MDedge Infectious Disease

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

For many people, being told that they are HIV positive is no longer a death sentence. But for Robert Suttle, a Black gay man and social justice educator, it is a life sentence.

Unexpectedly caught up in the HIV criminalization web at the age of 30, Mr. Suttle spent 6 months in a Louisiana state prison for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult partner. The crime? Not disclosing his HIV-positive status, a charge that Mr. Suttle says is untrue.

“I did disclose my status to my partner; however, I can’t really answer how they might have received it,” he said.

Today, at the age of 42, Mr. Suttle still carries the indelible stain of a conviction and of being a registered sex offender. “After their diagnosis, criminal charge, and/or conviction, many people think they’re done – either ‘I’ve gotten out of prison’ or ‘I’m still on probation’ – whatever the case may be,” he explained. “But we’re still living out these collateral consequences, be it with housing, moving to another state, or finding a job.”

The same is true for HIV-positive people who are charged and tried but manage to dodge prison for one reason or another. Monique Howell, a straight, 40-year-old former army soldier and single mother of five children, said that she was afraid to disclose her HIV status to a sexual partner but did advise him to wear a condom.* She points to her DD14 discharge papers (i.e., forms that verify that someone served in the military) that were issued when her military duty was rescinded following the dismissal of her court case.

“I was going to reenlist, but I got in trouble,” she said. She explained that although a DD14 separation helps to ensure that she can receive benefits and care, the papers were issued with a caveat stating “serious offense,” an indelible stain that, like Mr. Suttle’s, will follow her for the rest of her life.
 

Laws criminalize myths and misconceptions

HIV criminalization laws subject persons whose behaviors may expose others to HIV to felony or misdemeanor charges. Depending on the state, they can carry prison terms ranging from less than 10 years to life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Originally enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1986, when fear was rampant and hundreds were dying, the laws were intended to reduce HIV transmission. But they’ve had unintended consequences: Amplifying stigmatization and discrimination and perpetuating HIV myths and misconceptions, including how HIV is transmitted.

Decades of scientific advances challenge the most basic reasoning behind laws (for example, that transmission is possible via biting or spitting or through a single sexual act, which studies have shown poses a risk as low as 0%-1.4%). In addition, few laws reflect one of the most important HIV research findings of the past decade: undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning that the virus cannot be sexually transmitted by people who are taking antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are undetectable.

In most of these cases, individuals who are positive for HIV are charged and punished for unintentional exposure, not deliberate intent to harm. Moreover, for the charge to stick, sexual partners don’t need to have acquired the virus or prove the transmission source if they do become HIV positive.

Ms. Howell noted that it was the Army that brought the charges against her, not her sexual partner at that time (who, incidentally, tested negative). He even testified on her behalf at the trial. “I’ll never forget it,” she said. “He said, ‘I don’t want anything to happen to Monique; even if you put her behind bars, she’s still HIV-positive and she’s still got those children. She told me to get a condom, and I chose not to.’ ”
 

Criminal vs. clinical fallout

In 2018, 20 scientists across the world issued a consensus statement underscoring the fact that HIV criminalization laws are based on fallacies and faulty science. The statement (which remains one of the most accessed in the Journal of the International AIDS Society) also points out that 33 countries (including the United States) use general criminal statutes such as attempted murder or reckless endangerment to lengthen sentences when people with HIV commit crimes.

When the laws were created, “many were the equivalent [to general criminal laws], because HIV was seen as a death sentence,” explained Chris Beyrer MD, MPH, professor of public health and human rights at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “So, failure to disclose your status, to wear a condom was seen as risking someone else’s life, which is no longer the case,” he added.

In fact, “from the perspective of the kinds of impact that these laws have had on transmission, or risk, or behavior, what you find is that they really have no public health benefit and they have real public harms,” said Dr. Beyrer.

Claire Farel, MD, assistant professor and medical director of the UNC Infectious Diseases Clinic at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concurs. “Because of the criminalization undercurrent, there are people who don’t get tested, meaning that they are at risk for worse health outcomes, such as cancer, vascular disease, and of course HIV-related poor outcomes, including progression to AIDS.”

Farel also points to the residual stigma associated with HIV. “Much of this is inextricable from that surrounding homophobia, especially among young men of color who have sex with men. It opens up a larger conversation that a lot of people don’t want to engage in,” she said.
 

Laws broaden existing disparities even further

The CDC released a study June 4 showing substantial declines in the overall incidence of HIV in the United States, with an important caveat: There’s been a worsening disparity in cases. Access to care and engagement with care remain poor among certain populations. For example, Black individuals accounted for 41% of new HIV infections in 2019, but they represent only 12% of the U.S. population; Hispanic/Latinx persons accounted for 29% of new infections, although they represent only 17% of the entire population.

The same is true for HIV criminalization: In 2020, more than 50% of defendants were people of color, according to U.S. case data collated by the HIV Justice Network.

Still, the momentum to change these antiquated laws is gaining speed. In May, the Illinois State Senate passed a bill repealing HIV criminalization, and this past March, Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill lowering HIV-related criminalization charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and changing the wording of its law to include both intent and transmission.** California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina have also modernized or repealed their laws.
 

Ending the U.S. HIV epidemic: Patients first

Without true HIV criminalization reform, efforts to change the public and clinical mindset regarding HIV from its being a highly stigmatized disease to a preventable, treatable infection are likely to fall short. Dr. Beyrer emphasized that the onus lies with the scientific and activist communities working together. “I don’t know how you can end the epidemic if you are still stigmatizing the people who are actually acquiring these infections,” he said.

There are steps that patients can take while these forces push for change.

“As people first process their diagnosis, they need to learn as much about HIV and the science behind it as possible,” advised Mr. Suttle. He said that to protect oneself, it’s essential to learn about HIV criminalization and the laws in one’s state.

“Find someone you can trust, starting with your medical provider if possible, and if you have a significant other, bring that person to your appointments so they can see that you are in care and doing all that you can do to lower viral loads and protect others,” he added.

