Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Johnson & Johnson stopped making its COVID-19 vaccine at a key facility in the Netherlands.

The Johnson & Johnson shot is seen as a critical vaccine for poorer countries. But late last year the company paused production at the only plant making usable batches of the vaccine, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

The plant, located in Leiden, has been making an experimental but potentially more profitable vaccine instead. The experimental vaccine is for an unrelated virus -- respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV -- that will be used for a clinical trial.

The pause is said to be temporary. The Leiden plant is expected to restart production of the COVID-19 vaccine next month. The company has said that it has millions of COVID-19 doses in inventory, though it’s unclear whether the pause has affected vaccine supplies.

The interruption could reduce the supply of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine by a few hundred million doses, one of the sources told the newspaper, since the doses made from renewed production won’t likely ship until May or June. Other facilities have been hired to produce the vaccine but aren’t running yet or haven’t received regulatory approval to ship doses for packaging.

Jake Sargent, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, told the Times that the company is “focused on ensuring our vaccine is available where people are in need” and that its global production network “is working day and night.” He said that the company has millions of doses in inventory and is continuing to deliver vaccine batches to facilities that package doses.

The pause has surprised officials at two main recipients of the Johnson & Johnson shots -- the African Union and Covax, the organization that coordinates COVID-19 vaccines for poorer countries. Leaders of the two organizations learned about the halt in production from reporters at the Times.

“This is not the time to be switching production lines of anything, when the lives of people across the developing world hang in the balance,” Ayoade Alakija, coleader of the African Union’s vaccine delivery program, told the newspaper.

Poorer countries rely on Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine because it doesn’t require ultracold refrigeration. The vaccine is also less expensive than others and easy to provide to hard-to-reach populations.

“In many low- and middle-income countries, our vaccine is the most important and sometimes only option,” Penny Heaton, MD, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said in December during a meeting with the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

“We have a global vaccine, and the world is depending on us,” she said.

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

Johnson & Johnson stopped making its COVID-19 vaccine at a key facility in the Netherlands.

The Johnson & Johnson shot is seen as a critical vaccine for poorer countries. But late last year the company paused production at the only plant making usable batches of the vaccine, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

The plant, located in Leiden, has been making an experimental but potentially more profitable vaccine instead. The experimental vaccine is for an unrelated virus -- respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV -- that will be used for a clinical trial.

The pause is said to be temporary. The Leiden plant is expected to restart production of the COVID-19 vaccine next month. The company has said that it has millions of COVID-19 doses in inventory, though it’s unclear whether the pause has affected vaccine supplies.

The interruption could reduce the supply of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine by a few hundred million doses, one of the sources told the newspaper, since the doses made from renewed production won’t likely ship until May or June. Other facilities have been hired to produce the vaccine but aren’t running yet or haven’t received regulatory approval to ship doses for packaging.

Jake Sargent, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, told the Times that the company is “focused on ensuring our vaccine is available where people are in need” and that its global production network “is working day and night.” He said that the company has millions of doses in inventory and is continuing to deliver vaccine batches to facilities that package doses.

The pause has surprised officials at two main recipients of the Johnson & Johnson shots -- the African Union and Covax, the organization that coordinates COVID-19 vaccines for poorer countries. Leaders of the two organizations learned about the halt in production from reporters at the Times.

“This is not the time to be switching production lines of anything, when the lives of people across the developing world hang in the balance,” Ayoade Alakija, coleader of the African Union’s vaccine delivery program, told the newspaper.

Poorer countries rely on Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine because it doesn’t require ultracold refrigeration. The vaccine is also less expensive than others and easy to provide to hard-to-reach populations.

“In many low- and middle-income countries, our vaccine is the most important and sometimes only option,” Penny Heaton, MD, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said in December during a meeting with the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

“We have a global vaccine, and the world is depending on us,” she said.

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

Johnson & Johnson stopped making its COVID-19 vaccine at a key facility in the Netherlands.

The Johnson & Johnson shot is seen as a critical vaccine for poorer countries. But late last year the company paused production at the only plant making usable batches of the vaccine, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

The plant, located in Leiden, has been making an experimental but potentially more profitable vaccine instead. The experimental vaccine is for an unrelated virus -- respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV -- that will be used for a clinical trial.

The pause is said to be temporary. The Leiden plant is expected to restart production of the COVID-19 vaccine next month. The company has said that it has millions of COVID-19 doses in inventory, though it’s unclear whether the pause has affected vaccine supplies.

The interruption could reduce the supply of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine by a few hundred million doses, one of the sources told the newspaper, since the doses made from renewed production won’t likely ship until May or June. Other facilities have been hired to produce the vaccine but aren’t running yet or haven’t received regulatory approval to ship doses for packaging.

Jake Sargent, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, told the Times that the company is “focused on ensuring our vaccine is available where people are in need” and that its global production network “is working day and night.” He said that the company has millions of doses in inventory and is continuing to deliver vaccine batches to facilities that package doses.

The pause has surprised officials at two main recipients of the Johnson & Johnson shots -- the African Union and Covax, the organization that coordinates COVID-19 vaccines for poorer countries. Leaders of the two organizations learned about the halt in production from reporters at the Times.

“This is not the time to be switching production lines of anything, when the lives of people across the developing world hang in the balance,” Ayoade Alakija, coleader of the African Union’s vaccine delivery program, told the newspaper.

Poorer countries rely on Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine because it doesn’t require ultracold refrigeration. The vaccine is also less expensive than others and easy to provide to hard-to-reach populations.

“In many low- and middle-income countries, our vaccine is the most important and sometimes only option,” Penny Heaton, MD, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said in December during a meeting with the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

“We have a global vaccine, and the world is depending on us,” she said.

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy takes less time when an anesthesiologist oversees the sedation, researchers say.

“We have increased patient access to our GI unit by making these modifications,” said Adeel Faruki, MD, a senior instructor of anesthesiology and fellow in operations at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The finding was presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ ADVANCE 2022, the Anesthesiology Business Event.

Sedation for endoscopy in the United States generally follows one of two models, Dr. Faruki told this news organization: nurse-administered sedation (NAS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). During NAS, a GI proceduralist monitors a registered nurse who sedates patients using medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine. This was the approach at the researchers’ GI unit until July 1, 2021.

After that date, the GI unit switched to the MAC model, in which an anesthesiologist supervises a certified registered nurse anesthesiologist or an anesthesiology assistant who administers propofol. Propofol is faster acting than the drug combination the GI unit previously used and causes deeper sedation. But it can also cause respiratory or cardiovascular depression or low blood pressure, Dr. Faruki said, so most institutions require an anesthesiologist to oversee its use.
 

NAS versus MAC: Seeking the superior model

To see which approach was faster, Dr. Faruki and colleagues recorded times for endoscopic procedures from Aug. 1, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2021, and compared them with the data they had logged in electronic medical records from Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. They excluded the month of July to allow for a transition period between the two approaches.

After comparing results from 4,606 patients undergoing endoscopy with NAS to 1,034 undergoing it with MAC, they observed that switching to the latter model reduced the time from sedation start to scope-in by 2-2.5 minutes.

Because recovery is faster with propofol, the patients also spent 7 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit for upper GI endoscopies and 2 minutes less for lower GI endoscopies. Patients also told the researchers they felt less groggy.

At the same time the unit was transitioning from NAS to MAC, they also began requiring patients to sign consent forms for both the anesthesia and GI procedures in the preoperative room rather than in the procedure room. That saved about 19 minutes.

Putting all these changes together, the researchers calculated that they increased the capacity of their GI unit by 25%.

“With a pandemic raging and capacity crises continuing, it becomes very relevant to the care we can provide patients,” Dr. Faruki said. “That’s something we’re actually really proud of.”

The university is now instituting similar procedures at its other ambulatory surgical centers, he added.
 

How efficient is your endoscopy center?

“Other factors can also affect the efficiency of endoscopy,” said Joseph Vicari, MD, MBA, a partner at Rockford (Ill.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in this study.

For example, the unit has to have enough endoscopes and enough techs to clean them so they’re always available, he said in an interview. There have to be enough nurses and other staff to turn the rooms over efficiently. There also have to be enough pre- and postoperative beds, so that no one is waiting for either one.

Dr. Vicari recommended that GI endoscopy centers compare their times with those of benchmarks provided by professional societies and in published papers.

Having sorted out these factors, the MAC and NAS approaches both have their pros and cons, said Dr. Vicari.

“I think it’s a good idea for units that are struggling with efficiency, especially hospital-based units, to consider new ways to upload patient information and maybe have a dedicated anesthesia team to improve efficiency,” he said. “Procedure time can be reduced because you generally have a much steadier state of sedation with MAC, and then the recovery is much faster with propofol. Your patients wake up faster.”

But Rockford Gastroenterology continues to use the NAS approach in at least 90% of its endoscopies, because it is already so efficient that it doesn’t believe that MAC would make a significant difference.

“Academic centers tend to be less efficient,” he said. “Units like ours, an ambulatory endoscopy center, are different.”

NAS is also less expensive, Dr. Vicari said. “We have leveraged our lower-cost ambulatory endoscopy center by providing fentanyl and Versed [midazolam], turning it into an advantage in developing bundled contracts. Payers can significantly reduce expenses.”

The involvement of an anesthesiologist could increase the cost, Dr. Faruki acknowledged, and he said the researchers are analyzing that question. But he added that anesthesiologists can also oversee four rooms at once.

Dr. Faruki and Dr. Vicari reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy takes less time when an anesthesiologist oversees the sedation, researchers say.

“We have increased patient access to our GI unit by making these modifications,” said Adeel Faruki, MD, a senior instructor of anesthesiology and fellow in operations at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The finding was presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ ADVANCE 2022, the Anesthesiology Business Event.

Sedation for endoscopy in the United States generally follows one of two models, Dr. Faruki told this news organization: nurse-administered sedation (NAS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). During NAS, a GI proceduralist monitors a registered nurse who sedates patients using medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine. This was the approach at the researchers’ GI unit until July 1, 2021.

After that date, the GI unit switched to the MAC model, in which an anesthesiologist supervises a certified registered nurse anesthesiologist or an anesthesiology assistant who administers propofol. Propofol is faster acting than the drug combination the GI unit previously used and causes deeper sedation. But it can also cause respiratory or cardiovascular depression or low blood pressure, Dr. Faruki said, so most institutions require an anesthesiologist to oversee its use.
 

NAS versus MAC: Seeking the superior model

To see which approach was faster, Dr. Faruki and colleagues recorded times for endoscopic procedures from Aug. 1, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2021, and compared them with the data they had logged in electronic medical records from Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. They excluded the month of July to allow for a transition period between the two approaches.

After comparing results from 4,606 patients undergoing endoscopy with NAS to 1,034 undergoing it with MAC, they observed that switching to the latter model reduced the time from sedation start to scope-in by 2-2.5 minutes.

Because recovery is faster with propofol, the patients also spent 7 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit for upper GI endoscopies and 2 minutes less for lower GI endoscopies. Patients also told the researchers they felt less groggy.

At the same time the unit was transitioning from NAS to MAC, they also began requiring patients to sign consent forms for both the anesthesia and GI procedures in the preoperative room rather than in the procedure room. That saved about 19 minutes.

Putting all these changes together, the researchers calculated that they increased the capacity of their GI unit by 25%.

“With a pandemic raging and capacity crises continuing, it becomes very relevant to the care we can provide patients,” Dr. Faruki said. “That’s something we’re actually really proud of.”

The university is now instituting similar procedures at its other ambulatory surgical centers, he added.
 

How efficient is your endoscopy center?

“Other factors can also affect the efficiency of endoscopy,” said Joseph Vicari, MD, MBA, a partner at Rockford (Ill.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in this study.

For example, the unit has to have enough endoscopes and enough techs to clean them so they’re always available, he said in an interview. There have to be enough nurses and other staff to turn the rooms over efficiently. There also have to be enough pre- and postoperative beds, so that no one is waiting for either one.

Dr. Vicari recommended that GI endoscopy centers compare their times with those of benchmarks provided by professional societies and in published papers.

Having sorted out these factors, the MAC and NAS approaches both have their pros and cons, said Dr. Vicari.

“I think it’s a good idea for units that are struggling with efficiency, especially hospital-based units, to consider new ways to upload patient information and maybe have a dedicated anesthesia team to improve efficiency,” he said. “Procedure time can be reduced because you generally have a much steadier state of sedation with MAC, and then the recovery is much faster with propofol. Your patients wake up faster.”

