = 103) had a lower risk for the primary outcome of cardiovascular dysfunction on or after day 2 than those given IVIG alone (n = 103), at 17% versus 31% (risk ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.94).

Risks for individual aspects of the study’s composite outcome were also lower with IVIG plus glucocorticoids. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 8% and 17%, respectively (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.19-1.15). Shock requiring vasopressor use emerged in 13% and 24%, respectively (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.29-1.00).

In addition, there were fewer cases in which adjunctive therapy was given on day one among those who received combination therapy than among those who received IVIG alone, at 34% versus 70% (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), but the risk for fever was not lower on or after day two (31% and 40%, respectively; RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.13).

Lead author Mary Beth F. Son, MD, director of the rheumatology program at Boston Children’s Hospital, who is also associate professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, stressed that the study did not assess which MIS-C patients should receive treatment. “Rather, we studied children who had been treated with one of two initial regimens and then assessed short-term outcomes,” she told this news organization.

Going forward, it will be important to study which children should receive immunomodulatory treatment, Dr. Son said. “Specifically, can the less ill children receive IVIG alone or no treatment? This is an unanswered question at the moment, which could be addressed with a randomized controlled trial.”

Future directions, she added, will include assessing long-term cardiac outcomes for patients with MIS-C as well as studying outpatient regimens, especially those that involve steroids.

Earlier this year, French investigators found better outcomes with combined corticosteroids and IVIG than with IVIG alone. They suggested that combination therapy should be the standard of care, given the present state of therapeutic knowledge.
 

Maybe not so standard

Different results emerged, however, from an international study of MIS-C that compared three, rather than two, treatment approaches. Collaborators from the Best Available Treatment Study for MIS-C (BATS) evaluated data for 614 children with suspected MIS-C between June 2020 and February 2021 in 32 countries and found no substantial differences in recovery among children whose primary treatment was IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone.

The study by Andrew J. McArdle, MB BChir, MSC, a clinical research fellow at Imperial College London, and colleagues was published June 16 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

In the BATS cohort, 246 received IVIG alone, 208 received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 received glucocorticoids alone. Twenty-two patients received other combinations, including biologics, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy.

Among patients who were included in the primary analysis, death occurred or inotropic or ventilatory support was employed in 56 of 180 of the patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids, compared with 44 of 211 patients treated with IVIG alone, for an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.33-1.82). Among those who received glucocorticoids alone, 17 of 83 met the primary endpoint of death or inotropic or ventilatory support, for an aOR relative to IVIG alone of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.22-1.33).

After adjustments, the likelihood for reduced disease severity was similar in the two groups relative to IVIG alone, at 0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone. Time to reduction in disease severity was also comparable across all groups.

Some of the differences between the U.S. study and the global studies could be the result of the larger size of the international cohort and possibly a difference in the strains of virus in the United States and abroad, according to S. Sexson Tejtel, MD, PhD, MPH, a pediatric cardiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas. “Some strains make children sicker than others, and they’re going to need more treatment,” said Dr. Sexson Tejtel, who was not involved in either study.

Dr. Sexson Tejtel also noted that the U.S. researchers did not assess outcomes among children treated with steroids alone. “It would be interesting to know what steroids alone look like in the U.S. MIS-C population,” she said in an interview.

BATS corresponding author Michael Levin, MBE, PhD, FRCPCH, an Imperial College professor of pediatrics and international child health, told this news organization that the differing results may have arisen because of the international study’s three-treatment focus, its wider spectrum of patients, and its different endpoints: Death and inotropic support on or after day 2, versus echocardiographic left ventricular dysfunction or inotropic usage.

Regardless of the differences between the two studies, neither establishes the most effective single or combination treatment, writes Roberta L. DeBiasi, MD, of the Division of Pediatric Infectious Diseases at Children’s National Hospital and Research Institute and George Washington University, Washington, in an accompanying editorial. “Specifically, neither study was powered to include an evaluation of approaches that steer away from broad immunosuppression with glucocorticoids and that focus on more targeted and titratable treatments with biologic agents, such as anakinra and infliximab,” she writes.