Ms. Howell said that although people should be in treatment and care, attitudes also need to change on the clinician side. “We’re just given these meds, told to take them, and are sent on our merry ways, but they don’t tell us how to live our lives properly; nobody grabs us and says, hey, these are the laws and you need to know this or that.”

When a person who is HIV positive does get caught up in the system, if possible, that person should consult an attorney who understands these laws. Mr. Suttle suggested reaching out to organizations in the movement to end HIV criminalization (e.g., the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, or the Positive Women’s Network) for further support, help with cases (including providing experts to testify), social services, and other resources. Mr. Suttle also encourages people who need help and direction to reach out to him directly at rsuttle2000@gmail.com.

Forty years ago, the CDC published its first report of an illness in five healthy gay men living in Los Angeles. The first cases in women were reported shortly thereafter. Over the years, there have been many scientific advances in prevention and treatment. But as Dr. Beyrer aptly noted in an editorial published January 2021 in The Lancet HIV, “time has not lessened the sting of the early decades of AIDS.”

“We should not have to be afraid of who we are because we are HIV positive,” said Ms. Howell.

Dr. Farel, Mr. Suttle, and Ms. Howell report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer has a consulting agreement with Merck.
 

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

*Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misstated Ms. Howell's age. She is 40.

**Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misspelled Gov. Northam's name.

For many people, being told that they are HIV positive is no longer a death sentence. But for Robert Suttle, a Black gay man and social justice educator, it is a life sentence.

Unexpectedly caught up in the HIV criminalization web at the age of 30, Mr. Suttle spent 6 months in a Louisiana state prison for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult partner. The crime? Not disclosing his HIV-positive status, a charge that Mr. Suttle says is untrue.

“I did disclose my status to my partner; however, I can’t really answer how they might have received it,” he said.

Today, at the age of 42, Mr. Suttle still carries the indelible stain of a conviction and of being a registered sex offender. “After their diagnosis, criminal charge, and/or conviction, many people think they’re done – either ‘I’ve gotten out of prison’ or ‘I’m still on probation’ – whatever the case may be,” he explained. “But we’re still living out these collateral consequences, be it with housing, moving to another state, or finding a job.”

The same is true for HIV-positive people who are charged and tried but manage to dodge prison for one reason or another. Monique Howell, a straight, 40-year-old former army soldier and single mother of five children, said that she was afraid to disclose her HIV status to a sexual partner but did advise him to wear a condom.* She points to her DD14 discharge papers (i.e., forms that verify that someone served in the military) that were issued when her military duty was rescinded following the dismissal of her court case.

“I was going to reenlist, but I got in trouble,” she said. She explained that although a DD14 separation helps to ensure that she can receive benefits and care, the papers were issued with a caveat stating “serious offense,” an indelible stain that, like Mr. Suttle’s, will follow her for the rest of her life.
 

Laws criminalize myths and misconceptions

HIV criminalization laws subject persons whose behaviors may expose others to HIV to felony or misdemeanor charges. Depending on the state, they can carry prison terms ranging from less than 10 years to life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Originally enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1986, when fear was rampant and hundreds were dying, the laws were intended to reduce HIV transmission. But they’ve had unintended consequences: Amplifying stigmatization and discrimination and perpetuating HIV myths and misconceptions, including how HIV is transmitted.

Decades of scientific advances challenge the most basic reasoning behind laws (for example, that transmission is possible via biting or spitting or through a single sexual act, which studies have shown poses a risk as low as 0%-1.4%). In addition, few laws reflect one of the most important HIV research findings of the past decade: undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning that the virus cannot be sexually transmitted by people who are taking antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are undetectable.

In most of these cases, individuals who are positive for HIV are charged and punished for unintentional exposure, not deliberate intent to harm. Moreover, for the charge to stick, sexual partners don’t need to have acquired the virus or prove the transmission source if they do become HIV positive.

Ms. Howell noted that it was the Army that brought the charges against her, not her sexual partner at that time (who, incidentally, tested negative). He even testified on her behalf at the trial. “I’ll never forget it,” she said. “He said, ‘I don’t want anything to happen to Monique; even if you put her behind bars, she’s still HIV-positive and she’s still got those children. She told me to get a condom, and I chose not to.’ ”
 

Criminal vs. clinical fallout

In 2018, 20 scientists across the world issued a consensus statement underscoring the fact that HIV criminalization laws are based on fallacies and faulty science. The statement (which remains one of the most accessed in the Journal of the International AIDS Society) also points out that 33 countries (including the United States) use general criminal statutes such as attempted murder or reckless endangerment to lengthen sentences when people with HIV commit crimes.

When the laws were created, “many were the equivalent [to general criminal laws], because HIV was seen as a death sentence,” explained Chris Beyrer MD, MPH, professor of public health and human rights at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “So, failure to disclose your status, to wear a condom was seen as risking someone else’s life, which is no longer the case,” he added.

In fact, “from the perspective of the kinds of impact that these laws have had on transmission, or risk, or behavior, what you find is that they really have no public health benefit and they have real public harms,” said Dr. Beyrer.

Claire Farel, MD, assistant professor and medical director of the UNC Infectious Diseases Clinic at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concurs. “Because of the criminalization undercurrent, there are people who don’t get tested, meaning that they are at risk for worse health outcomes, such as cancer, vascular disease, and of course HIV-related poor outcomes, including progression to AIDS.”

Farel also points to the residual stigma associated with HIV. “Much of this is inextricable from that surrounding homophobia, especially among young men of color who have sex with men. It opens up a larger conversation that a lot of people don’t want to engage in,” she said.
 

Laws broaden existing disparities even further

The CDC released a study June 4 showing substantial declines in the overall incidence of HIV in the United States, with an important caveat: There’s been a worsening disparity in cases. Access to care and engagement with care remain poor among certain populations. For example, Black individuals accounted for 41% of new HIV infections in 2019, but they represent only 12% of the U.S. population; Hispanic/Latinx persons accounted for 29% of new infections, although they represent only 17% of the entire population.