But Rockford Gastroenterology continues to use the NAS approach in at least 90% of its endoscopies, because it is already so efficient that it doesn’t believe that MAC would make a significant difference.

“Academic centers tend to be less efficient,” he said. “Units like ours, an ambulatory endoscopy center, are different.”

NAS is also less expensive, Dr. Vicari said. “We have leveraged our lower-cost ambulatory endoscopy center by providing fentanyl and Versed [midazolam], turning it into an advantage in developing bundled contracts. Payers can significantly reduce expenses.”

The involvement of an anesthesiologist could increase the cost, Dr. Faruki acknowledged, and he said the researchers are analyzing that question. But he added that anesthesiologists can also oversee four rooms at once.

Dr. Faruki and Dr. Vicari reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy takes less time when an anesthesiologist oversees the sedation, researchers say.

“We have increased patient access to our GI unit by making these modifications,” said Adeel Faruki, MD, a senior instructor of anesthesiology and fellow in operations at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The finding was presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ ADVANCE 2022, the Anesthesiology Business Event.

Sedation for endoscopy in the United States generally follows one of two models, Dr. Faruki told this news organization: nurse-administered sedation (NAS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). During NAS, a GI proceduralist monitors a registered nurse who sedates patients using medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine. This was the approach at the researchers’ GI unit until July 1, 2021.

After that date, the GI unit switched to the MAC model, in which an anesthesiologist supervises a certified registered nurse anesthesiologist or an anesthesiology assistant who administers propofol. Propofol is faster acting than the drug combination the GI unit previously used and causes deeper sedation. But it can also cause respiratory or cardiovascular depression or low blood pressure, Dr. Faruki said, so most institutions require an anesthesiologist to oversee its use.
 

NAS versus MAC: Seeking the superior model

To see which approach was faster, Dr. Faruki and colleagues recorded times for endoscopic procedures from Aug. 1, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2021, and compared them with the data they had logged in electronic medical records from Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. They excluded the month of July to allow for a transition period between the two approaches.

After comparing results from 4,606 patients undergoing endoscopy with NAS to 1,034 undergoing it with MAC, they observed that switching to the latter model reduced the time from sedation start to scope-in by 2-2.5 minutes.

Because recovery is faster with propofol, the patients also spent 7 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit for upper GI endoscopies and 2 minutes less for lower GI endoscopies. Patients also told the researchers they felt less groggy.

At the same time the unit was transitioning from NAS to MAC, they also began requiring patients to sign consent forms for both the anesthesia and GI procedures in the preoperative room rather than in the procedure room. That saved about 19 minutes.

Putting all these changes together, the researchers calculated that they increased the capacity of their GI unit by 25%.

“With a pandemic raging and capacity crises continuing, it becomes very relevant to the care we can provide patients,” Dr. Faruki said. “That’s something we’re actually really proud of.”

The university is now instituting similar procedures at its other ambulatory surgical centers, he added.
 

How efficient is your endoscopy center?

“Other factors can also affect the efficiency of endoscopy,” said Joseph Vicari, MD, MBA, a partner at Rockford (Ill.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in this study.

For example, the unit has to have enough endoscopes and enough techs to clean them so they’re always available, he said in an interview. There have to be enough nurses and other staff to turn the rooms over efficiently. There also have to be enough pre- and postoperative beds, so that no one is waiting for either one.

Dr. Vicari recommended that GI endoscopy centers compare their times with those of benchmarks provided by professional societies and in published papers.

Having sorted out these factors, the MAC and NAS approaches both have their pros and cons, said Dr. Vicari.

“I think it’s a good idea for units that are struggling with efficiency, especially hospital-based units, to consider new ways to upload patient information and maybe have a dedicated anesthesia team to improve efficiency,” he said. “Procedure time can be reduced because you generally have a much steadier state of sedation with MAC, and then the recovery is much faster with propofol. Your patients wake up faster.”

But Rockford Gastroenterology continues to use the NAS approach in at least 90% of its endoscopies, because it is already so efficient that it doesn’t believe that MAC would make a significant difference.

“Academic centers tend to be less efficient,” he said. “Units like ours, an ambulatory endoscopy center, are different.”

NAS is also less expensive, Dr. Vicari said. “We have leveraged our lower-cost ambulatory endoscopy center by providing fentanyl and Versed [midazolam], turning it into an advantage in developing bundled contracts. Payers can significantly reduce expenses.”

The involvement of an anesthesiologist could increase the cost, Dr. Faruki acknowledged, and he said the researchers are analyzing that question. But he added that anesthesiologists can also oversee four rooms at once.

Dr. Faruki and Dr. Vicari reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Young adults hospitalized for a stroke are much more likely to be admitted for a recurrent stroke if they have cannabis use disorder, new observational research suggests. “Our analysis shows young marijuana users with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack remain at significantly high risk for future strokes,” said lead study author Akhil Jain, MD, a resident physician at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

“It’s essential to raise awareness among young adults about the impact of chronic habitual use of marijuana, especially if they have established cardiovascular risk factors or previous stroke.”

The study will be presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

An increasing number of jurisdictions are allowing marijuana use. To date, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis use, the investigators noted.

Research suggests cannabis use disorder – defined as the chronic habitual use of cannabis – is more prevalent in the young adult population. But Dr. Jain said the population of marijuana users is “a changing dynamic.”

Cannabis use has been linked to an increased risk for first-time stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Traditional stroke risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, and diseases related to blood vessels or blood circulation, including atherosclerosis.

Young adults might have additional stroke risk factors, such as behavioral habits like substance abuse, low physical activity, and smoking, oral contraceptives use among females, and brain infections, especially in the immunocompromised, said Dr. Jain.

Research from the American Heart Association shows stroke rates are increasing among adults 18 to 45 years of age. Each year, young adults account for up to 15% of strokes in the United States.

Prevalence and risk for recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke or TIA in cannabis users have not been clearly established, the researchers pointed out.

A higher rate of recurrent stroke

For this new study, Dr. Jain and colleagues used data from the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017. They identified hospitalizations among young adults 18 to 45 years of age with a previous history of stroke or TIA.

They then grouped these patients into those with cannabis use disorder (4,690) and those without cannabis use disorder (156,700). The median age in both cohorts was 37 years.

The analysis did not include those who were considered in remission from cannabis use disorder.

Results showed that 6.9% of those with cannabis use disorder were hospitalized for a recurrent stroke, compared with 5.4% of those without cannabis use disorder (P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic factors (age, sex, race, household income), and pre-existing conditions, patients with cannabis use disorder were 48% more likely to be hospitalized for recurrent stroke than those without cannabis use disorder (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.71; P < .001).

Compared with the group without cannabis use disorder, the cannabis use disorder group had more men (55.2% vs. 40.2%), more African American people (44.6% vs. 37.2%), and more use of tobacco (73.9% vs. 39.6%) and alcohol (16.5% vs. 3.6%). They also had a greater percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and psychoses.

But a smaller percentage of those with cannabis use disorder had hypertension (51.3% vs. 55.6%; P = .001) and diabetes (16.3% vs. 22.7%; P < .001), which is an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Jain.

“We observed that even with a lower rate of cardiovascular risk factors, after controlling for all the risk factors, we still found the cannabis users had a higher rate of recurrent stroke.”

He noted this was a retrospective study without a control group. “If both groups had comparable hypertension, then this risk might actually be more evident,” said Dr. Jain. “We need a prospective study with comparable groups.”

Living in low-income neighborhoods and in northeast and southern regions of the United States was also more common in the cannabis use disorder group.
 

Hypothesis-generating research

The study did not investigate the possible mechanisms by which marijuana use might increase stroke risk, but Dr. Jain speculated that these could include factors such as impaired blood vessel function, changes in blood supply, an increased tendency of blood clotting, impaired energy production in brain cells, and an imbalance between molecules that harm healthy tissue and the antioxidant defenses that neutralize them.

As cannabis use may pose a different risk for a new stroke, as opposed a previous stroke, Dr. Jain said it would be interesting to study the amount of “residual function deficit” experienced with the first stroke.

The new study represents “foundational research” upon which other research teams can build, said Dr. Jain. “Our study is hypothesis-generating research for a future prospective randomized controlled trial.”

A limitation of the study is that it did not consider the effect of various doses, duration, and forms of cannabis abuse, or use of medicinal cannabis or other drugs.

Robert L. Page II, PharmD, professor, departments of clinical pharmacy and physical medicine/rehabilitation, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, provided a comment on this new research.

A cannabis use disorder diagnosis provides “specific criteria” with regard to chronicity of use and reflects “more of a physical and psychological dependence upon cannabis,” said Dr. Page, who chaired the writing group for the AHA 2020 cannabis and cardiovascular disease scientific statement.

He explained what sets people with cannabis use disorder apart from “run-of-the-mill” recreational cannabis users is that “these are individuals who use a cannabis product, whether it’s smoking it, vaping it, or consuming it via an edible, and are using it on a regular basis, in a chronic fashion.”

The study received no outside funding. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adults hospitalized for a stroke are much more likely to be admitted for a recurrent stroke if they have cannabis use disorder, new observational research suggests. “Our analysis shows young marijuana users with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack remain at significantly high risk for future strokes,” said lead study author Akhil Jain, MD, a resident physician at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

“It’s essential to raise awareness among young adults about the impact of chronic habitual use of marijuana, especially if they have established cardiovascular risk factors or previous stroke.”

The study will be presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

An increasing number of jurisdictions are allowing marijuana use. To date, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis use, the investigators noted.

Research suggests cannabis use disorder – defined as the chronic habitual use of cannabis – is more prevalent in the young adult population. But Dr. Jain said the population of marijuana users is “a changing dynamic.”

Cannabis use has been linked to an increased risk for first-time stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Traditional stroke risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, and diseases related to blood vessels or blood circulation, including atherosclerosis.

Young adults might have additional stroke risk factors, such as behavioral habits like substance abuse, low physical activity, and smoking, oral contraceptives use among females, and brain infections, especially in the immunocompromised, said Dr. Jain.

Research from the American Heart Association shows stroke rates are increasing among adults 18 to 45 years of age. Each year, young adults account for up to 15% of strokes in the United States.

Prevalence and risk for recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke or TIA in cannabis users have not been clearly established, the researchers pointed out.

A higher rate of recurrent stroke

For this new study, Dr. Jain and colleagues used data from the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017. They identified hospitalizations among young adults 18 to 45 years of age with a previous history of stroke or TIA.

They then grouped these patients into those with cannabis use disorder (4,690) and those without cannabis use disorder (156,700). The median age in both cohorts was 37 years.

The analysis did not include those who were considered in remission from cannabis use disorder.

Results showed that 6.9% of those with cannabis use disorder were hospitalized for a recurrent stroke, compared with 5.4% of those without cannabis use disorder (P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic factors (age, sex, race, household income), and pre-existing conditions, patients with cannabis use disorder were 48% more likely to be hospitalized for recurrent stroke than those without cannabis use disorder (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.71; P < .001).

Compared with the group without cannabis use disorder, the cannabis use disorder group had more men (55.2% vs. 40.2%), more African American people (44.6% vs. 37.2%), and more use of tobacco (73.9% vs. 39.6%) and alcohol (16.5% vs. 3.6%). They also had a greater percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and psychoses.

But a smaller percentage of those with cannabis use disorder had hypertension (51.3% vs. 55.6%; P = .001) and diabetes (16.3% vs. 22.7%; P < .001), which is an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Jain.

“We observed that even with a lower rate of cardiovascular risk factors, after controlling for all the risk factors, we still found the cannabis users had a higher rate of recurrent stroke.”

He noted this was a retrospective study without a control group. “If both groups had comparable hypertension, then this risk might actually be more evident,” said Dr. Jain. “We need a prospective study with comparable groups.”

Living in low-income neighborhoods and in northeast and southern regions of the United States was also more common in the cannabis use disorder group.
 

Hypothesis-generating research

The study did not investigate the possible mechanisms by which marijuana use might increase stroke risk, but Dr. Jain speculated that these could include factors such as impaired blood vessel function, changes in blood supply, an increased tendency of blood clotting, impaired energy production in brain cells, and an imbalance between molecules that harm healthy tissue and the antioxidant defenses that neutralize them.

As cannabis use may pose a different risk for a new stroke, as opposed a previous stroke, Dr. Jain said it would be interesting to study the amount of “residual function deficit” experienced with the first stroke.

The new study represents “foundational research” upon which other research teams can build, said Dr. Jain. “Our study is hypothesis-generating research for a future prospective randomized controlled trial.”