Dr. DeBiasi adds that long-term follow-up studies of cardiac and noncardiac outcomes in these patients will launch soon. “Meanwhile, continued collaboration across centers is essential to decreasing the short-term incidence of death and complications,” she writes.

“It will be interesting as we apply results from these studies as they come out to see how they change our practice,” Dr. Sexson Tejtel said. “And it would be good to have some randomized clinical trials.”

For Dr. Levin, the bottom line is that all three treatments are associated with recovery for a majority of children. “This is good news for clinicians who have been guessing which treatment to use,” he said. “Both studies are attempts to provide doctors with some evidence on which to base treatment decisions and are not the final answer. Our study is ongoing, and with larger numbers of patients it may give clearer answers.”

The Overcoming COVID-19 study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Several coauthors have reported support from industry outside of the submitted work. BATS was funded by the European Union’s Horizons 2020 Program. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. One coauthor’s spouse is employed by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. DeBiasi and Dr. Sexson Tejtel have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Giving a COVID-19 vaccine at the same time as a seasonal flu vaccine appears safe and effective in the first study to test how people react to getting both shots at the same time.

Overall, the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax) is showing 89.8% efficacy in an ongoing, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. When the researchers gave a smaller group of 431 volunteers from the same study an influenza shot at the same time, efficacy dropped slightly to 87.5%.

“These results demonstrate the promising opportunity for concomitant vaccination, which may lead to higher vaccination rates and further protection against both viruses,” said study coauthor Raja Rajaram, MD, medical affairs lead, Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Seqirus, the company that supplied the influenza vaccines for the research.

The research was published online June 13 as a medRxiv preprint.

“With these COVID-19 vaccines, there are essentially no concurrent use studies,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment.

Traditionally, how a new vaccine might interact with existing vaccines is studied before the product is cleared for use. That was not the case, however, with the COVID-19 vaccines made available through expedited emergency use authorization.

The researchers found no major safety concerns associated with concomitant vaccination, Dr. Rajaram said. In addition to safety, the aim of the current study was to determine whether either vaccine changes the immunogenicity or effectiveness of the other.

“It’s a small study, but it’s certainly encouraging to know that there didn’t seem to be a big decrease in immunogenicity either way and the safety profile was similar. Not identical, but similar,” added Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Some adverse events were more common in the co-administration group. For example, injection-site tenderness was reported by 70%, versus 58% for those who got the COVID-19 shot alone. The same was true for pain at the injection site, 40% versus 29%; fatigue, 28% versus 19%; and muscle pain, 28% versus 21%.

Rates of unsolicited adverse events, adverse events that required medical attention, and serious adverse events were low and well balanced between groups.
 

Fewer antibodies important?

Although co-administering the two vaccines did not change the immune response for the influenza vaccine, the spike protein antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine was less robust.

Antibody titer levels at day 35 were 46,678 among people in the Novavax vaccine alone group, compared with 31,236 titers in the participants who received both vaccines.

“This impact did not seem to be clinically meaningful as vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved,” the researchers noted.

Gregory A. Poland, MD, an internist and part of the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agreed. “I highly doubt that is significant,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Rajaram said the antibody findings are “slightly surprising but not completely unexpected” because the same observation has been made in other combination vaccine studies. He added that the antibody levels “remain very high, although we do not yet know what antibody levels are required to achieve protection against COVID-19.”

The decrease could become more concerning if people start with fewer antibodies and they drop over time with normal waning of protection, Dr. Poland said. This group could include people over age 65 or people who are immunocompromised. More data would be needed to confirm this, he added.
 

A boost for booster vaccines?

The research could carry implications for future COVID-19 booster shots, Dr. Poland said.

“Overall, the study results are reassuring and of potential practical importance if we have to give booster doses. It will make it easier to give them both in one visit,” said Dr. Poland, who was not affiliated with the research.

Although Novavax could be positioning itself as a logical choice for a COVID-19 booster based on the findings, Dr. Offit believes it is more important to focus on having more COVID-19 vaccine options available.