The same is true for HIV criminalization: In 2020, more than 50% of defendants were people of color, according to U.S. case data collated by the HIV Justice Network.

Still, the momentum to change these antiquated laws is gaining speed. In May, the Illinois State Senate passed a bill repealing HIV criminalization, and this past March, Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill lowering HIV-related criminalization charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and changing the wording of its law to include both intent and transmission.** California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina have also modernized or repealed their laws.
 

Ending the U.S. HIV epidemic: Patients first

Without true HIV criminalization reform, efforts to change the public and clinical mindset regarding HIV from its being a highly stigmatized disease to a preventable, treatable infection are likely to fall short. Dr. Beyrer emphasized that the onus lies with the scientific and activist communities working together. “I don’t know how you can end the epidemic if you are still stigmatizing the people who are actually acquiring these infections,” he said.

There are steps that patients can take while these forces push for change.

“As people first process their diagnosis, they need to learn as much about HIV and the science behind it as possible,” advised Mr. Suttle. He said that to protect oneself, it’s essential to learn about HIV criminalization and the laws in one’s state.

“Find someone you can trust, starting with your medical provider if possible, and if you have a significant other, bring that person to your appointments so they can see that you are in care and doing all that you can do to lower viral loads and protect others,” he added.

Ms. Howell said that although people should be in treatment and care, attitudes also need to change on the clinician side. “We’re just given these meds, told to take them, and are sent on our merry ways, but they don’t tell us how to live our lives properly; nobody grabs us and says, hey, these are the laws and you need to know this or that.”

When a person who is HIV positive does get caught up in the system, if possible, that person should consult an attorney who understands these laws. Mr. Suttle suggested reaching out to organizations in the movement to end HIV criminalization (e.g., the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, or the Positive Women’s Network) for further support, help with cases (including providing experts to testify), social services, and other resources. Mr. Suttle also encourages people who need help and direction to reach out to him directly at rsuttle2000@gmail.com.

Forty years ago, the CDC published its first report of an illness in five healthy gay men living in Los Angeles. The first cases in women were reported shortly thereafter. Over the years, there have been many scientific advances in prevention and treatment. But as Dr. Beyrer aptly noted in an editorial published January 2021 in The Lancet HIV, “time has not lessened the sting of the early decades of AIDS.”

“We should not have to be afraid of who we are because we are HIV positive,” said Ms. Howell.

Dr. Farel, Mr. Suttle, and Ms. Howell report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer has a consulting agreement with Merck.
 

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

*Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misstated Ms. Howell's age. She is 40.

**Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misspelled Gov. Northam's name.

For many people, being told that they are HIV positive is no longer a death sentence. But for Robert Suttle, a Black gay man and social justice educator, it is a life sentence.

Unexpectedly caught up in the HIV criminalization web at the age of 30, Mr. Suttle spent 6 months in a Louisiana state prison for a consensual sexual relationship with an adult partner. The crime? Not disclosing his HIV-positive status, a charge that Mr. Suttle says is untrue.

“I did disclose my status to my partner; however, I can’t really answer how they might have received it,” he said.

Today, at the age of 42, Mr. Suttle still carries the indelible stain of a conviction and of being a registered sex offender. “After their diagnosis, criminal charge, and/or conviction, many people think they’re done – either ‘I’ve gotten out of prison’ or ‘I’m still on probation’ – whatever the case may be,” he explained. “But we’re still living out these collateral consequences, be it with housing, moving to another state, or finding a job.”

The same is true for HIV-positive people who are charged and tried but manage to dodge prison for one reason or another. Monique Howell, a straight, 40-year-old former army soldier and single mother of five children, said that she was afraid to disclose her HIV status to a sexual partner but did advise him to wear a condom.* She points to her DD14 discharge papers (i.e., forms that verify that someone served in the military) that were issued when her military duty was rescinded following the dismissal of her court case.

“I was going to reenlist, but I got in trouble,” she said. She explained that although a DD14 separation helps to ensure that she can receive benefits and care, the papers were issued with a caveat stating “serious offense,” an indelible stain that, like Mr. Suttle’s, will follow her for the rest of her life.
 

Laws criminalize myths and misconceptions

HIV criminalization laws subject persons whose behaviors may expose others to HIV to felony or misdemeanor charges. Depending on the state, they can carry prison terms ranging from less than 10 years to life, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Originally enacted at the height of the AIDS epidemic in 1986, when fear was rampant and hundreds were dying, the laws were intended to reduce HIV transmission. But they’ve had unintended consequences: Amplifying stigmatization and discrimination and perpetuating HIV myths and misconceptions, including how HIV is transmitted.

Decades of scientific advances challenge the most basic reasoning behind laws (for example, that transmission is possible via biting or spitting or through a single sexual act, which studies have shown poses a risk as low as 0%-1.4%). In addition, few laws reflect one of the most important HIV research findings of the past decade: undetectable equals untransmittable, meaning that the virus cannot be sexually transmitted by people who are taking antiretroviral therapy and whose viral loads are undetectable.

In most of these cases, individuals who are positive for HIV are charged and punished for unintentional exposure, not deliberate intent to harm. Moreover, for the charge to stick, sexual partners don’t need to have acquired the virus or prove the transmission source if they do become HIV positive.

Ms. Howell noted that it was the Army that brought the charges against her, not her sexual partner at that time (who, incidentally, tested negative). He even testified on her behalf at the trial. “I’ll never forget it,” she said. “He said, ‘I don’t want anything to happen to Monique; even if you put her behind bars, she’s still HIV-positive and she’s still got those children. She told me to get a condom, and I chose not to.’ ”
 

Criminal vs. clinical fallout

In 2018, 20 scientists across the world issued a consensus statement underscoring the fact that HIV criminalization laws are based on fallacies and faulty science. The statement (which remains one of the most accessed in the Journal of the International AIDS Society) also points out that 33 countries (including the United States) use general criminal statutes such as attempted murder or reckless endangerment to lengthen sentences when people with HIV commit crimes.