A limitation of the study is that it did not consider the effect of various doses, duration, and forms of cannabis abuse, or use of medicinal cannabis or other drugs.

Robert L. Page II, PharmD, professor, departments of clinical pharmacy and physical medicine/rehabilitation, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, provided a comment on this new research.

A cannabis use disorder diagnosis provides “specific criteria” with regard to chronicity of use and reflects “more of a physical and psychological dependence upon cannabis,” said Dr. Page, who chaired the writing group for the AHA 2020 cannabis and cardiovascular disease scientific statement.

He explained what sets people with cannabis use disorder apart from “run-of-the-mill” recreational cannabis users is that “these are individuals who use a cannabis product, whether it’s smoking it, vaping it, or consuming it via an edible, and are using it on a regular basis, in a chronic fashion.”

The study received no outside funding. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Young adults hospitalized for a stroke are much more likely to be admitted for a recurrent stroke if they have cannabis use disorder, new observational research suggests. “Our analysis shows young marijuana users with a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack remain at significantly high risk for future strokes,” said lead study author Akhil Jain, MD, a resident physician at Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania.

“It’s essential to raise awareness among young adults about the impact of chronic habitual use of marijuana, especially if they have established cardiovascular risk factors or previous stroke.”

The study will be presented during the International Stroke Conference, presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.

An increasing number of jurisdictions are allowing marijuana use. To date, 18 states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis use, the investigators noted.

Research suggests cannabis use disorder – defined as the chronic habitual use of cannabis – is more prevalent in the young adult population. But Dr. Jain said the population of marijuana users is “a changing dynamic.”

Cannabis use has been linked to an increased risk for first-time stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Traditional stroke risk factors include hypertension, diabetes, and diseases related to blood vessels or blood circulation, including atherosclerosis.

Young adults might have additional stroke risk factors, such as behavioral habits like substance abuse, low physical activity, and smoking, oral contraceptives use among females, and brain infections, especially in the immunocompromised, said Dr. Jain.

Research from the American Heart Association shows stroke rates are increasing among adults 18 to 45 years of age. Each year, young adults account for up to 15% of strokes in the United States.

Prevalence and risk for recurrent stroke in patients with previous stroke or TIA in cannabis users have not been clearly established, the researchers pointed out.

A higher rate of recurrent stroke

For this new study, Dr. Jain and colleagues used data from the National Inpatient Sample from October 2015 to December 2017. They identified hospitalizations among young adults 18 to 45 years of age with a previous history of stroke or TIA.

They then grouped these patients into those with cannabis use disorder (4,690) and those without cannabis use disorder (156,700). The median age in both cohorts was 37 years.

The analysis did not include those who were considered in remission from cannabis use disorder.

Results showed that 6.9% of those with cannabis use disorder were hospitalized for a recurrent stroke, compared with 5.4% of those without cannabis use disorder (P < .001).

After adjustment for demographic factors (age, sex, race, household income), and pre-existing conditions, patients with cannabis use disorder were 48% more likely to be hospitalized for recurrent stroke than those without cannabis use disorder (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-1.71; P < .001).

Compared with the group without cannabis use disorder, the cannabis use disorder group had more men (55.2% vs. 40.2%), more African American people (44.6% vs. 37.2%), and more use of tobacco (73.9% vs. 39.6%) and alcohol (16.5% vs. 3.6%). They also had a greater percentage of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, depression, and psychoses.

But a smaller percentage of those with cannabis use disorder had hypertension (51.3% vs. 55.6%; P = .001) and diabetes (16.3% vs. 22.7%; P < .001), which is an “interesting” finding, said Dr. Jain.

“We observed that even with a lower rate of cardiovascular risk factors, after controlling for all the risk factors, we still found the cannabis users had a higher rate of recurrent stroke.”

He noted this was a retrospective study without a control group. “If both groups had comparable hypertension, then this risk might actually be more evident,” said Dr. Jain. “We need a prospective study with comparable groups.”

Living in low-income neighborhoods and in northeast and southern regions of the United States was also more common in the cannabis use disorder group.
 

Hypothesis-generating research

The study did not investigate the possible mechanisms by which marijuana use might increase stroke risk, but Dr. Jain speculated that these could include factors such as impaired blood vessel function, changes in blood supply, an increased tendency of blood clotting, impaired energy production in brain cells, and an imbalance between molecules that harm healthy tissue and the antioxidant defenses that neutralize them.

As cannabis use may pose a different risk for a new stroke, as opposed a previous stroke, Dr. Jain said it would be interesting to study the amount of “residual function deficit” experienced with the first stroke.

The new study represents “foundational research” upon which other research teams can build, said Dr. Jain. “Our study is hypothesis-generating research for a future prospective randomized controlled trial.”

A limitation of the study is that it did not consider the effect of various doses, duration, and forms of cannabis abuse, or use of medicinal cannabis or other drugs.

Robert L. Page II, PharmD, professor, departments of clinical pharmacy and physical medicine/rehabilitation, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, provided a comment on this new research.

A cannabis use disorder diagnosis provides “specific criteria” with regard to chronicity of use and reflects “more of a physical and psychological dependence upon cannabis,” said Dr. Page, who chaired the writing group for the AHA 2020 cannabis and cardiovascular disease scientific statement.

He explained what sets people with cannabis use disorder apart from “run-of-the-mill” recreational cannabis users is that “these are individuals who use a cannabis product, whether it’s smoking it, vaping it, or consuming it via an edible, and are using it on a regular basis, in a chronic fashion.”

The study received no outside funding. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

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

Adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes reported vaping cannabis, according to selected data from the national Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study.

Ruoyan Sun, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues examined results of PATH’s wave5 survey conducted from December 2018 to November 2019. PATH is a National Institutes of Health–Food and Drug Administration collaboration begun in 2013.

Their analysis, published online Feb. 7, 2022, in JAMA Pediatrics, evaluated the frequency of cannabis vaping across several age groups: 164 respondents ages 12-14; 919 participants ages 15-17; and 3,038 participants ages 18-24. Respondents included for analysis reported electronic nicotine product consumption in the past 30 days. In response to the question “When you have used an electronic product, how often were you using it to smoke marijuana, marijuana concentrates, marijuana waxes, THC, or hash oils?” 35.0% (95% confidence interval, 29.3%-41.2%) of current e-smokers aged 12-14 years said they had done so, as did 51.3% (95% CI, 47.7%-54.9%) of those aged 15-17 years and 54.6% (95% CI, 52.5%-56.7%) of young adults aged 18-24.

The prevalence of those who reported vaping cannabis every time they vaped was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-6.9%) of youths aged 12-14 years, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.3%-8.6%) of youths aged 15-17 years, and 10.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-11.6%) of young adults aged 18-24.

Among children ages 12-14, 65% said they never vaped cannabis, while 48.7% and 45.4%, respectively, in the two older groups said they did.

“This is a very important finding and it mirrors what some of us have already seen in practice,” said pediatric pulmonologist S. Christy Sadreameli, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at John Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It is important for pediatricians to realize that dual use of cannabis and nicotine vaping, and exclusive use of cannabis vaping, are not uncommon. It informs how we ask questions and how we counsel our patients.” Dr. Sadreameli was not involved in the PATH study.

Overall, the survey participants were 56% male, with 24% of respondents identifying as Hispanic, 8% as non-Hispanic Black, 58% as non-Hispanic White, and 10% as of other race/ethnicity. The weighted proportion of current e-cigarette use was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) in youths ages 12-14 years, 14.4% (95% CI, 13.5%-15.3%) in those 15-17 years, and 26.2% (95% CI, 25.3%-27.1%) in young adults.

Other recent national surveys such as the National Institute on Drug Abuses’s Monitoring the Future are reporting a growing prevalence of youth cannabis vaping, Dr. Sun said. For example, the prevalence of cannabis vaping in the past 12-month period among grade 12 students grew from 9.5% in 2017 to 22.1% in 2020. Vaping cannabis was more prevalent among Hispanic teens than other ethnicities.

Vaping devices such as e-cigarettes, vaping pens, e-cigars, and e-hookahs can be used to inhale multiple substances, including nicotine, cannabis, and opium, Dr. Sun noted in an interview. “So in addition to asking about the behavior of vaping itself, pediatricians could pay more attention to what is being vaped in these devices.”

According to Dr. Sadreameli, vaping more than one substance at a time could potentially work synergistically to cause more harm, compared with one product alone. “The other aspect to consider is that vaping multiple types of products may increase the chance of harm from other components of the mixture,” she said. For instance, a lot of the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases have been linked to vitamin E acetate, which was found in certain cannabis formulations. “Anecdotally, most EVALI patients I’ve met seemed to report use of multiple products, including cannabis-containing and nicotine-containing products.”

Dr. Sadreameli added that some cannabis vapers will have other issues. “For example, there is a severe vomiting syndrome I’ve seen, which is induced by cannabis and improved by cessation from cannabis,” she said. “It is important for pediatricians to ask the right questions of their patients in order to better understand what they may be experiencing, provide counseling, and to help them.”

A related issue is cessation, she said. “For those working to achieve cessation from nicotine-based products, sometimes nicotine replacement therapies are helpful. However, cessation from cannabis-containing products is going to look different.”

Although the study did not yield information on the prevalence simultaneous nicotine/cannabis vaping, the authors suggested that some vapers may be combining substances. Previous studies may have modestly overestimated the prevalence of nicotine vaping given their finding that some current e-cigarette users reported vaping cannabis every time they vaped and may be vaping cannabis exclusively. “However, if some current users vaped nicotine and cannabis simultaneously, then overestimation of nicotine vaping would be smaller,” they wrote.

Future surveys on this area should contain detailed questions on nicotine and cannabis vaping, including the substance being vaped and the frequency and intensity of use, Dr. Sun said. “In addition, these surveys could examine some other substances that are being vaped, such as opium and cocaine.”

The PATH study is supported by the NIH, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health & Human Services, and the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. The authors and Dr. Sadreameli had no competing interests to disclose.

Adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes reported vaping cannabis, according to selected data from the national Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study.

Ruoyan Sun, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues examined results of PATH’s wave5 survey conducted from December 2018 to November 2019. PATH is a National Institutes of Health–Food and Drug Administration collaboration begun in 2013.

Their analysis, published online Feb. 7, 2022, in JAMA Pediatrics, evaluated the frequency of cannabis vaping across several age groups: 164 respondents ages 12-14; 919 participants ages 15-17; and 3,038 participants ages 18-24. Respondents included for analysis reported electronic nicotine product consumption in the past 30 days. In response to the question “When you have used an electronic product, how often were you using it to smoke marijuana, marijuana concentrates, marijuana waxes, THC, or hash oils?” 35.0% (95% confidence interval, 29.3%-41.2%) of current e-smokers aged 12-14 years said they had done so, as did 51.3% (95% CI, 47.7%-54.9%) of those aged 15-17 years and 54.6% (95% CI, 52.5%-56.7%) of young adults aged 18-24.

The prevalence of those who reported vaping cannabis every time they vaped was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-6.9%) of youths aged 12-14 years, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.3%-8.6%) of youths aged 15-17 years, and 10.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-11.6%) of young adults aged 18-24.

Among children ages 12-14, 65% said they never vaped cannabis, while 48.7% and 45.4%, respectively, in the two older groups said they did.

“This is a very important finding and it mirrors what some of us have already seen in practice,” said pediatric pulmonologist S. Christy Sadreameli, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at John Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It is important for pediatricians to realize that dual use of cannabis and nicotine vaping, and exclusive use of cannabis vaping, are not uncommon. It informs how we ask questions and how we counsel our patients.” Dr. Sadreameli was not involved in the PATH study.

Overall, the survey participants were 56% male, with 24% of respondents identifying as Hispanic, 8% as non-Hispanic Black, 58% as non-Hispanic White, and 10% as of other race/ethnicity. The weighted proportion of current e-cigarette use was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) in youths ages 12-14 years, 14.4% (95% CI, 13.5%-15.3%) in those 15-17 years, and 26.2% (95% CI, 25.3%-27.1%) in young adults.

Other recent national surveys such as the National Institute on Drug Abuses’s Monitoring the Future are reporting a growing prevalence of youth cannabis vaping, Dr. Sun said. For example, the prevalence of cannabis vaping in the past 12-month period among grade 12 students grew from 9.5% in 2017 to 22.1% in 2020. Vaping cannabis was more prevalent among Hispanic teens than other ethnicities.