“There may be, as we say at the track, ‘courses for horses,’ ” he said, meaning that different vaccines may be better suited for different situations.

“It’s likely we’re going to find these vaccines have different safety profiles, they may have different populations for whom they work best, and they may have differences in terms of their long-term durability,” he added. Also, some may prove more effective against certain variants of concern.

The Novavax vaccine would add a new class of COVID-19 vaccine to the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant spike protein vaccine.

“I think the more vaccines that are available here, the better,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Poland shared some caveats. The study was primarily conducted in adults aged 18-64 years, so there is less certainty on what could happen in people over 65. Furthermore, co-administration was evaluated after the first dose of the Novavax vaccine. “The reason I bring that up is most of the COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity occurs with dose two, not dose one.

“All in all, it’s an important first step – but it’s only a first step,” Dr. Poland said. “We need more data, including in elderly people who are primarily at risk for morbidity and mortality from the flu.”

He suggested expanding the research to study co-administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different formulations of influenza vaccines.

The study was supported by Novavax. Dr. Offit had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Poland serves as a consultant to all of the COVID-19 vaccine companies.

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

Giving a COVID-19 vaccine at the same time as a seasonal flu vaccine appears safe and effective in the first study to test how people react to getting both shots at the same time.

Overall, the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax) is showing 89.8% efficacy in an ongoing, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. When the researchers gave a smaller group of 431 volunteers from the same study an influenza shot at the same time, efficacy dropped slightly to 87.5%.

“These results demonstrate the promising opportunity for concomitant vaccination, which may lead to higher vaccination rates and further protection against both viruses,” said study coauthor Raja Rajaram, MD, medical affairs lead, Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Seqirus, the company that supplied the influenza vaccines for the research.

The research was published online June 13 as a medRxiv preprint.

“With these COVID-19 vaccines, there are essentially no concurrent use studies,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment.

Traditionally, how a new vaccine might interact with existing vaccines is studied before the product is cleared for use. That was not the case, however, with the COVID-19 vaccines made available through expedited emergency use authorization.

The researchers found no major safety concerns associated with concomitant vaccination, Dr. Rajaram said. In addition to safety, the aim of the current study was to determine whether either vaccine changes the immunogenicity or effectiveness of the other.

“It’s a small study, but it’s certainly encouraging to know that there didn’t seem to be a big decrease in immunogenicity either way and the safety profile was similar. Not identical, but similar,” added Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Some adverse events were more common in the co-administration group. For example, injection-site tenderness was reported by 70%, versus 58% for those who got the COVID-19 shot alone. The same was true for pain at the injection site, 40% versus 29%; fatigue, 28% versus 19%; and muscle pain, 28% versus 21%.

Rates of unsolicited adverse events, adverse events that required medical attention, and serious adverse events were low and well balanced between groups.
 

Fewer antibodies important?

Although co-administering the two vaccines did not change the immune response for the influenza vaccine, the spike protein antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine was less robust.

Antibody titer levels at day 35 were 46,678 among people in the Novavax vaccine alone group, compared with 31,236 titers in the participants who received both vaccines.

“This impact did not seem to be clinically meaningful as vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved,” the researchers noted.

Gregory A. Poland, MD, an internist and part of the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agreed. “I highly doubt that is significant,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Rajaram said the antibody findings are “slightly surprising but not completely unexpected” because the same observation has been made in other combination vaccine studies. He added that the antibody levels “remain very high, although we do not yet know what antibody levels are required to achieve protection against COVID-19.”

The decrease could become more concerning if people start with fewer antibodies and they drop over time with normal waning of protection, Dr. Poland said. This group could include people over age 65 or people who are immunocompromised. More data would be needed to confirm this, he added.
 

A boost for booster vaccines?

The research could carry implications for future COVID-19 booster shots, Dr. Poland said.

“Overall, the study results are reassuring and of potential practical importance if we have to give booster doses. It will make it easier to give them both in one visit,” said Dr. Poland, who was not affiliated with the research.

Although Novavax could be positioning itself as a logical choice for a COVID-19 booster based on the findings, Dr. Offit believes it is more important to focus on having more COVID-19 vaccine options available.