When the laws were created, “many were the equivalent [to general criminal laws], because HIV was seen as a death sentence,” explained Chris Beyrer MD, MPH, professor of public health and human rights at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. “So, failure to disclose your status, to wear a condom was seen as risking someone else’s life, which is no longer the case,” he added.

In fact, “from the perspective of the kinds of impact that these laws have had on transmission, or risk, or behavior, what you find is that they really have no public health benefit and they have real public harms,” said Dr. Beyrer.

Claire Farel, MD, assistant professor and medical director of the UNC Infectious Diseases Clinic at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, concurs. “Because of the criminalization undercurrent, there are people who don’t get tested, meaning that they are at risk for worse health outcomes, such as cancer, vascular disease, and of course HIV-related poor outcomes, including progression to AIDS.”

Farel also points to the residual stigma associated with HIV. “Much of this is inextricable from that surrounding homophobia, especially among young men of color who have sex with men. It opens up a larger conversation that a lot of people don’t want to engage in,” she said.
 

Laws broaden existing disparities even further

The CDC released a study June 4 showing substantial declines in the overall incidence of HIV in the United States, with an important caveat: There’s been a worsening disparity in cases. Access to care and engagement with care remain poor among certain populations. For example, Black individuals accounted for 41% of new HIV infections in 2019, but they represent only 12% of the U.S. population; Hispanic/Latinx persons accounted for 29% of new infections, although they represent only 17% of the entire population.

The same is true for HIV criminalization: In 2020, more than 50% of defendants were people of color, according to U.S. case data collated by the HIV Justice Network.

Still, the momentum to change these antiquated laws is gaining speed. In May, the Illinois State Senate passed a bill repealing HIV criminalization, and this past March, Virginia’s Governor Ralph Northam signed a bill lowering HIV-related criminalization charges from a felony to a misdemeanor and changing the wording of its law to include both intent and transmission.** California, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, and North Carolina have also modernized or repealed their laws.
 

Ending the U.S. HIV epidemic: Patients first

Without true HIV criminalization reform, efforts to change the public and clinical mindset regarding HIV from its being a highly stigmatized disease to a preventable, treatable infection are likely to fall short. Dr. Beyrer emphasized that the onus lies with the scientific and activist communities working together. “I don’t know how you can end the epidemic if you are still stigmatizing the people who are actually acquiring these infections,” he said.

There are steps that patients can take while these forces push for change.

“As people first process their diagnosis, they need to learn as much about HIV and the science behind it as possible,” advised Mr. Suttle. He said that to protect oneself, it’s essential to learn about HIV criminalization and the laws in one’s state.

“Find someone you can trust, starting with your medical provider if possible, and if you have a significant other, bring that person to your appointments so they can see that you are in care and doing all that you can do to lower viral loads and protect others,” he added.

Ms. Howell said that although people should be in treatment and care, attitudes also need to change on the clinician side. “We’re just given these meds, told to take them, and are sent on our merry ways, but they don’t tell us how to live our lives properly; nobody grabs us and says, hey, these are the laws and you need to know this or that.”

When a person who is HIV positive does get caught up in the system, if possible, that person should consult an attorney who understands these laws. Mr. Suttle suggested reaching out to organizations in the movement to end HIV criminalization (e.g., the Sero Project, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, or the Positive Women’s Network) for further support, help with cases (including providing experts to testify), social services, and other resources. Mr. Suttle also encourages people who need help and direction to reach out to him directly at rsuttle2000@gmail.com.

Forty years ago, the CDC published its first report of an illness in five healthy gay men living in Los Angeles. The first cases in women were reported shortly thereafter. Over the years, there have been many scientific advances in prevention and treatment. But as Dr. Beyrer aptly noted in an editorial published January 2021 in The Lancet HIV, “time has not lessened the sting of the early decades of AIDS.”

“We should not have to be afraid of who we are because we are HIV positive,” said Ms. Howell.

Dr. Farel, Mr. Suttle, and Ms. Howell report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Beyrer has a consulting agreement with Merck.
 

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

*Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misstated Ms. Howell's age. She is 40.

**Correction, 6/14/2021: An earlier version of this story misspelled Gov. Northam's name.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

People with migraines appeared to have a higher likelihood of COVID-19 infection and subsequent symptoms of the disease, but they were less likely to receive health care, according to a study presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

“These data suggest that people with migraine are either more susceptible to contracting COVID-19, or that they may be more sensitive to the development of symptoms once COVID-19 has been contracted, or both,” Robert Shapiro, MD, PhD, professor of neurological science at the University of Vermont, Burlington. “Further, once COVID-19 has been contracted, people with migraine may be less likely to develop serious COVID-19 outcomes, or they may be less likely to seek health care for COVID-19, or both.”

In providing background information, Dr. Shapiro noted previous research showing that headache is associated with a positive prognosis in COVID-19 inpatients, including lower IL-6 levels throughout the disease course, a 1-week shorter disease course, and a 2.2 times greater relative risk of survival.

Yet in a study across 171 countries, a higher population prevalence of migraine is associated with higher COVID-19 mortality rates. It’s unclear what conclusions can be drawn from that association, however, said Deborah I. Friedman, MD, MPH, professor of neurology and ophthalmology at University of Texas, Dallas, who was not involved in the research.

Dr. Shapiro suggested a theoretical possibility, noting that two genes linked to migraine susceptibility – SCN1A and IFNAR2 – are among 15 host loci also associated with COVID-19 outcomes. Further, Dr. Shapiro noted in his background information, COVID-19 is linked to lower serum calcitonin gene-related peptide levels.