Vaping devices such as e-cigarettes, vaping pens, e-cigars, and e-hookahs can be used to inhale multiple substances, including nicotine, cannabis, and opium, Dr. Sun noted in an interview. “So in addition to asking about the behavior of vaping itself, pediatricians could pay more attention to what is being vaped in these devices.”

According to Dr. Sadreameli, vaping more than one substance at a time could potentially work synergistically to cause more harm, compared with one product alone. “The other aspect to consider is that vaping multiple types of products may increase the chance of harm from other components of the mixture,” she said. For instance, a lot of the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases have been linked to vitamin E acetate, which was found in certain cannabis formulations. “Anecdotally, most EVALI patients I’ve met seemed to report use of multiple products, including cannabis-containing and nicotine-containing products.”

Dr. Sadreameli added that some cannabis vapers will have other issues. “For example, there is a severe vomiting syndrome I’ve seen, which is induced by cannabis and improved by cessation from cannabis,” she said. “It is important for pediatricians to ask the right questions of their patients in order to better understand what they may be experiencing, provide counseling, and to help them.”

A related issue is cessation, she said. “For those working to achieve cessation from nicotine-based products, sometimes nicotine replacement therapies are helpful. However, cessation from cannabis-containing products is going to look different.”

Although the study did not yield information on the prevalence simultaneous nicotine/cannabis vaping, the authors suggested that some vapers may be combining substances. Previous studies may have modestly overestimated the prevalence of nicotine vaping given their finding that some current e-cigarette users reported vaping cannabis every time they vaped and may be vaping cannabis exclusively. “However, if some current users vaped nicotine and cannabis simultaneously, then overestimation of nicotine vaping would be smaller,” they wrote.

Future surveys on this area should contain detailed questions on nicotine and cannabis vaping, including the substance being vaped and the frequency and intensity of use, Dr. Sun said. “In addition, these surveys could examine some other substances that are being vaped, such as opium and cocaine.”

The PATH study is supported by the NIH, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health & Human Services, and the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. The authors and Dr. Sadreameli had no competing interests to disclose.

Adolescents and young adults who use e-cigarettes reported vaping cannabis, according to selected data from the national Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study.

Ruoyan Sun, PhD, an assistant professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues examined results of PATH’s wave5 survey conducted from December 2018 to November 2019. PATH is a National Institutes of Health–Food and Drug Administration collaboration begun in 2013.

Their analysis, published online Feb. 7, 2022, in JAMA Pediatrics, evaluated the frequency of cannabis vaping across several age groups: 164 respondents ages 12-14; 919 participants ages 15-17; and 3,038 participants ages 18-24. Respondents included for analysis reported electronic nicotine product consumption in the past 30 days. In response to the question “When you have used an electronic product, how often were you using it to smoke marijuana, marijuana concentrates, marijuana waxes, THC, or hash oils?” 35.0% (95% confidence interval, 29.3%-41.2%) of current e-smokers aged 12-14 years said they had done so, as did 51.3% (95% CI, 47.7%-54.9%) of those aged 15-17 years and 54.6% (95% CI, 52.5%-56.7%) of young adults aged 18-24.

The prevalence of those who reported vaping cannabis every time they vaped was 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-6.9%) of youths aged 12-14 years, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.3%-8.6%) of youths aged 15-17 years, and 10.3% (95% CI, 9.0%-11.6%) of young adults aged 18-24.

Among children ages 12-14, 65% said they never vaped cannabis, while 48.7% and 45.4%, respectively, in the two older groups said they did.

“This is a very important finding and it mirrors what some of us have already seen in practice,” said pediatric pulmonologist S. Christy Sadreameli, MD, MHS, an assistant professor of pediatrics at John Hopkins University, Baltimore. “It is important for pediatricians to realize that dual use of cannabis and nicotine vaping, and exclusive use of cannabis vaping, are not uncommon. It informs how we ask questions and how we counsel our patients.” Dr. Sadreameli was not involved in the PATH study.

Overall, the survey participants were 56% male, with 24% of respondents identifying as Hispanic, 8% as non-Hispanic Black, 58% as non-Hispanic White, and 10% as of other race/ethnicity. The weighted proportion of current e-cigarette use was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.4%) in youths ages 12-14 years, 14.4% (95% CI, 13.5%-15.3%) in those 15-17 years, and 26.2% (95% CI, 25.3%-27.1%) in young adults.

Other recent national surveys such as the National Institute on Drug Abuses’s Monitoring the Future are reporting a growing prevalence of youth cannabis vaping, Dr. Sun said. For example, the prevalence of cannabis vaping in the past 12-month period among grade 12 students grew from 9.5% in 2017 to 22.1% in 2020. Vaping cannabis was more prevalent among Hispanic teens than other ethnicities.

Vaping devices such as e-cigarettes, vaping pens, e-cigars, and e-hookahs can be used to inhale multiple substances, including nicotine, cannabis, and opium, Dr. Sun noted in an interview. “So in addition to asking about the behavior of vaping itself, pediatricians could pay more attention to what is being vaped in these devices.”

According to Dr. Sadreameli, vaping more than one substance at a time could potentially work synergistically to cause more harm, compared with one product alone. “The other aspect to consider is that vaping multiple types of products may increase the chance of harm from other components of the mixture,” she said. For instance, a lot of the e-cigarette or vaping use-associated lung injury (EVALI) cases have been linked to vitamin E acetate, which was found in certain cannabis formulations. “Anecdotally, most EVALI patients I’ve met seemed to report use of multiple products, including cannabis-containing and nicotine-containing products.”

Dr. Sadreameli added that some cannabis vapers will have other issues. “For example, there is a severe vomiting syndrome I’ve seen, which is induced by cannabis and improved by cessation from cannabis,” she said. “It is important for pediatricians to ask the right questions of their patients in order to better understand what they may be experiencing, provide counseling, and to help them.”

A related issue is cessation, she said. “For those working to achieve cessation from nicotine-based products, sometimes nicotine replacement therapies are helpful. However, cessation from cannabis-containing products is going to look different.”

Although the study did not yield information on the prevalence simultaneous nicotine/cannabis vaping, the authors suggested that some vapers may be combining substances. Previous studies may have modestly overestimated the prevalence of nicotine vaping given their finding that some current e-cigarette users reported vaping cannabis every time they vaped and may be vaping cannabis exclusively. “However, if some current users vaped nicotine and cannabis simultaneously, then overestimation of nicotine vaping would be smaller,” they wrote.

Future surveys on this area should contain detailed questions on nicotine and cannabis vaping, including the substance being vaped and the frequency and intensity of use, Dr. Sun said. “In addition, these surveys could examine some other substances that are being vaped, such as opium and cocaine.”

The PATH study is supported by the NIH, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Department of Health & Human Services, and the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. The authors and Dr. Sadreameli had no competing interests to disclose.

Just a few changes to your diet could add years to your life, but the sooner you start the better.

Maintaining a healthy diet is important, but most people find this difficult to do daily. In a new study, researchers examined the effects of individual healthful and nonhealthful types of foods and estimated the impact by age and sex of swapping some for others.

“Sustained change from a typical to an optimized diet from early age could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years,” say the Norwegian scientists who conducted the study, published in PLOS Medicine on Feb. 8.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

They developed an online tool that anyone can use to get an idea of how individual food choices can affect life expectancy.

The biggest overall impact comes from eating more plant-based foods (legumes), whole grains and nuts, and less red and processed meat. Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but on average people who eat a typical Western diet are already consuming those in relatively high amounts. Fish is included on the healthful list, whereas sugar-sweetened beverages (sodas) and foods based on refined [white] grains, such as white bread, are among those to be avoided.

The study found that although it’s never too late to start, young adults can expect to see more years gained by adopting healthful eating than would older adults.

“Our results indicate that for individuals with a typical Western diet, sustained dietary changes at any age may give substantial health benefits, although the gains are the largest if changes start early in life,” said the researchers.

Depending on how many healthy dietary “switches” are made and maintained and the amounts consumed, a 20-year-old man in the United States could extend his life up to 13 years, and a 20-year old woman by 11 years.

That number drops with age but changing from a typical diet to the optimized diet at age 60 years could still increase life expectancy by 8 years for women and 9 years for men, and even an 80-year-old female could gain more than 3 years with healthier food choices.

Until now, research in this area has shown health benefits associated with separate food groups or specific diet patterns, while focusing less on the health impact of other dietary changes. The statistical ‘modeling’ approach used in this study bridges that gap, the researchers said.

“Understanding the relative health potential of different food groups could enable people to make feasible and significant health gains,” they concluded.

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com.

Just a few changes to your diet could add years to your life, but the sooner you start the better.

Maintaining a healthy diet is important, but most people find this difficult to do daily. In a new study, researchers examined the effects of individual healthful and nonhealthful types of foods and estimated the impact by age and sex of swapping some for others.

“Sustained change from a typical to an optimized diet from early age could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years,” say the Norwegian scientists who conducted the study, published in PLOS Medicine on Feb. 8.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

They developed an online tool that anyone can use to get an idea of how individual food choices can affect life expectancy.

The biggest overall impact comes from eating more plant-based foods (legumes), whole grains and nuts, and less red and processed meat. Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but on average people who eat a typical Western diet are already consuming those in relatively high amounts. Fish is included on the healthful list, whereas sugar-sweetened beverages (sodas) and foods based on refined [white] grains, such as white bread, are among those to be avoided.

The study found that although it’s never too late to start, young adults can expect to see more years gained by adopting healthful eating than would older adults.

“Our results indicate that for individuals with a typical Western diet, sustained dietary changes at any age may give substantial health benefits, although the gains are the largest if changes start early in life,” said the researchers.

Depending on how many healthy dietary “switches” are made and maintained and the amounts consumed, a 20-year-old man in the United States could extend his life up to 13 years, and a 20-year old woman by 11 years.

That number drops with age but changing from a typical diet to the optimized diet at age 60 years could still increase life expectancy by 8 years for women and 9 years for men, and even an 80-year-old female could gain more than 3 years with healthier food choices.

Until now, research in this area has shown health benefits associated with separate food groups or specific diet patterns, while focusing less on the health impact of other dietary changes. The statistical ‘modeling’ approach used in this study bridges that gap, the researchers said.

“Understanding the relative health potential of different food groups could enable people to make feasible and significant health gains,” they concluded.

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com.

Just a few changes to your diet could add years to your life, but the sooner you start the better.

Maintaining a healthy diet is important, but most people find this difficult to do daily. In a new study, researchers examined the effects of individual healthful and nonhealthful types of foods and estimated the impact by age and sex of swapping some for others.

“Sustained change from a typical to an optimized diet from early age could translate into an increase in life expectancy of more than 10 years,” say the Norwegian scientists who conducted the study, published in PLOS Medicine on Feb. 8.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

They developed an online tool that anyone can use to get an idea of how individual food choices can affect life expectancy.

The biggest overall impact comes from eating more plant-based foods (legumes), whole grains and nuts, and less red and processed meat. Fruits and vegetables also have a positive health impact, but on average people who eat a typical Western diet are already consuming those in relatively high amounts. Fish is included on the healthful list, whereas sugar-sweetened beverages (sodas) and foods based on refined [white] grains, such as white bread, are among those to be avoided.

The study found that although it’s never too late to start, young adults can expect to see more years gained by adopting healthful eating than would older adults.

“Our results indicate that for individuals with a typical Western diet, sustained dietary changes at any age may give substantial health benefits, although the gains are the largest if changes start early in life,” said the researchers.

Depending on how many healthy dietary “switches” are made and maintained and the amounts consumed, a 20-year-old man in the United States could extend his life up to 13 years, and a 20-year old woman by 11 years.

That number drops with age but changing from a typical diet to the optimized diet at age 60 years could still increase life expectancy by 8 years for women and 9 years for men, and even an 80-year-old female could gain more than 3 years with healthier food choices.

Until now, research in this area has shown health benefits associated with separate food groups or specific diet patterns, while focusing less on the health impact of other dietary changes. The statistical ‘modeling’ approach used in this study bridges that gap, the researchers said.

“Understanding the relative health potential of different food groups could enable people to make feasible and significant health gains,” they concluded.

A version of this article was first published on WebMD.com.

When children with atopic dermatitis (AD) present to the clinic and their parents complain that no previously recommended medical therapies have worked, what’s the next step?

“Many patients who have failed topical steroids have never had adequate treatment,” Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at National Children’s Hospital in Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “There is no lower age limit on the use of topical corticosteroids, and low potency corticosteroids are inadequate to treat severe eczema. The idea that only over-the-counter 2.5% hydrocortisone cream is necessary is not true,” she added.