“There may be, as we say at the track, ‘courses for horses,’ ” he said, meaning that different vaccines may be better suited for different situations.

“It’s likely we’re going to find these vaccines have different safety profiles, they may have different populations for whom they work best, and they may have differences in terms of their long-term durability,” he added. Also, some may prove more effective against certain variants of concern.

The Novavax vaccine would add a new class of COVID-19 vaccine to the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant spike protein vaccine.

“I think the more vaccines that are available here, the better,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Poland shared some caveats. The study was primarily conducted in adults aged 18-64 years, so there is less certainty on what could happen in people over 65. Furthermore, co-administration was evaluated after the first dose of the Novavax vaccine. “The reason I bring that up is most of the COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity occurs with dose two, not dose one.

“All in all, it’s an important first step – but it’s only a first step,” Dr. Poland said. “We need more data, including in elderly people who are primarily at risk for morbidity and mortality from the flu.”

He suggested expanding the research to study co-administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different formulations of influenza vaccines.

The study was supported by Novavax. Dr. Offit had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Poland serves as a consultant to all of the COVID-19 vaccine companies.

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

Giving a COVID-19 vaccine at the same time as a seasonal flu vaccine appears safe and effective in the first study to test how people react to getting both shots at the same time.

Overall, the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine (Novavax) is showing 89.8% efficacy in an ongoing, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. When the researchers gave a smaller group of 431 volunteers from the same study an influenza shot at the same time, efficacy dropped slightly to 87.5%.

“These results demonstrate the promising opportunity for concomitant vaccination, which may lead to higher vaccination rates and further protection against both viruses,” said study coauthor Raja Rajaram, MD, medical affairs lead, Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Seqirus, the company that supplied the influenza vaccines for the research.

The research was published online June 13 as a medRxiv preprint.

“With these COVID-19 vaccines, there are essentially no concurrent use studies,” Paul A. Offit, MD, told this news organization when asked to comment.

Traditionally, how a new vaccine might interact with existing vaccines is studied before the product is cleared for use. That was not the case, however, with the COVID-19 vaccines made available through expedited emergency use authorization.

The researchers found no major safety concerns associated with concomitant vaccination, Dr. Rajaram said. In addition to safety, the aim of the current study was to determine whether either vaccine changes the immunogenicity or effectiveness of the other.

“It’s a small study, but it’s certainly encouraging to know that there didn’t seem to be a big decrease in immunogenicity either way and the safety profile was similar. Not identical, but similar,” added Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Some adverse events were more common in the co-administration group. For example, injection-site tenderness was reported by 70%, versus 58% for those who got the COVID-19 shot alone. The same was true for pain at the injection site, 40% versus 29%; fatigue, 28% versus 19%; and muscle pain, 28% versus 21%.

Rates of unsolicited adverse events, adverse events that required medical attention, and serious adverse events were low and well balanced between groups.
 

Fewer antibodies important?

Although co-administering the two vaccines did not change the immune response for the influenza vaccine, the spike protein antibody response to the COVID-19 vaccine was less robust.

Antibody titer levels at day 35 were 46,678 among people in the Novavax vaccine alone group, compared with 31,236 titers in the participants who received both vaccines.

“This impact did not seem to be clinically meaningful as vaccine efficacy appeared to be preserved,” the researchers noted.

Gregory A. Poland, MD, an internist and part of the Vaccine Research Group at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., agreed. “I highly doubt that is significant,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Rajaram said the antibody findings are “slightly surprising but not completely unexpected” because the same observation has been made in other combination vaccine studies. He added that the antibody levels “remain very high, although we do not yet know what antibody levels are required to achieve protection against COVID-19.”

The decrease could become more concerning if people start with fewer antibodies and they drop over time with normal waning of protection, Dr. Poland said. This group could include people over age 65 or people who are immunocompromised. More data would be needed to confirm this, he added.
 

A boost for booster vaccines?

The research could carry implications for future COVID-19 booster shots, Dr. Poland said.