For the study, Dr. Shapiro and colleagues analyzed data from U.S. adults who responded to the National Health and Wellness Survey from April to July 2020. The researchers limited their analysis to the 41,155 participants who had not received the flu vaccine in 2020 since previous research has suggested reduced morbidity among those with COVID-19 who had been vaccinated against the flu. In this group, 4,550 participants had ever been diagnosed by a doctor with migraine (11%) and 36,605 participants had not (89%).

The majority of those with a history of migraine were female (78%), compared with the overall sample (50% female), and tended to be younger, with an average age of 39 compared with 45 for those without migraine (P < .001).

Among those with a previous migraine diagnosis, 3.8% self-reported having had a COVID-19 infection, compared with infection in 2.4% of those without a history of migraine (P < .001). That translated to a 58% increased risk of COVID-19 infection in those with migraine history, with a similar rate of test positivity in both groups (33.7% with migraine history vs. 34.5% without). Test negativity was also similar in both groups (15.9% vs. 17.8%).

Of 360 respondents who had tested positive for COVID-19, the 60 with a history of migraine reported more frequent symptoms than those without migraine. The increased frequency was statistically significant (P < .001 unless otherwise indicated) for the following symptoms:

• Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath (P = .005).
• Fever.
• Headache, sore throat, and/or congestion.
• Fatigue.
• Loss of smell and taste.
• Chills and body aches.
• Persistent pain or pressure in the chest.
• Confusion or inability to arouse.
• Digestive issues (P = .005).
• Bluish lips or face.

For several of these symptoms – such as headache/sore throat/congestion, persistent pain or pressure in the chest, confusion/inability to arouse, and digestive issues – more than twice as many respondents with migraine reported the symptom, vs. those without migraine.
 

Changes in health care utilization

“I think that people with migraine are aware of their bodies and aware of their symptoms more than the average person,” Dr. Friedman said. Yet those with migraine were less likely to use health care while diagnosed with COVID-19 than were those without migraine. Migraine sufferers with a COVID-19 infection were 1.2 times more likely to visit a health care provider than were those without an infection, but the similar relative risk was 1.35 greater for those with COVID-19 infections and no migraines.

Similarly, those with a migraine history were more than twice as likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 vaccine infection than were those without an infection (RR = 2.6), but among those without a history of migraine, respondents were nearly five times more likely to visit the emergency department when they had a COVID-19 infection than when they didn’t (RR = 4.9).

Dr. Friedman suggested that the lower utilization rate may have to do with the nature of migraine itself. “There are people with migraine who go to the emergency room all the time, but then there’s most of the people with migraine, who would rather die than go to the emergency room because with the light and the noise, it’s just a horrible place to be if you have migraine,” Dr. Friedman said. “I think the majority of people would prefer not to go to the emergency room if given the choice.”

Increased likelihood of hospitalization among those with migraine and a COVID-19 infection was 4.6 compared with those with a migraine and no infection; the corresponding hospitalization risk for COVID-19 among those without migraine was 7.6 times greater than for those with no infection. All these risk ratios were statistically significant.

Dr. Shapiro then speculated on what it might mean that headache is a positive prognostic indicator for COVID-19 inpatients and that migraine population prevalence is linked to higher COVID-19 mortality.

“A hypothesis emerges that headache as a symptom, and migraine as a disease, may reflect adaptive processes associated with host defenses against viruses,” Dr. Shapiro said. “For example, migraine-driven behaviors, such as social distancing due to photophobia, in the setting of viral illness may play adaptive roles in reducing viral spread.”

The researchers did not receive external funding. Dr. Shapiro has consulted for Eli Lilly and Lundbeck. Dr. Friedman reports grant support and/or advisory board participation for Allergan, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Impel NeuroPharma, Invex, Lundbeck, Merck, Revance Therapeutics, Satsuma Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Theranica, and Zosano Pharma.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

As summer approaches, so does the risk of Lyme disease.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Lyme disease is the fastest growing vector-borne disease, affecting approximately 300,000 Americans every year. It is caused by the spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi which is transmitted to humans by the deer tick. Lyme disease is often an overlooked diagnosis for myriad reasons, including inaccurate test results.

Infection prevention

We all know that the best way to treat any disease is by preventing it. The following measures are recommended as tools to prevent infection: personal protective wear, repellents, and removal of the attached tick. Recommended repellents include DEET, picaridin, IR3535, oil of lemon, eucalyptus, para-Menthane-3,8-diol (PMD), 2-undecanone, and permethrin. If a tick is found, it should be removed promptly by mechanical measures, such as with tweezers. The tweezers should be inserted between the tick body and skin to ensure removal of the entire tick. Burning an attached tick or applying a noxious chemical to the tick is not recommended.

Diagnosis

Diagnosing Lyme disease is often difficult given that tests can be negative for some time after a tick bite, even when the infection is present. There is good evidence to show that submitting the removed tick for identification is good practice. However, there is no evidence supporting testing the removed tick for the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi as it does not reliably predict infection in humans. It also is recommended to avoid testing asymptomatic people following a tick bite.

Following a high-risk tick bite, adults and children can be given prophylactic antibiotics within 72 hours. It is not helpful for low-risk bites. If the risk level is uncertain, it is better to observe before giving antibiotics. For adults, a single 200-mg dose of doxycycline can be given. In children, 4.4 mg per kg of body weight, up to 200 mg max, can be used for those under 45 kg.

For patients with a tick exposure and erythema migrans, a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease can be made without further testing. If the clinical presentation is not typical, it is recommended to do an antibody test on an acute phase serum sample followed by a convalescent serum sample in 2-3 weeks if the initial test is negative. Recommended antibiotics for treatment include doxycycline for 10 days or amoxicillin or cefuroxime for 14 days. If a patient is unable to take these, azithromycin may be used for 7 days.