“You also want to scrutinize the vehicle,” she said, noting that children are often prescribed cream formulations that hurt when applied, so parents stop applying them. “Ointments are generally the vehicles of choice in childhood,” she added.

It is generally not advised to use topical and oral antibiotics in children with AD, unless there are clear signs of infection. “If they’re just slightly oozy, don’t use them,” she continued. “Of course, every child or adult with eczema has Staph aureus on them, but most of the time, what you need to do is repair the barrier. We know that from data and common sense. When we repair their barrier, their rates of infection decrease.”

A focal area with pustules and pus should be cultured and treated, Dr. Kirkorian said. “Monotherapy with antibiotics is going to do nothing for you.” In cases of children with failure to thrive, she recommends referral to pediatric dermatology, allergy/immunology, GI, or genetics, as appropriate.

For children with severe AD, Dr. Kirkorian favors a rescue plan with a one-pound jar of triamcinolone ointment 0.1%. She recommends application of the ointment to all areas, including the face and scalp once nightly for 2 weeks, with a follow-up appointment at the end of that time. “If you just give people medicine and ask them to come back in 6 months, they are not able to comply with that and they don’t have faith that it’s going to work,” explained Dr. Kirkorian, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington. At the end of 2 weeks, “the majority will have improved dramatically, and then you can implement maintenance therapy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole, or possibly topical ruxolitinib.”

Some clinicians prescribe oral antihistamines for AD, but Dr. Kirkorian said that data supporting their use are limited and antihistamines are not approved for use in children younger than 6 months of age. Sedating antihistamines will induce sleep, “but do not provide durable night-long sleep,” and routine use may have an impact on learning and school performance. In addition, exposure to antihistamines in children under age 2 may be associated with development of ADHD at school age.

The interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist dupilumab (Dupixent) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older. But obtaining it for patients can be tricky, she said, as this requires documented failure of corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if prescribed). Patients are often obligated to do step therapy with an off-label drug such as cyclosporine or methotrexate for 3 months, and they need to demonstrate responses with objective measures of severity such as the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) and the validated Investigator Global Assessment.

“Most of my patients carry insurance that does not approve dupilumab without failure of a prior off-label systemic immunosuppressant medication,” Dr. Kirkorian said. Cyclosporine is her first choice for a systemic immunosuppressant “because it has a fast onset of action, it’s effective for treatment of atopic dermatitis, and safe for short-term use,” she said. “I don’t think that methotrexate works well for eczema. It can take weeks and weeks to work.”

She typically starts patients on a 5 mg/kg dose of cyclosporine. Baseline tests include CBC, CMP (comprehensive metabolic panel), lipids, and vitals. She repeats the labs at 1 month, and includes a blood pressure check. Potential adverse effects of cyclosporine include infections (including opportunistic infections), cytopenias, hypertension, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity (including posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome), electrolyte disturbance, lymphoma, and cutaneous malignancy.

“The good news is that we generally don’t see the adverse effects with short-term use,” Dr. Kirkorian said. “We will see some hypertrichosis and gingival hypertrophy, which resolves with cessation of therapy. There are serious side effects if you use it for long enough.”

As for methotrexate, “it is still a very important drug in pediatric dermatology, particularly in other conditions such as psoriasis,” she said. “The problem is that weekly dosing of methotrexate poses a greater risk of dosing errors. People aren’t really triggered to think of a once-weekly medication. If you do use it, give them a short supply to make sure that they come back, and that they don’t give it daily accidentally.”

Practical tips she offered for prescribing cyclosporine include supplying a patient handout with information on all adverse effects, dosing information, vaccination information, and pregnancy precautions, with contact information (a patient portal or on-call number) for the treating clinician in case a patient develops adverse effects. Administration of live vaccines while patients are on cyclosporine is not recommended.

When transitioning patients from cyclosporine or methotrexate to dupilumab, Dr. Kirkorian recommends tapering the immunosuppressant dose by half every 2 weeks to complete cessation by week 8 of treatment. For patients who experience a severe baseline flare once the immunosuppressant is tapered, despite the switch to dupilumab, she recommends restarting methotrexate at a full dose and then reducing the dose every 2 weeks until the lowest effective dose (2.5-5 mg weekly) is reached.

“Waning efficacy is real,” she said. “We can add methotrexate to recapture efficacy. Check for superimposed allergic contact dermatitis.”

With upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor recently approved for treating refractory, moderate to severe AD in patients 12 years of age and older, is the risk profile acceptable to parents and physicians? “I think the answer is yes,” Dr. Kirkorian said. “But we’re going to have to think through that very carefully. It’s going to be exciting to see how this drug changes management in our patients.”

Dr. Kirkorian disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

When children with atopic dermatitis (AD) present to the clinic and their parents complain that no previously recommended medical therapies have worked, what’s the next step?

“Many patients who have failed topical steroids have never had adequate treatment,” Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at National Children’s Hospital in Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “There is no lower age limit on the use of topical corticosteroids, and low potency corticosteroids are inadequate to treat severe eczema. The idea that only over-the-counter 2.5% hydrocortisone cream is necessary is not true,” she added.

“You also want to scrutinize the vehicle,” she said, noting that children are often prescribed cream formulations that hurt when applied, so parents stop applying them. “Ointments are generally the vehicles of choice in childhood,” she added.

It is generally not advised to use topical and oral antibiotics in children with AD, unless there are clear signs of infection. “If they’re just slightly oozy, don’t use them,” she continued. “Of course, every child or adult with eczema has Staph aureus on them, but most of the time, what you need to do is repair the barrier. We know that from data and common sense. When we repair their barrier, their rates of infection decrease.”

A focal area with pustules and pus should be cultured and treated, Dr. Kirkorian said. “Monotherapy with antibiotics is going to do nothing for you.” In cases of children with failure to thrive, she recommends referral to pediatric dermatology, allergy/immunology, GI, or genetics, as appropriate.

For children with severe AD, Dr. Kirkorian favors a rescue plan with a one-pound jar of triamcinolone ointment 0.1%. She recommends application of the ointment to all areas, including the face and scalp once nightly for 2 weeks, with a follow-up appointment at the end of that time. “If you just give people medicine and ask them to come back in 6 months, they are not able to comply with that and they don’t have faith that it’s going to work,” explained Dr. Kirkorian, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington. At the end of 2 weeks, “the majority will have improved dramatically, and then you can implement maintenance therapy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole, or possibly topical ruxolitinib.”

Some clinicians prescribe oral antihistamines for AD, but Dr. Kirkorian said that data supporting their use are limited and antihistamines are not approved for use in children younger than 6 months of age. Sedating antihistamines will induce sleep, “but do not provide durable night-long sleep,” and routine use may have an impact on learning and school performance. In addition, exposure to antihistamines in children under age 2 may be associated with development of ADHD at school age.

The interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist dupilumab (Dupixent) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older. But obtaining it for patients can be tricky, she said, as this requires documented failure of corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if prescribed). Patients are often obligated to do step therapy with an off-label drug such as cyclosporine or methotrexate for 3 months, and they need to demonstrate responses with objective measures of severity such as the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) and the validated Investigator Global Assessment.

“Most of my patients carry insurance that does not approve dupilumab without failure of a prior off-label systemic immunosuppressant medication,” Dr. Kirkorian said. Cyclosporine is her first choice for a systemic immunosuppressant “because it has a fast onset of action, it’s effective for treatment of atopic dermatitis, and safe for short-term use,” she said. “I don’t think that methotrexate works well for eczema. It can take weeks and weeks to work.”

She typically starts patients on a 5 mg/kg dose of cyclosporine. Baseline tests include CBC, CMP (comprehensive metabolic panel), lipids, and vitals. She repeats the labs at 1 month, and includes a blood pressure check. Potential adverse effects of cyclosporine include infections (including opportunistic infections), cytopenias, hypertension, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity (including posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome), electrolyte disturbance, lymphoma, and cutaneous malignancy.

“The good news is that we generally don’t see the adverse effects with short-term use,” Dr. Kirkorian said. “We will see some hypertrichosis and gingival hypertrophy, which resolves with cessation of therapy. There are serious side effects if you use it for long enough.”

As for methotrexate, “it is still a very important drug in pediatric dermatology, particularly in other conditions such as psoriasis,” she said. “The problem is that weekly dosing of methotrexate poses a greater risk of dosing errors. People aren’t really triggered to think of a once-weekly medication. If you do use it, give them a short supply to make sure that they come back, and that they don’t give it daily accidentally.”

Practical tips she offered for prescribing cyclosporine include supplying a patient handout with information on all adverse effects, dosing information, vaccination information, and pregnancy precautions, with contact information (a patient portal or on-call number) for the treating clinician in case a patient develops adverse effects. Administration of live vaccines while patients are on cyclosporine is not recommended.

When transitioning patients from cyclosporine or methotrexate to dupilumab, Dr. Kirkorian recommends tapering the immunosuppressant dose by half every 2 weeks to complete cessation by week 8 of treatment. For patients who experience a severe baseline flare once the immunosuppressant is tapered, despite the switch to dupilumab, she recommends restarting methotrexate at a full dose and then reducing the dose every 2 weeks until the lowest effective dose (2.5-5 mg weekly) is reached.

“Waning efficacy is real,” she said. “We can add methotrexate to recapture efficacy. Check for superimposed allergic contact dermatitis.”

With upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor recently approved for treating refractory, moderate to severe AD in patients 12 years of age and older, is the risk profile acceptable to parents and physicians? “I think the answer is yes,” Dr. Kirkorian said. “But we’re going to have to think through that very carefully. It’s going to be exciting to see how this drug changes management in our patients.”

Dr. Kirkorian disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

When children with atopic dermatitis (AD) present to the clinic and their parents complain that no previously recommended medical therapies have worked, what’s the next step?

“Many patients who have failed topical steroids have never had adequate treatment,” Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at National Children’s Hospital in Washington, said during the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “There is no lower age limit on the use of topical corticosteroids, and low potency corticosteroids are inadequate to treat severe eczema. The idea that only over-the-counter 2.5% hydrocortisone cream is necessary is not true,” she added.

“You also want to scrutinize the vehicle,” she said, noting that children are often prescribed cream formulations that hurt when applied, so parents stop applying them. “Ointments are generally the vehicles of choice in childhood,” she added.

It is generally not advised to use topical and oral antibiotics in children with AD, unless there are clear signs of infection. “If they’re just slightly oozy, don’t use them,” she continued. “Of course, every child or adult with eczema has Staph aureus on them, but most of the time, what you need to do is repair the barrier. We know that from data and common sense. When we repair their barrier, their rates of infection decrease.”

A focal area with pustules and pus should be cultured and treated, Dr. Kirkorian said. “Monotherapy with antibiotics is going to do nothing for you.” In cases of children with failure to thrive, she recommends referral to pediatric dermatology, allergy/immunology, GI, or genetics, as appropriate.

For children with severe AD, Dr. Kirkorian favors a rescue plan with a one-pound jar of triamcinolone ointment 0.1%. She recommends application of the ointment to all areas, including the face and scalp once nightly for 2 weeks, with a follow-up appointment at the end of that time. “If you just give people medicine and ask them to come back in 6 months, they are not able to comply with that and they don’t have faith that it’s going to work,” explained Dr. Kirkorian, associate professor of dermatology and pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington. At the end of 2 weeks, “the majority will have improved dramatically, and then you can implement maintenance therapy with topical calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole, or possibly topical ruxolitinib.”

Some clinicians prescribe oral antihistamines for AD, but Dr. Kirkorian said that data supporting their use are limited and antihistamines are not approved for use in children younger than 6 months of age. Sedating antihistamines will induce sleep, “but do not provide durable night-long sleep,” and routine use may have an impact on learning and school performance. In addition, exposure to antihistamines in children under age 2 may be associated with development of ADHD at school age.

The interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist dupilumab (Dupixent) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 6 and older. But obtaining it for patients can be tricky, she said, as this requires documented failure of corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole ointment, and phototherapy (if prescribed). Patients are often obligated to do step therapy with an off-label drug such as cyclosporine or methotrexate for 3 months, and they need to demonstrate responses with objective measures of severity such as the SCORAD (SCORing Atopic Dermatitis) and the validated Investigator Global Assessment.

“Most of my patients carry insurance that does not approve dupilumab without failure of a prior off-label systemic immunosuppressant medication,” Dr. Kirkorian said. Cyclosporine is her first choice for a systemic immunosuppressant “because it has a fast onset of action, it’s effective for treatment of atopic dermatitis, and safe for short-term use,” she said. “I don’t think that methotrexate works well for eczema. It can take weeks and weeks to work.”