“Overall, the study results are reassuring and of potential practical importance if we have to give booster doses. It will make it easier to give them both in one visit,” said Dr. Poland, who was not affiliated with the research.

Although Novavax could be positioning itself as a logical choice for a COVID-19 booster based on the findings, Dr. Offit believes it is more important to focus on having more COVID-19 vaccine options available.

“There may be, as we say at the track, ‘courses for horses,’ ” he said, meaning that different vaccines may be better suited for different situations.

“It’s likely we’re going to find these vaccines have different safety profiles, they may have different populations for whom they work best, and they may have differences in terms of their long-term durability,” he added. Also, some may prove more effective against certain variants of concern.

The Novavax vaccine would add a new class of COVID-19 vaccine to the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 is a recombinant spike protein vaccine.

“I think the more vaccines that are available here, the better,” Dr. Offit said.
 

Study limitations

Dr. Poland shared some caveats. The study was primarily conducted in adults aged 18-64 years, so there is less certainty on what could happen in people over 65. Furthermore, co-administration was evaluated after the first dose of the Novavax vaccine. “The reason I bring that up is most of the COVID-19 vaccine reactogenicity occurs with dose two, not dose one.

“All in all, it’s an important first step – but it’s only a first step,” Dr. Poland said. “We need more data, including in elderly people who are primarily at risk for morbidity and mortality from the flu.”

He suggested expanding the research to study co-administration of COVID-19 vaccines with different formulations of influenza vaccines.

The study was supported by Novavax. Dr. Offit had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Poland serves as a consultant to all of the COVID-19 vaccine companies.

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

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

jremaly@mdedge.com

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

jremaly@mdedge.com

Gerald E. Harmon, MD, a family physician in South Carolina whose patients sometimes leave produce in the back of his pickup truck, has practiced medicine during military deployments and during 15-hour shifts in the COVID-19 pandemic.

He has encountered “all manner of unexpected situations” and feels “more than prepared” to serve as president of the American Medical Association, he said.

At the same time, “I still find myself a little nervous about it,” Dr. Harmon said in an interview the day after he was sworn in as president. “I would be less than candid if I didn’t tell you that. I don’t mean intimidated. ... It’s almost like before an athletic event.”

Dr. Harmon was sworn in June 15 as the 176th president of the AMA during the virtual Special Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates. He follows Susan R. Bailey, MD, an allergist from Fort Worth, Tex., in leading the organization, which has more than 270,000 members.
 

Advancing health equity

During his inaugural address, Dr. Harmon discussed the pandemic and the AMA’s plan to advance health equity.

COVID-19 “has revealed enormous gaps in how we care for people and communities in America, demonstrated in the disproportionate impact of this pandemic on communities of color and in the weaknesses of our underfunded and underresourced public health infrastructure,” Dr. Harmon said.

He described medical professionals as being “at war against seemingly formidable adversaries,” including the pandemic, the effects of prolonged isolation on emotional and behavioral health, and political and racial tension. There is an “immense battle to rid our health system – and society – of health disparities and racism,” he said. “As we face these battles, we must remember that our actions as physicians and as leaders will have far-reaching consequences.”

Other challenges before the AMA include vaccinating patients, recovering from the ongoing pandemic, removing unnecessary obstacles to care, ending an epidemic of drug overdoses, improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease, incorporating technology in ways that benefit doctors and patients, and preparing future physicians, Dr. Harmon noted.

“We are going to embed the principles of equity and racial justice within the AMA and throughout our health system,” added Dr. Harmon, who has been an AMA board member since 2013 and served as board chair from 2017 to 2018. He highlighted the AMA’s strategic plan, released in May 2021, to advance health equity and justice and improve the quality of care for people who have been marginalized.

“Meaningful progress won’t happen until we, as doctors, recognize how profoundly systemic racism influences the health of our patients, and until we commit to taking action within our own spheres of influence,” Dr. Harmon said. “As a family doctor in a very diverse state, I have treated people from all backgrounds, and have seen inequities up close, inequities that understandably lead to distrust.”