The guidelines also make recommendations regarding testing for Lyme neuroborreliosis, for which neurologic presentations, for adults with psychiatric illnesses, and for children with developmental/behavioral/psychiatric disorders. They further make recommendations for treatment of Lyme disease involving the brain or spinal column, facial nerve palsy, carditis, cardiomyopathy, and arthritis, which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

As family doctors, we are often the first ones patients call upon after a tick bite. We are the ones who diagnosis and treat Lyme disease, so it is imperative that we stay up to date with current clinical guidelines and practice evidence-based medicine. These most recent guidelines from several specialty societies can provide the answers to many of our patients’ questions. They also serve as a great tool to help with our clinical decision-making regarding tick bites. Lyme disease can be a scary infection for patients but, if we offer them the recommended measures, it doesn’t have to be.
 

Dr. Girgis practices family medicine in South River, N.J., and is a clinical assistant professor of family medicine at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J. You can contact her at fpnews@mdedge.com.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Inhibiting granulocyte/macrophage–colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) with mavrilimumab prevented some patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and hyperinflammation from needing mechanical ventilation and reduced their risk of dying versus placebo in a phase 2 study.

There was no difference in outcomes between the two doses of mavrilimumab used in the trial (6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg) and combined data showed a higher percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint of being alive and free of mechanical ventilation at 29 days, at 87%, versus placebo, at 74%.

The P value was 0.12, “which achieved the prespecified evidentiary standard of 0.2,” according to Lara Pupim, MD, vice president of clinical research and development at Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals in Lexington, Mass.

Importantly, there was a 61% reduction in the risk of dying if patients had received mavrilimumab rather than placebo, she reported at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology. Mortality at day 29 was 21% in the placebo arm but just 8% in the combined mavrilimumab arms (P = .07).

Hendrik Schulze-Koops, MD, called it a “surprising study” and that “the outcome is very spectacular” in his short appraisal of the study during the Clinical Highlights session on the final day of the congress.

Mavrilimumab was “a compound that we would not have thought that would have such an impact on the outcome of COVID-19 infected patients,” Dr. Schulze-Koops of Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich added.

In this small study, “there was a consistent suggestion of a biological effect across key endpoints,” Richard Conway, MBChB, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at St. James’s Hospital in Dublin, pointed out in an interview.

“Similar to tocilizumab, the benefits with mavrilimumab appear to be in addition to those seen with glucocorticoids, as 96% of patients received dexamethasone,” Dr. Conway observed. Furthermore, nearly one-third received antiviral or remdesivir treatment.

“This study was likely underpowered to assess a clinically meaningful benefit,” he said, adding that “there is insufficient evidence at present to begin using mavrilimumab as an alternative to currently available agents.” That said, “these results are promising for future studies.”

Rationale for GM-CSF inhibition with mavrilimumab in COVID-19 pneumonia

“The cytokine GM-CSF is vital to both lung homeostasis and regulation of inflammation in autoimmunity,” Dr. Pupim explained.

She added that “GM-CSF is implicated in the mechanism of aberrant immune cell infiltration and activation in the lungs, and it may contribute to respiratory failure and death in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and systemic hyperinflammation.”

The efficacy and safety of blocking GM-CSF with mavrilimumab have been shown previously in phase 2 studies in other diseases, Dr. Pupim noted. This includes patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with giant cell arteritis.

“It was hypothesized that GM-CSF receptor–alpha blockade may reduce infiltration of pathogenic cells into the lung and may suppress inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia in hyperinflammation,” she explained.

Study details and other outcome results

The study presented by Dr. Pupim was a phase 2/3 double-blind, placebo-controlled trial predominantly conducted in Brazil, the United States, and South Africa, with some participation in Peru and Chile.

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a positive COVID-19 test within 14 days of randomization and had been hospitalized but not ventilated. Evidence of bilateral pneumonia on chest x-ray or CT scan and clinical laboratory evidence indicative of hyperinflammation were also prerequisites for study enrollment.

The ongoing study comprised two cohorts, Dr. Pupim explained: patients who have not been ventilated and those who have recently been ventilated. Dr. Pupim presented the data on the nonventilated cohort, noting that there was a total of 116 patients aged a mean of 57 years.

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: two groups received a single intravenous infusion of mavrilimumab, either 6 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg, and the third group got a placebo.

“Using a time-to-event approach, looking at mechanical ventilation-free survival, mavrilimumab recipients experienced a 65% reduction in the risk of mechanical ventilation or death,” Dr. Pupim said (P = .0175).

“Separation in the Kaplan-Meier curves was evident very early after study drug administration,” she added.

There were trends toward a faster benefit with mavrilimumab than placebo in two other key secondary endpoints: the median time to achieving a two-point clinical improvement (7 vs. 11 days) and the median time to room air (7 vs. 9 days).

Timing of mavrilimumab administration and safety

Study coauthor and chief clinical development officer at Kiniksa, Arian Pano, MD, answered questions on the presentation. When asked about the timing of giving mavrilimumab, he said: “Based on these data it is before they go to ventilation, as soon as you have symptoms of hyperinflammation and a need for oxygen.”

Mavrilimumab is given as a single infusion “and has been well tolerated; virtually no interruptions occurred in this study.”

No serious adverse events related to mavrilimumab were seen, and adverse events, including secondary infections, which are known complications of COVID-19, occurred less frequently in mavrilimumab recipients, compared with placebo.

Dr. Pupim reported that there was a case of tuberculosis in one patient treated with mavrilimumab (10 mg/kg). That case had occurred in an “endemic area for tuberculosis,” and the patient had been screened before entry but only via a sputum sample.

“Prior to these events, the patient received high-dose corticosteroids, a known risk factor for reactivation of TB, and thus the potential additive contribution of mavrilimumab, if any, is uncertain.” Dr. Pupim said.

“Thrombotic events, another known complication of COVID-19, occurred in the placebo arm only,” she added.

Dr. Pano commented that the study has now “seamlessly continued to phase 3. So, basically, we did not stop the study. At the end of phase 2, we just locked the database and collected the data.” Both the 6 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg are being studied, but it’s “very likely [that] 6 mg/kg could be the dose that we may bring forward to the clinic in terms of registration, but that’s at this point in time. We will need to wait for the phase 3 data,” he observed. Those findings will hopefully be available later this year.