She typically starts patients on a 5 mg/kg dose of cyclosporine. Baseline tests include CBC, CMP (comprehensive metabolic panel), lipids, and vitals. She repeats the labs at 1 month, and includes a blood pressure check. Potential adverse effects of cyclosporine include infections (including opportunistic infections), cytopenias, hypertension, nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity (including posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome), electrolyte disturbance, lymphoma, and cutaneous malignancy.

“The good news is that we generally don’t see the adverse effects with short-term use,” Dr. Kirkorian said. “We will see some hypertrichosis and gingival hypertrophy, which resolves with cessation of therapy. There are serious side effects if you use it for long enough.”

As for methotrexate, “it is still a very important drug in pediatric dermatology, particularly in other conditions such as psoriasis,” she said. “The problem is that weekly dosing of methotrexate poses a greater risk of dosing errors. People aren’t really triggered to think of a once-weekly medication. If you do use it, give them a short supply to make sure that they come back, and that they don’t give it daily accidentally.”

Practical tips she offered for prescribing cyclosporine include supplying a patient handout with information on all adverse effects, dosing information, vaccination information, and pregnancy precautions, with contact information (a patient portal or on-call number) for the treating clinician in case a patient develops adverse effects. Administration of live vaccines while patients are on cyclosporine is not recommended.

When transitioning patients from cyclosporine or methotrexate to dupilumab, Dr. Kirkorian recommends tapering the immunosuppressant dose by half every 2 weeks to complete cessation by week 8 of treatment. For patients who experience a severe baseline flare once the immunosuppressant is tapered, despite the switch to dupilumab, she recommends restarting methotrexate at a full dose and then reducing the dose every 2 weeks until the lowest effective dose (2.5-5 mg weekly) is reached.

“Waning efficacy is real,” she said. “We can add methotrexate to recapture efficacy. Check for superimposed allergic contact dermatitis.”

With upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor recently approved for treating refractory, moderate to severe AD in patients 12 years of age and older, is the risk profile acceptable to parents and physicians? “I think the answer is yes,” Dr. Kirkorian said. “But we’re going to have to think through that very carefully. It’s going to be exciting to see how this drug changes management in our patients.”

Dr. Kirkorian disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board for Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

Long COVID can affect adults, young people, and children, and now for the first time, in a landmark study accepted for publication in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, formal agreement has been made on a research definition for post–acute COVID-19, or “long COVID” as it is commonly known, in children and young people.

The researchers charged themselves with a single objective – to derive a research definition for long COVID (post–acute COVID-19) in children and young people to allow comparisons between research studies. Specifically, so studies on prevalence, course, and outcome of long COVID in this age group can be reliably compared, because to date there has been no consensus. In fact, the authors pointed out how the “slew of definitions” currently used all differ in number, type, and duration of symptoms, which hampers research efforts. In addition, the lack of definition consensus has contributed to very wide reported variations in the estimated prevalence of long COVID in children of 1%-51%, with the authors saying that a “consistently applied definition of long COVID will help reduce the variability of prevalence estimates.”
 

Statements sequentially whittled down

“Using robust consensus methodology,” the authors said, “we derived a research definition for long COVID in children and young people.”

To achieve the definition consensus, a three-phase online Delphi process was used, followed by a virtual consensus meeting. The 123 participants registered to take part in the study included 23 people (19%) in a lived experience panel, 50 (42%) in the researcher or researcher/service delivery combined panel and 47 (39%) in the service delivery panel. Of 120 registered participants, 105 (88%) completed phase 1, 86 eligible participants (82% of those completing phase 1) completed phase 2 and 77 eligible participants (90% of those completing phase 2) completed phase 3. Seventeen participants attended and voted at the consensus meeting – 4 (23%) from the service delivery panel, 11 (65%) from the researcher panel, and 2 (12%) from the lived experience panel.

Presented with 49 statements in each phase, participants scored these from 1-9 based on how important they were perceived to be with regards inclusion in the research definition of long COVID in children and young people. Having been sequentially whittled down in three phases, 10 statements were discussed at the consensus meeting, and a panel of eight 11- to 17-year-olds affected by long COVID also reviewed the statements to reach a final agreement.

Five of the statements were agreed to be included in the definition, which stated that long COVID in children and young people is a condition in which a child or young person has symptoms (at least one of which is a physical symptom) that have continued or developed after a diagnosis of COVID-19 (confirmed with one or more positive COVID tests); impact their physical, mental, or social well-being; are interfering with some aspect of daily living (for example, school, work, home, or relationships); and persist for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing for COVID-19 (even if symptoms have waxed and waned over that period).

David Strain, MBChB, MD, chair of the BMA board of science and clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant, University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre: “A Delphi study builds a consensus from the world’s experts by presenting a series of statements and continuing to refine them until there is agreement as to what the definition of pediatric long COVID should be.” He added: “This is vitally important in order to align the global research effort into long COVID.”
 

Reassuringly similar

From the agreed five statements, a further research definition was proposed to align with the World Health Organization definition for adults: “Post–COVID-19 condition occurs in young people with a history of confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, with at least one persisting physical symptom for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. The symptoms have an impact on everyday functioning, may continue or develop after COVID-19 infection, and may fluctuate or relapse over time.”

The authors concluded: “This is the first research definition of long COVID (post–COVID-19 condition) in children and young people and complements the clinical case definition in adults proposed by WHO,” adding that the two definitions are “reassuringly similar.”

They reiterated how widespread adoption of this definition would allow comparisons between studies such that a core outcome set can be developed and the prevalence, course and outcome of long COVID in children and young people can be reliably evaluated, which “will substantially help strengthen the evidence base on this debilitating condition.”

In addition, the authors said that a consistently applied definition of long COVID will help to provide a “more accurate picture on the true impact of the condition.”

The researchers emphasized the need to differentiate between a clinical case definition and a research definition of long COVID and explained: “It is understandable that the patient groups representing people with long COVID are concerned about a definition that could restrict access to services that are needed.”

They went on to say that in their view the decision whether a child or young person can see a health care professional, access any support needed, or be referred, investigated, or treated for long COVID should be a “shared decision involving the young person, their carers, and clinicians.”

Dr. Strain reinforced that it was important that the definition was a research one and not a clinical one, pointing out that the 12-week period in the research definition “does not necessarily mean that a child or young person should need to wait 3 months before being offered help or assistance from their health care team, indeed a 3-month delay in offering support to a child or young person, at this vitally important period of their educational development, could have lasting long-term impacts.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Long COVID can affect adults, young people, and children, and now for the first time, in a landmark study accepted for publication in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, formal agreement has been made on a research definition for post–acute COVID-19, or “long COVID” as it is commonly known, in children and young people.

The researchers charged themselves with a single objective – to derive a research definition for long COVID (post–acute COVID-19) in children and young people to allow comparisons between research studies. Specifically, so studies on prevalence, course, and outcome of long COVID in this age group can be reliably compared, because to date there has been no consensus. In fact, the authors pointed out how the “slew of definitions” currently used all differ in number, type, and duration of symptoms, which hampers research efforts. In addition, the lack of definition consensus has contributed to very wide reported variations in the estimated prevalence of long COVID in children of 1%-51%, with the authors saying that a “consistently applied definition of long COVID will help reduce the variability of prevalence estimates.”
 

Statements sequentially whittled down

“Using robust consensus methodology,” the authors said, “we derived a research definition for long COVID in children and young people.”

To achieve the definition consensus, a three-phase online Delphi process was used, followed by a virtual consensus meeting. The 123 participants registered to take part in the study included 23 people (19%) in a lived experience panel, 50 (42%) in the researcher or researcher/service delivery combined panel and 47 (39%) in the service delivery panel. Of 120 registered participants, 105 (88%) completed phase 1, 86 eligible participants (82% of those completing phase 1) completed phase 2 and 77 eligible participants (90% of those completing phase 2) completed phase 3. Seventeen participants attended and voted at the consensus meeting – 4 (23%) from the service delivery panel, 11 (65%) from the researcher panel, and 2 (12%) from the lived experience panel.

Presented with 49 statements in each phase, participants scored these from 1-9 based on how important they were perceived to be with regards inclusion in the research definition of long COVID in children and young people. Having been sequentially whittled down in three phases, 10 statements were discussed at the consensus meeting, and a panel of eight 11- to 17-year-olds affected by long COVID also reviewed the statements to reach a final agreement.

Five of the statements were agreed to be included in the definition, which stated that long COVID in children and young people is a condition in which a child or young person has symptoms (at least one of which is a physical symptom) that have continued or developed after a diagnosis of COVID-19 (confirmed with one or more positive COVID tests); impact their physical, mental, or social well-being; are interfering with some aspect of daily living (for example, school, work, home, or relationships); and persist for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing for COVID-19 (even if symptoms have waxed and waned over that period).

David Strain, MBChB, MD, chair of the BMA board of science and clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant, University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre: “A Delphi study builds a consensus from the world’s experts by presenting a series of statements and continuing to refine them until there is agreement as to what the definition of pediatric long COVID should be.” He added: “This is vitally important in order to align the global research effort into long COVID.”
 

Reassuringly similar

From the agreed five statements, a further research definition was proposed to align with the World Health Organization definition for adults: “Post–COVID-19 condition occurs in young people with a history of confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, with at least one persisting physical symptom for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. The symptoms have an impact on everyday functioning, may continue or develop after COVID-19 infection, and may fluctuate or relapse over time.”

The authors concluded: “This is the first research definition of long COVID (post–COVID-19 condition) in children and young people and complements the clinical case definition in adults proposed by WHO,” adding that the two definitions are “reassuringly similar.”

They reiterated how widespread adoption of this definition would allow comparisons between studies such that a core outcome set can be developed and the prevalence, course and outcome of long COVID in children and young people can be reliably evaluated, which “will substantially help strengthen the evidence base on this debilitating condition.”

In addition, the authors said that a consistently applied definition of long COVID will help to provide a “more accurate picture on the true impact of the condition.”

The researchers emphasized the need to differentiate between a clinical case definition and a research definition of long COVID and explained: “It is understandable that the patient groups representing people with long COVID are concerned about a definition that could restrict access to services that are needed.”

They went on to say that in their view the decision whether a child or young person can see a health care professional, access any support needed, or be referred, investigated, or treated for long COVID should be a “shared decision involving the young person, their carers, and clinicians.”

Dr. Strain reinforced that it was important that the definition was a research one and not a clinical one, pointing out that the 12-week period in the research definition “does not necessarily mean that a child or young person should need to wait 3 months before being offered help or assistance from their health care team, indeed a 3-month delay in offering support to a child or young person, at this vitally important period of their educational development, could have lasting long-term impacts.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Long COVID can affect adults, young people, and children, and now for the first time, in a landmark study accepted for publication in the Archives of Disease in Childhood, formal agreement has been made on a research definition for post–acute COVID-19, or “long COVID” as it is commonly known, in children and young people.

The researchers charged themselves with a single objective – to derive a research definition for long COVID (post–acute COVID-19) in children and young people to allow comparisons between research studies. Specifically, so studies on prevalence, course, and outcome of long COVID in this age group can be reliably compared, because to date there has been no consensus. In fact, the authors pointed out how the “slew of definitions” currently used all differ in number, type, and duration of symptoms, which hampers research efforts. In addition, the lack of definition consensus has contributed to very wide reported variations in the estimated prevalence of long COVID in children of 1%-51%, with the authors saying that a “consistently applied definition of long COVID will help reduce the variability of prevalence estimates.”
 

Statements sequentially whittled down

“Using robust consensus methodology,” the authors said, “we derived a research definition for long COVID in children and young people.”

To achieve the definition consensus, a three-phase online Delphi process was used, followed by a virtual consensus meeting. The 123 participants registered to take part in the study included 23 people (19%) in a lived experience panel, 50 (42%) in the researcher or researcher/service delivery combined panel and 47 (39%) in the service delivery panel. Of 120 registered participants, 105 (88%) completed phase 1, 86 eligible participants (82% of those completing phase 1) completed phase 2 and 77 eligible participants (90% of those completing phase 2) completed phase 3. Seventeen participants attended and voted at the consensus meeting – 4 (23%) from the service delivery panel, 11 (65%) from the researcher panel, and 2 (12%) from the lived experience panel.