Commenting in an interview on JAMA’s controversial tweet and podcast related to structural racism from earlier this year that have been deleted and removed from JAMA’s website, Dr. Harmon said, JAMA maintains editorial independence from the AMA, but that direction from a journal oversight committee could lead to changes at the journal that could help prevent similar incidents.

“We’ll support whatever the journal oversight committee suggests,” Dr. Harmon said.

“We had public statements about [the podcast]. I do think that we’ll be able to move very quickly in a stronger direction to address the issue of systemic racism,” Dr. Harmon said. “The AMA has acknowledged that it is a public health threat. We have acknowledged that it is ... a political description versus a biologic construct. So, I would anticipate that you’ll find changes.”

The AMA began developing its strategic plan to advance equity several years ago, Dr. Harmon noted. “I think we are very well poised to move forward and attack this enemy of health disparity.”
 

AAFP president supporting Dr. Harmon’s inauguration

Among those congratulating Dr. Harmon on his inauguration was Ada Stewart, MD, a fellow family physician and South Carolina resident who is the president of the American Academy of Family Physicians.

“We are very excited that family physician Dr. Gerald Harmon will serve as president of the AMA this coming year,” Dr. Stewart said. “Family medicine encompasses the very essence of medicine – treating the whole person, in the context of family, community, and each individual’s unique circumstances. As a family physician, Dr. Harmon brings important perspectives from the front lines of primary care. His commitment to health equity and evidence-based care, as well as his concern for practice sustainability and physician well-being, will serve him well as he leads the house of medicine into the future.”

Dr. Harmon has practiced as a family medicine specialist in Georgetown, S.C., for more than 30 years. He is a member of the clinical faculty for the Tidelands Health Medical University of South Carolina family medicine residency program, advises a community health system, and is vice president of a multispecialty physician practice. In addition, Dr. Harmon is the medical director of a nonprofit hospice and volunteers as medical supervisor for his local school district.

Dr. Harmon received his undergraduate degree in physics and mathematics from the University of South Carolina, Columbia, and received his medical degree from the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. He completed a residency training program in family medicine with the U.S. Air Force at Eglin (Fla.) AFB, Florida.

During a 35-year military career, Dr. Harmon served as chief surgeon for the National Guard Bureau and assistant surgeon general for the U.S. Air Force. He retired from the military as a major general.

Dr. Harmon and his wife, Linda, have three married children and eight grandchildren.

Every now and then, a bucket of tomatoes or even a half bushel of corn shows up in the back of Dr. Harmon’s pickup truck, with a note on the window thanking him. “That really touches you deeply,” Dr. Harmon said. “I practice that type of medicine and I’m honored to be able to do that every day.”

jremaly@mdedge.com

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act June 17 in a 7 to 2 vote, rejecting claims by the challengers that the requirement for all Americans to obtain health insurance is unconstitutional.

ETIENJones/thinkstockphotos

The challengers were comprised of 18 GOP-dominated states, led by Texas, that took issue with the ACA’s individual mandate – which required most Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty.

But Congress reduced the penalty to zero in 2017. Challengers argued that without the mandate,  the rest of the law should be scrapped, too. The court ruled that eliminated the harm the states were claiming.

“To have standing, a plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief,’” the majority wrote. “No plaintiff has shown such an injury ‘fairly traceable’ to the ‘allegedly unlawful conduct’ challenged here.”

Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The decision said that the mandate in question did not require the 18 states that brought the complaint to pay anything, and therefore they had no standing.

President Joe Biden has said he plans to build on the ACA – which was enacted while he was vice president – to offer coverage to more Americans.

This marks the third time the Supreme Court spared the Obama-era law from GOP attacks. The mandate was also upheld in 2012 in a 5 to 4 ruling.

American Medical Association president Gerald Harmon, MD, also called for building on the ruling to expand the law.

“With yet another court decision upholding the ACA now behind us, we remain committed to strengthening the current law and look forward to policymakers advancing solutions to improve the ACA,” Dr. Harmon said in a statement. “The AMA will continue working to expand access to health care and ensure that all Americans have meaningful, comprehensive, and affordable health coverage to improve the health of the nation.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a longtime advocate for the ACA, called the decision a “landmark victory for Democrats.”

“Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Americans across the country and Democrats in Congress, the Affordable Care Act endures as a pillar of American health and economic security alongside Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security,” she said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also celebrated the ruling.

“The Affordable Care Act has won. The Supreme Court has just ruled: the ACA is here to stay and now we’re going to try to make it bigger and better,” he said, according to CNN. “For more than a decade, the assault on our health care law was relentless from Republicans in Congress, from the executive branch itself and from Republican attorneys general in the courts. Each time in each arena, the ACA has prevailed.”

This article was updated June 17, 2021.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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

While the investigation into cases of myocarditis possibly associated with COVID vaccines proceeds, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (ASA) continue to urge everyone who is eligible for the vaccine to get it without delay.

“We remain confident that the benefits of vaccination far exceed the very unusual risks,” the leadership of the AHA/ASA said in a statement issued June 12.

“The risks of COVID-19 infection include its potentially fatal consequences and the potential long-term health effects that are still revealing themselves, including lingering consequences affecting the heart, brain, vascular system, and other organs after infection,” they point out.

Late last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention alerted health care providers that the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Work Group (VaST) of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) will meet June 18 to review cases of myocarditis reported in adolescents and young adults after they received a COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna.

The CDC is monitoring the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) for cases of myocarditis that have been associated with the mRNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 from Pfizer and Moderna.

These cases may occur more often in males than females and more frequently after the second dose than the first dose of either mRNA vaccine. Symptoms typically occur in the 3 days after administration.

“The CDC’s ongoing investigation into cases of suspected myocarditis reflects a strong and steadfast commitment to transparency and the importance of scientific rigor on all fronts. We applaud the CDC’s unwavering efforts to lead our nation’s scientific and public health efforts, including ensuring the continued safety of the COVID-19 vaccines,” the AHA/ASA states.

They emphasize that vaccinations should continue, and say it’s important to consider the details of the suspected myocarditis cases being investigated by the CDC.

As of June 11, more than 306 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered in the United States (since Dec. 14, 2020) and nearly 43% of Americans – more than 142 million people – are now fully vaccinated.

According to the June 10 CDC VAERS report detailing adverse events through May 31:

• 789 cases of suspected myocarditis have been reported, with 475 involving people younger than 30 years; 79 cases reported were in patients 16 or 17 years old.
• The vast majority (81%) of the 270 patients younger than 30 years who were discharged from care after suspected myocarditis related to COVID-19 vaccination have recovered fully; the remaining 19% of patients report ongoing symptoms or complete data are missing.
• 196 cases of suspected myocarditis after a COVID-19 vaccine were reported in young adults 18 to 24 years of age, which is higher than expected for this age group.

As of May 31, only about 9% of the COVID-19 vaccine doses administered were to people 16 to 24 years of age, which is why this “higher-than-normal rate of possible myocarditis cases” warrants investigation, the AHA/ASA says.

They note that these suspected myocarditis cases were reported to VAERS because of their proximity to COVID-19 vaccine administration.

It remains to be determined which cases meet the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of myocarditis and whether they have any direct connection to the COVID-19 vaccine, the AHA/ASA says.

They urge all health care professionals to be aware of “very rare” adverse events that could be related to a COVID-19 vaccine, including myocarditis, blood clots, low platelets, and symptoms of severe inflammation.

They advise asking patients who present with symptoms related to these conditions about the timing of recent COVID vaccinations, as needed, to confirm the diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment quickly.

The AHA will be at the CDC’s June 18 meeting to review the latest evidence on cases of suspected myocarditis after the COVID-19 vaccine, the statement adds.

The statement notes that it reflects the views of the AHA/ASA and its scientific leadership, including current president Mitchel S.V. Elkind, MD, PhD; immediate past-president Robert A. Harrington, MD; president-elect Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, MD; AHA/ASA chief science and medical officer Mariell Jessup, MD; and chief medical officer for prevention Eduardo Sanchez, MD, MPH.

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