Kiniksa funded the study. Dr. Pupim, Dr. Pano, and multiple study coinvestigators are employees of the company.

Dr. Schulze-Koops was not involved in the study and had no specific disclosures. Dr. Conway had no financial disclosures to make in relation to his comments.

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

Pandemic smoking: More or less?

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed a lot of habits in people, for better or worse. Some people may have turned to food and alcohol for comfort, while others started on health kicks to emerge from the ordeal as new people. Well, the same can be said about smokers.

artisteer/Getty Images

New evidence comes from a survey conducted from May to July 2020 of 694 current and former smokers with an average age of 53 years. All had been hospitalized prior to the pandemic and had previously participated in clinical trials to for smoking cessation in Boston, Nashville, and Pittsburgh hospitals.

Researchers found that 32% of participants smoked more, 37% smoked less, and 31% made no change in their smoking habits. By the time of the survey, 28% of former smokers had relapsed. Although 68% of the participants believed smoking increased the risk of getting COVID-19, that still didn’t stop some people from smoking more. Why?

Respondents “might have increased their smoking due to stress and boredom. On the other hand, the fear of catching COVID might have led them to cut down or quit smoking,” said lead author Nancy A. Rigotti, MD. “Even before the pandemic, tobacco smoking was the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. COVID-19 has given smokers yet another good reason to stop smoking.”

This creates an opportunity for physicians to preach the gospel to smokers about their vulnerability to respiratory disease in hopes of getting them to quit for good. We just wish the same could be said for all of our excessive pandemic online shopping.
 

3,000 years and just one pair of genomes to wear

Men and women are different. We’ll give you a moment to pick your jaw off the ground.

It makes sense though, the sexes being different, especially when you look at the broader animal kingdom. The males and females of many species are slightly different when it comes to size and shape, but there’s a big question that literally only anthropologists have asked: Were human males and females more different in the past than they are today?

Leonard Mukooli/Pixabay

To be more specific, some scientists believe that males and females grew more similar when humans shifted from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to a farming-based lifestyle, as agriculture encouraged a more equitable division of labor. Others believe that the differences come down to random chance.

Researchers from Penn State University analyzed genomic data from over 350,000 males and females stored in the UK Biobank and looked at the recent (within the last ~3,000 years; post-agriculture adoption in Britain) evolutionary histories of these loci. Height, body mass, hip circumference, body fat percentage, and waist circumference were analyzed, and while there were thousands of differences in the genomes, only one trait occurred more frequently during that time period: Females gained a significantly higher body fat content than males.

It’s a sad day then for the millions of people who were big fans of the “farming caused men and women to become more similar” theory. Count the LOTME crew among them. Be honest: Wouldn’t life be so much simpler if men and women were exactly the same? Just think about it, no more arguments about leaving the toilet seat up. It’d be worth it just for that.
 

Proteins don’t lie

Research published in Open Biology shows that the human brain contains 14,315 different proteins. The team conducting that study wanted to find out which organ was the most similar to the old brain box, so they did protein counts for the 32 other major tissue types, including heart, salivary gland, lung, spleen, and endometrium.

Gerd Altmann/Pixabay

The tissue with the most proteins in common with the center of human intelligence? You’re thinking it has to be colon at this point, right? We were sure it was going to be colon, but it’s not.

The winner, with 13,442 shared proteins, is the testes. The testes have 15,687 proteins, of which 85.7% are shared with the brain. The researchers, sadly, did not provide protein counts for the other tissue types, but we bet colon was a close second.
 

Dreaming about COVID?

We thought we were the only ones who have been having crazy dreams lately. Each one seems crazier and more vivid than the one before. Have you been having weird dreams lately?

Unsplash/@spanic

This is likely your brain’s coping mechanism to handle your pandemic stress, according to Dr. Erik Hoel of Tufts University. Dreams that are crazy and scary might make real life seem lighter and simpler. He calls it the “overfitted brain hypothesis.”

“It is their very strangeness that gives them their biological function,” Dr. Hoel said. It literally makes you feel like COVID-19 and lockdowns aren’t as scary as they seem.

We always knew our minds were powerful things. Apparently, your brain gets tired of everyday familiarity just like you do, and it creates crazy dreams to keep things interesting.

Just remember: That recurring dream that you’re back in college and missing 10 assignments is there to help you, not scare you! Even though it is pretty scary. 

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

An online support tool for health care professionals that recommends whether to admit or discharge a cancer patient with COVID-19, based on their risk of a severe complication, has been developed by researchers from Manchester.

The team used machine learning on data from more than 900 cancer patients with COVID-19, conducting multiple analyses to arrive at a set of features that could accurately predict the need for admission or oxygen therapy, as well as the risk of death.

Dr. Rebecca Lee, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, and colleagues then developed thresholds to derive a score that recommended admission in 95% of patients who went on to need oxygen and an even greater proportion of those who later died.

The research was presented at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting on June 4.
 

CORONET

The resulting COVID-19 Risk in Oncology Evaluation Tool (CORONET) model “performs very well at predicting admission and severity of COVID-19 in patients with cancer,” Dr. Lee said. “We have set pragmatic and clinically relevant thresholds that focus on the safety regarding an admission versus discharge decision.”

To help health care professionals, the researchers have built a free online support tool that allows them to enter data and receive a recommendation “as to whether their patient should be considered for discharge, considered for admission, or is at high risk of having a severe outcome of coronavirus,” Dr. Lee explained.

“The health care professional can then explore the recommendation by seeing how their patient … compares with the rest of the cohort.”

The tool also includes a “diagram showing which features are most important to recommend a discharge decision versus an admission decision for each individual patient.”
 

Clinically intuitive

Dr. Alexi Wright, associate professor, Dana-Faber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study, commented that there were many things that were “really nice about the study.”