Presented with 49 statements in each phase, participants scored these from 1-9 based on how important they were perceived to be with regards inclusion in the research definition of long COVID in children and young people. Having been sequentially whittled down in three phases, 10 statements were discussed at the consensus meeting, and a panel of eight 11- to 17-year-olds affected by long COVID also reviewed the statements to reach a final agreement.

Five of the statements were agreed to be included in the definition, which stated that long COVID in children and young people is a condition in which a child or young person has symptoms (at least one of which is a physical symptom) that have continued or developed after a diagnosis of COVID-19 (confirmed with one or more positive COVID tests); impact their physical, mental, or social well-being; are interfering with some aspect of daily living (for example, school, work, home, or relationships); and persist for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing for COVID-19 (even if symptoms have waxed and waned over that period).

David Strain, MBChB, MD, chair of the BMA board of science and clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant, University of Exeter (England), told the Science Media Centre: “A Delphi study builds a consensus from the world’s experts by presenting a series of statements and continuing to refine them until there is agreement as to what the definition of pediatric long COVID should be.” He added: “This is vitally important in order to align the global research effort into long COVID.”
 

Reassuringly similar

From the agreed five statements, a further research definition was proposed to align with the World Health Organization definition for adults: “Post–COVID-19 condition occurs in young people with a history of confirmed SARS CoV-2 infection, with at least one persisting physical symptom for a minimum duration of 12 weeks after initial testing that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. The symptoms have an impact on everyday functioning, may continue or develop after COVID-19 infection, and may fluctuate or relapse over time.”

The authors concluded: “This is the first research definition of long COVID (post–COVID-19 condition) in children and young people and complements the clinical case definition in adults proposed by WHO,” adding that the two definitions are “reassuringly similar.”

They reiterated how widespread adoption of this definition would allow comparisons between studies such that a core outcome set can be developed and the prevalence, course and outcome of long COVID in children and young people can be reliably evaluated, which “will substantially help strengthen the evidence base on this debilitating condition.”

In addition, the authors said that a consistently applied definition of long COVID will help to provide a “more accurate picture on the true impact of the condition.”

The researchers emphasized the need to differentiate between a clinical case definition and a research definition of long COVID and explained: “It is understandable that the patient groups representing people with long COVID are concerned about a definition that could restrict access to services that are needed.”

They went on to say that in their view the decision whether a child or young person can see a health care professional, access any support needed, or be referred, investigated, or treated for long COVID should be a “shared decision involving the young person, their carers, and clinicians.”

Dr. Strain reinforced that it was important that the definition was a research one and not a clinical one, pointing out that the 12-week period in the research definition “does not necessarily mean that a child or young person should need to wait 3 months before being offered help or assistance from their health care team, indeed a 3-month delay in offering support to a child or young person, at this vitally important period of their educational development, could have lasting long-term impacts.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

It’s a story of promise at a time of urgent need.

Scientists are optimistic about new evidence into what is causing long COVID, a panel of research experts brought together by the New York State Department of Health said.

They proposed many theories on what might be driving long COVID. A role for a virus “cryptic reservoir” that could reactivate at any time, “viral remnants” that trigger chronic inflammation, and action by “autoimmune antibodies” that cause ongoing symptoms are possibilities.

In fact, it’s likely that research will show long COVID is a condition with more than one cause, the experts said during a recent webinar.

People might experience post-infection problems, including organ damage that takes time to heal after initial COVID-19 illness. Or they may be living with post-immune factors, including ongoing immune system responses triggered by autoantibodies.

Determining the cause or causes of long COVID is essential for treatment. For example, if one person’s symptoms persist because of an overactive immune system, “we need to provide immunosuppressant therapies,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, said. “But we don’t want to give that to someone who has a persistent virus reservoir,” meaning remnants of the virus remain in their bodies.

Interestingly, a study preprint, which has not been peer reviewed, found dogs were accurate more than half the time in sniffing out long COVID, said Dr. Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and developmental biology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The dogs were tasked with identifying 45 people with long COVID versus 188 people without it. The findings suggest the presence of a unique chemical in the sweat of people with long COVID that could someday lead to a diagnostic test.
 

Viral persistence possible

If one of the main theories holds, it could be that the coronavirus somehow remains in the body in some form for some people after COVID-19.

Mady Hornig, MD, agreed this is a possibility that needs to be investigated further.

“A weakened immune response to an infection may mean that you have cryptic reservoirs of virus that are continuing to cause symptoms,” she said during the briefing. Dr. Hornig is a doctor-scientist specializing in epidemiology at Columbia University, New York.

“That may explain why some patients with long COVID feel better after vaccination,” because the vaccine creates a strong antibody response to fight COVID-19, Dr. Iwasaki said.

Researchers are unearthing additional potential factors contributing to long COVID.

Viral persistence could also reactivate other dormant viruses in the body, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), said Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University. Reactivation of Epstein-Barr is one of four identifying signs of long COVID revealed in a Jan. 25 study published in the journal Cell.
 

Immune overactivation also possible?

For other people with long COVID, it’s not the virus sticking around but the body’s reaction that’s the issue.

Investigators suggest autoimmunity plays a role, and they point to the presence of autoantibodies, for example.

When these autoantibodies persist, they can cause tissue and organ damage over time.

Other investigators are proposing “immune exhaustion” in long COVID because of similarities to chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr. Hornig said.

“It should be ‘all hands on deck’ for research into long COVID,” she said. “The number of disabled individuals who will likely qualify for a diagnosis of [chronic fatigue syndrome] is growing by the second.”
 

Forging ahead on future research

It’s clear there is more work to do. There are investigators working on banking tissue samples from people with long COVID to learn more, for example.

Also, finding a biomarker unique to long COVID could vastly improve the precision of diagnosing long COVID, especially if the dog sniffing option does not pan out.

Of the thousands of biomarker possibilities, Dr. Hornig said, “maybe that’s one or two that ultimately make a real impact on patient care. So it’s going to be critical to find those quickly, translate them, and make them available.”

In the meantime, some answers might come from a large study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is funding the “Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery” project using $470 million from the American Rescue Plan. Investigators at NYU Langone Health are leading the effort and plan to share the wealth by funding more than 100 researchers at more than 30 institutions to create a “metacohort” to study long COVID. More information is available at recovercovid.org.

“Fortunately, through the global research effort, we are now really starting to expand our understanding of how long COVID manifests, how common it is, and what the underlying mechanisms may be,” Dr. Purpura said.

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

It’s a story of promise at a time of urgent need.

Scientists are optimistic about new evidence into what is causing long COVID, a panel of research experts brought together by the New York State Department of Health said.

They proposed many theories on what might be driving long COVID. A role for a virus “cryptic reservoir” that could reactivate at any time, “viral remnants” that trigger chronic inflammation, and action by “autoimmune antibodies” that cause ongoing symptoms are possibilities.

In fact, it’s likely that research will show long COVID is a condition with more than one cause, the experts said during a recent webinar.

People might experience post-infection problems, including organ damage that takes time to heal after initial COVID-19 illness. Or they may be living with post-immune factors, including ongoing immune system responses triggered by autoantibodies.

Determining the cause or causes of long COVID is essential for treatment. For example, if one person’s symptoms persist because of an overactive immune system, “we need to provide immunosuppressant therapies,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, said. “But we don’t want to give that to someone who has a persistent virus reservoir,” meaning remnants of the virus remain in their bodies.

Interestingly, a study preprint, which has not been peer reviewed, found dogs were accurate more than half the time in sniffing out long COVID, said Dr. Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and developmental biology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The dogs were tasked with identifying 45 people with long COVID versus 188 people without it. The findings suggest the presence of a unique chemical in the sweat of people with long COVID that could someday lead to a diagnostic test.
 

Viral persistence possible

If one of the main theories holds, it could be that the coronavirus somehow remains in the body in some form for some people after COVID-19.

Mady Hornig, MD, agreed this is a possibility that needs to be investigated further.

“A weakened immune response to an infection may mean that you have cryptic reservoirs of virus that are continuing to cause symptoms,” she said during the briefing. Dr. Hornig is a doctor-scientist specializing in epidemiology at Columbia University, New York.

“That may explain why some patients with long COVID feel better after vaccination,” because the vaccine creates a strong antibody response to fight COVID-19, Dr. Iwasaki said.

Researchers are unearthing additional potential factors contributing to long COVID.

Viral persistence could also reactivate other dormant viruses in the body, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), said Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University. Reactivation of Epstein-Barr is one of four identifying signs of long COVID revealed in a Jan. 25 study published in the journal Cell.
 

Immune overactivation also possible?

For other people with long COVID, it’s not the virus sticking around but the body’s reaction that’s the issue.

Investigators suggest autoimmunity plays a role, and they point to the presence of autoantibodies, for example.

When these autoantibodies persist, they can cause tissue and organ damage over time.

Other investigators are proposing “immune exhaustion” in long COVID because of similarities to chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr. Hornig said.

“It should be ‘all hands on deck’ for research into long COVID,” she said. “The number of disabled individuals who will likely qualify for a diagnosis of [chronic fatigue syndrome] is growing by the second.”
 

Forging ahead on future research

It’s clear there is more work to do. There are investigators working on banking tissue samples from people with long COVID to learn more, for example.

Also, finding a biomarker unique to long COVID could vastly improve the precision of diagnosing long COVID, especially if the dog sniffing option does not pan out.

Of the thousands of biomarker possibilities, Dr. Hornig said, “maybe that’s one or two that ultimately make a real impact on patient care. So it’s going to be critical to find those quickly, translate them, and make them available.”

In the meantime, some answers might come from a large study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is funding the “Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery” project using $470 million from the American Rescue Plan. Investigators at NYU Langone Health are leading the effort and plan to share the wealth by funding more than 100 researchers at more than 30 institutions to create a “metacohort” to study long COVID. More information is available at recovercovid.org.

“Fortunately, through the global research effort, we are now really starting to expand our understanding of how long COVID manifests, how common it is, and what the underlying mechanisms may be,” Dr. Purpura said.

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

It’s a story of promise at a time of urgent need.

Scientists are optimistic about new evidence into what is causing long COVID, a panel of research experts brought together by the New York State Department of Health said.

They proposed many theories on what might be driving long COVID. A role for a virus “cryptic reservoir” that could reactivate at any time, “viral remnants” that trigger chronic inflammation, and action by “autoimmune antibodies” that cause ongoing symptoms are possibilities.

In fact, it’s likely that research will show long COVID is a condition with more than one cause, the experts said during a recent webinar.

People might experience post-infection problems, including organ damage that takes time to heal after initial COVID-19 illness. Or they may be living with post-immune factors, including ongoing immune system responses triggered by autoantibodies.

Determining the cause or causes of long COVID is essential for treatment. For example, if one person’s symptoms persist because of an overactive immune system, “we need to provide immunosuppressant therapies,” Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, said. “But we don’t want to give that to someone who has a persistent virus reservoir,” meaning remnants of the virus remain in their bodies.

Interestingly, a study preprint, which has not been peer reviewed, found dogs were accurate more than half the time in sniffing out long COVID, said Dr. Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and developmental biology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

The dogs were tasked with identifying 45 people with long COVID versus 188 people without it. The findings suggest the presence of a unique chemical in the sweat of people with long COVID that could someday lead to a diagnostic test.
 

Viral persistence possible

If one of the main theories holds, it could be that the coronavirus somehow remains in the body in some form for some people after COVID-19.

Mady Hornig, MD, agreed this is a possibility that needs to be investigated further.

“A weakened immune response to an infection may mean that you have cryptic reservoirs of virus that are continuing to cause symptoms,” she said during the briefing. Dr. Hornig is a doctor-scientist specializing in epidemiology at Columbia University, New York.

“That may explain why some patients with long COVID feel better after vaccination,” because the vaccine creates a strong antibody response to fight COVID-19, Dr. Iwasaki said.

Researchers are unearthing additional potential factors contributing to long COVID.

Viral persistence could also reactivate other dormant viruses in the body, such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), said Lawrence Purpura, MD, MPH, an infectious disease specialist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University. Reactivation of Epstein-Barr is one of four identifying signs of long COVID revealed in a Jan. 25 study published in the journal Cell.
 

Immune overactivation also possible?

For other people with long COVID, it’s not the virus sticking around but the body’s reaction that’s the issue.

Investigators suggest autoimmunity plays a role, and they point to the presence of autoantibodies, for example.

When these autoantibodies persist, they can cause tissue and organ damage over time.

Other investigators are proposing “immune exhaustion” in long COVID because of similarities to chronic fatigue syndrome, Dr. Hornig said.