“First and foremost that they were establishing a tool to efficiently triage [patients] presenting with COVID,” she said, adding that it was “clinically intuitive” that the team made “pragmatic choices,” and the use of a random forest algorithm means the results are “very interpretable.”

However, Dr. Wright wondered whether the results can be replicated.

Alongside a lack of information on the deaths in the cohort, she pointed out that “ideally you have three data sets, with a training set, a testing set, and a validation set.”

The CORONET model was, however, trained and evaluated on the same dataset, “so it really needs external validation before it would be ready for direct clinical application.”

She continued that there is a “critical need to establish that studies can both be reproduced and replicated,” noting that a recent review showed that 85% of machine-learning studies that were used to detect COVID-19 using chest radiographs “failed fundamental reproducibility and quality checks.” 

Risk factors

Dr. Lee began her presentation by reminding the audience that cancer patients are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death, with older age, male sex, nosocomial infection, higher ECOG performance status, and active cancer among the risk factors for mortality.

“However, outcomes are very heterogeneous, ranging from patients without symptoms at all to cases with multi-organ failure and death,” she said.

It is consequently “very important for the treating clinician to determine which patients could be safely discharged to the community versus those who need additional support in being admitted to hospital.”

To develop a tool that could distinguish between those two groups of patients, the researchers collected data on 1,743 cancer patients, which was reduced down to 920 patients after excluding those without laboratory confirmed COVID-19 and those with missing data.

Using recursive feature elimination, they selected 10 key patient features associated with prognosis, then compared a lasso regression model with a random forest model, with the latter performing the best.

The team then divided their patients into four cohorts, with the model trained on three cohorts and tested on the fourth. This resulted in the CORONET score, with the final model determined by testing it against the entire patient population.

Next, thresholds were determined for assessing patients for admission versus discharge, as well as for severity of illness, giving the final CORONET model, from which the online tool was developed.
 

Checking performance

The results showed that the model was able to predict admission with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82 for admission, 0.85 for oxygen requirement, and 0.79 for death.

Further analysis revealed that the most important feature at the time of presentation for determining outcome was the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), “which is a composite score of heart rate, respiratory rate, saturations and confusion level,” Dr. Lee said.

In addition, C-reactive protein levels, albumin, age, and platelet counts “were also very important features,” she continued, “and these have also been shown in a number of different studies to be important at determining the outcome from coronavirus.”

To examine the performance of the CORONET score further, they applied it to a European hospital dataset, ESMO-CoCARE registry data, and a U.S. cohort, the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium Registry (CCC19). They found that the score discriminated between patients, but it did so with some degree of heterogeneity.

This was largely driven by higher patient age among the U.S. patients, a higher NEWS2 score, and lower albumin levels, Dr. Lee said.

To ensure the score’s applicability to clinical practice, the team set pragmatic thresholds to determine whether or not a patient required admission or whether they were at risk of dying.

For admission, they set a sensitivity of 85% and a specificity of 56%, while for mortality they set a sensitivity of 43% and a specificity of 92%.

When this was converted into a decision support tool, the model recommended hospital admission for 95% of patients who eventually required oxygen and 97% of patients who died.

The study was funded by The Christie Charitable Foundation. Dr. Lee declares relationships with AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst). Dr. Wright declares relationships with NCCN/AstraZeneca (Inst).

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

Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that 22.5% of all U.S. children aged 12-15 years have received at least one dose of a vaccine, compared with 38.1% of those aged 16-17, with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.

Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.

Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.

People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.

Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.

Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”

Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that 22.5% of all U.S. children aged 12-15 years have received at least one dose of a vaccine, compared with 38.1% of those aged 16-17, with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.

Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.

Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.

People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.

Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.

Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”

Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Over 6.3 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been administered to children aged 12-17 years as of June 7, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The latest results from the CDC’s COVID Data Tracker show that 22.5% of all U.S. children aged 12-15 years have received at least one dose of a vaccine, compared with 38.1% of those aged 16-17, with the corresponding figures for vaccine completion coming in at 4.1% and 26.4%. Compared with a week earlier, those numbers are up by 15.4% (one dose) and 486% (completion) for the younger group and by 4.7% and 8.6%, respectively, for the older children.

Children aged 12-15 represented 17.9% of all persons who initiated vaccination in the last 14 days up to June 7, while children aged 16-17 made up 4.8% of vaccine initiation over that period. The 25- to 39-year-olds, at 23.7% of all vaccine initiators, were the only group ahead of those aged 12-15, and the 50- to 64-year-olds were just behind at 17.7%, the CDC data show.

Both groups of children were on the low side, however, when it came to vaccine completion in the last 14 days, with those aged 12-15 at 6.7% of the total and those aged 16-17 years at 4.3%. The only age groups lower than that were ≥75 at 3.5% and <12 at 0.2%, and the highest share of vaccine completion was 26.0% for those aged 25-39, which also happens to be the group with the largest share of the U.S. population (20.5%), the CDC said.

People considered fully vaccinated are those who have received the second dose of a two-dose series or one dose of a single-shot vaccine, but children under age 18 years are eligible only for the Pfizer-BioNTech version, the CDC noted.

Meanwhile, back on the incidence side of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of new cases in U.S. children for the week ending June 3 was at its lowest point (16,281) since mid-June of 2020, according to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association.

Cases among children now total 3.99 million, which represents 14.1% of cases among all ages, a proportion that hasn’t increased since mid-May, which hasn’t happened since the two groups started keeping track in mid-April of 2020 in the 49 states (excluding New York), the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam that report such data by age.

Less encouraging was the CDC’s report that “COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates among adolescents ages 12-17 years increased during March and April, following declines in January and February 2021.”

Children have been experiencing much lower rates of severe disease than those of adults throughout the pandemic, the CDC pointed out, but “recent increases in COVID-19-associated hospitalization rates and the potential for severe disease in adolescents reinforce the importance of continued prevention strategies, including vaccination and the correct and consistent use of masks in those who are not yet fully vaccinated.”

rfranki@mdedge.com