“It should be ‘all hands on deck’ for research into long COVID,” she said. “The number of disabled individuals who will likely qualify for a diagnosis of [chronic fatigue syndrome] is growing by the second.”
 

Forging ahead on future research

It’s clear there is more work to do. There are investigators working on banking tissue samples from people with long COVID to learn more, for example.

Also, finding a biomarker unique to long COVID could vastly improve the precision of diagnosing long COVID, especially if the dog sniffing option does not pan out.

Of the thousands of biomarker possibilities, Dr. Hornig said, “maybe that’s one or two that ultimately make a real impact on patient care. So it’s going to be critical to find those quickly, translate them, and make them available.”

In the meantime, some answers might come from a large study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. The NIH is funding the “Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery” project using $470 million from the American Rescue Plan. Investigators at NYU Langone Health are leading the effort and plan to share the wealth by funding more than 100 researchers at more than 30 institutions to create a “metacohort” to study long COVID. More information is available at recovercovid.org.

“Fortunately, through the global research effort, we are now really starting to expand our understanding of how long COVID manifests, how common it is, and what the underlying mechanisms may be,” Dr. Purpura said.

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

Most people avoid smartphones when they have a migraine headache, but a noninvasive treatment for episodic migraines may change that.

A smartphone-enabled device, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2021, uses technology to trick the brain into releasing the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline that can help ease migraine pain.

Tina Montgomery, 58, has suffered from migraines since childhood and spent years looking for something to help manage them. Doctors consider her a “chronic” sufferer in that she has more than 14 migraines a month (fewer than 14 is considered “episodic”). Prescription antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and botulinum toxin shots as preventive treatments helped a little but not enough.

A few years ago, she found some relief using a new preventive injectable medication that targets a peptide known as CGRP, combined with an oral CGRP rescue medication, ubrogepant (Ubrelvy). However, by early 2021, Ms. Montgomery’s chronic migraines were back as she faced stress from the pandemic and her role as a caregiver for her aging parents.

“I was going through so much medication. I just didn’t feel good taking so much,” she said.

Looking for relief, she read about Nerivio, a wearable migraine treatment device that uses remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). She mentioned the device to her neurologist, and he agreed she might benefit from trying it out. Today, she uses the device whenever she feels a migraine may be imminent, she said.

“It really helps me stave off migraines I feel coming on and the milder ones where I would normally hesitate to use prescription medication because [insurance] limits the number of pills they give you in a month,” she said. “I follow through with the Nerivio treatment and usually find that my migraine doesn’t fully develop or is completely gone, and I don’t get a migraine at all.”
 

Taking it on the arm

The device works by stimulating nerves at the back of the arm right around the triceps. “Those nerve fibers relay information to the brain stem [so it can] work its magic and use the brain’s own natural mechanisms for reducing pain,” said Brian M. Grosberg, MD, director of the Hartford Healthcare Ayer Neuroscience Institute Headache Center, West Hartford, Conn.  

These mechanisms are like a bait-and-switch for the brain, said Britany Klenofsky, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “You’re trying to stimulate pain somewhere else [on the body] to tell the brain to protect itself and release [the neurotransmitter] serotonin,” she said. “You do this by putting the device on your arm, an area that’s away from the head where the pain is actively occurring, turning the device on, and increasing the stimulation to a nearly painful stimulus.”

This pseudo pain prompts the brain to release serotonin, the feel-good hormone along with norepinephrine and noradrenaline. The device works best when it’s used as soon as a migraine starts, so patients should hook up Nerivio within the first 20-30 minutes of onset of pain, said Dr. Grosberg, who was an investigator on the double-blind treatment study that led to FDA clearance. If patients wait too long, the device may not work.

This is why as soon as Ms. Montgomery feels a migraine aura (there are six types of migraine auras, including visual changes and muscle weakness) that occurs right before a migraine strikes, she puts the device armband on her upper arm and launches its smartphone app. Then she turns on the device for a 45-minute treatment, which begins with what she characterizes as tingling and vibration sensations on her arm. She turns up the intensity of the sensations, which are mild electric currents, until they are well-felt but not painful.

Ms. Montgomery said she can use the device and multitask since there’s no need for her to lie down or sit in a darkened room. And since it is worn on the arm, she can wear it under a shirtsleeve while working or out in public without anyone noticing. She also uses the app’s migraine diary and guided meditation to help reduce the anxiety that often accompanies her migraines.

The device is approved for adolescents and adults and can be used for both episodic and chronic migraines. From an efficacy standpoint, the device provides relief about as well as a commonly used pharmaceutical class of drugs, triptans. About 37% of people with episodic migraine achieved complete freedom from pain 2 hours after their treatment. In addition, about two-thirds of people reported pain relief after 2 hours, which is better success than people find with many prescription and nonprescription drugs.

A separate study looked at acute treatment for chronic migraine sufferers and found nearly 60% of people using the device found relief and 21% said they were pain-free after 2 hours. Almost two-thirds of those who experienced pain relief were pain-free 24 hours after the treatment.
 

Finding the perfect patient

There are other FDA-cleared noninvasive devices to treat migraines. One device, CEFALY, is an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device that sits on the forehead. Another device, SpringTMS, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation on the back of the head. A third option, the gammaCore Sapphire, is placed on the neck to stimulate the vagus nerve. All three have been cleared by the FDA to work as preventive and acute treatments for migraine.

Theranica, the company that developed Nerivio, is trying to boost use of the device by allowing patients to get a prescription via telehealth visits with a physician.

The company, as well as the companies behind the other neuromodulation devices, are marketing their treatments to children ages 12 and up since nonpharmacologic options are often preferable for parents, said Thomas Berk, MD, a clinical associate professor in the division of headache at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Dr. Berk said the devices could be appealing for those people who don’t want or can’t take medication, such as pregnant women or those who don’t respond well to drugs. “[They] could also be used by somebody who needs something in addition to a medication,” he said.

For now, people like Ms. Montgomery say they are happy to have another tool in their migraine arsenal. “Overall, I’m taking less medication because I haven’t had to have my Ubrelvy refilled as often as I used to,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage changes and stresses in my life.”

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

Most people avoid smartphones when they have a migraine headache, but a noninvasive treatment for episodic migraines may change that.

A smartphone-enabled device, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2021, uses technology to trick the brain into releasing the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline that can help ease migraine pain.

Tina Montgomery, 58, has suffered from migraines since childhood and spent years looking for something to help manage them. Doctors consider her a “chronic” sufferer in that she has more than 14 migraines a month (fewer than 14 is considered “episodic”). Prescription antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and botulinum toxin shots as preventive treatments helped a little but not enough.

A few years ago, she found some relief using a new preventive injectable medication that targets a peptide known as CGRP, combined with an oral CGRP rescue medication, ubrogepant (Ubrelvy). However, by early 2021, Ms. Montgomery’s chronic migraines were back as she faced stress from the pandemic and her role as a caregiver for her aging parents.

“I was going through so much medication. I just didn’t feel good taking so much,” she said.

Looking for relief, she read about Nerivio, a wearable migraine treatment device that uses remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). She mentioned the device to her neurologist, and he agreed she might benefit from trying it out. Today, she uses the device whenever she feels a migraine may be imminent, she said.

“It really helps me stave off migraines I feel coming on and the milder ones where I would normally hesitate to use prescription medication because [insurance] limits the number of pills they give you in a month,” she said. “I follow through with the Nerivio treatment and usually find that my migraine doesn’t fully develop or is completely gone, and I don’t get a migraine at all.”
 

Taking it on the arm

The device works by stimulating nerves at the back of the arm right around the triceps. “Those nerve fibers relay information to the brain stem [so it can] work its magic and use the brain’s own natural mechanisms for reducing pain,” said Brian M. Grosberg, MD, director of the Hartford Healthcare Ayer Neuroscience Institute Headache Center, West Hartford, Conn.  

These mechanisms are like a bait-and-switch for the brain, said Britany Klenofsky, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “You’re trying to stimulate pain somewhere else [on the body] to tell the brain to protect itself and release [the neurotransmitter] serotonin,” she said. “You do this by putting the device on your arm, an area that’s away from the head where the pain is actively occurring, turning the device on, and increasing the stimulation to a nearly painful stimulus.”

This pseudo pain prompts the brain to release serotonin, the feel-good hormone along with norepinephrine and noradrenaline. The device works best when it’s used as soon as a migraine starts, so patients should hook up Nerivio within the first 20-30 minutes of onset of pain, said Dr. Grosberg, who was an investigator on the double-blind treatment study that led to FDA clearance. If patients wait too long, the device may not work.

This is why as soon as Ms. Montgomery feels a migraine aura (there are six types of migraine auras, including visual changes and muscle weakness) that occurs right before a migraine strikes, she puts the device armband on her upper arm and launches its smartphone app. Then she turns on the device for a 45-minute treatment, which begins with what she characterizes as tingling and vibration sensations on her arm. She turns up the intensity of the sensations, which are mild electric currents, until they are well-felt but not painful.

Ms. Montgomery said she can use the device and multitask since there’s no need for her to lie down or sit in a darkened room. And since it is worn on the arm, she can wear it under a shirtsleeve while working or out in public without anyone noticing. She also uses the app’s migraine diary and guided meditation to help reduce the anxiety that often accompanies her migraines.

The device is approved for adolescents and adults and can be used for both episodic and chronic migraines. From an efficacy standpoint, the device provides relief about as well as a commonly used pharmaceutical class of drugs, triptans. About 37% of people with episodic migraine achieved complete freedom from pain 2 hours after their treatment. In addition, about two-thirds of people reported pain relief after 2 hours, which is better success than people find with many prescription and nonprescription drugs.

A separate study looked at acute treatment for chronic migraine sufferers and found nearly 60% of people using the device found relief and 21% said they were pain-free after 2 hours. Almost two-thirds of those who experienced pain relief were pain-free 24 hours after the treatment.
 

Finding the perfect patient

There are other FDA-cleared noninvasive devices to treat migraines. One device, CEFALY, is an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device that sits on the forehead. Another device, SpringTMS, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation on the back of the head. A third option, the gammaCore Sapphire, is placed on the neck to stimulate the vagus nerve. All three have been cleared by the FDA to work as preventive and acute treatments for migraine.

Theranica, the company that developed Nerivio, is trying to boost use of the device by allowing patients to get a prescription via telehealth visits with a physician.

The company, as well as the companies behind the other neuromodulation devices, are marketing their treatments to children ages 12 and up since nonpharmacologic options are often preferable for parents, said Thomas Berk, MD, a clinical associate professor in the division of headache at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Dr. Berk said the devices could be appealing for those people who don’t want or can’t take medication, such as pregnant women or those who don’t respond well to drugs. “[They] could also be used by somebody who needs something in addition to a medication,” he said.

For now, people like Ms. Montgomery say they are happy to have another tool in their migraine arsenal. “Overall, I’m taking less medication because I haven’t had to have my Ubrelvy refilled as often as I used to,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage changes and stresses in my life.”

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

Most people avoid smartphones when they have a migraine headache, but a noninvasive treatment for episodic migraines may change that.

A smartphone-enabled device, cleared by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2021, uses technology to trick the brain into releasing the neurotransmitters serotonin and noradrenaline that can help ease migraine pain.

Tina Montgomery, 58, has suffered from migraines since childhood and spent years looking for something to help manage them. Doctors consider her a “chronic” sufferer in that she has more than 14 migraines a month (fewer than 14 is considered “episodic”). Prescription antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and botulinum toxin shots as preventive treatments helped a little but not enough.

A few years ago, she found some relief using a new preventive injectable medication that targets a peptide known as CGRP, combined with an oral CGRP rescue medication, ubrogepant (Ubrelvy). However, by early 2021, Ms. Montgomery’s chronic migraines were back as she faced stress from the pandemic and her role as a caregiver for her aging parents.

“I was going through so much medication. I just didn’t feel good taking so much,” she said.

Looking for relief, she read about Nerivio, a wearable migraine treatment device that uses remote electrical neuromodulation (REN). She mentioned the device to her neurologist, and he agreed she might benefit from trying it out. Today, she uses the device whenever she feels a migraine may be imminent, she said.

“It really helps me stave off migraines I feel coming on and the milder ones where I would normally hesitate to use prescription medication because [insurance] limits the number of pills they give you in a month,” she said. “I follow through with the Nerivio treatment and usually find that my migraine doesn’t fully develop or is completely gone, and I don’t get a migraine at all.”
 

Taking it on the arm

The device works by stimulating nerves at the back of the arm right around the triceps. “Those nerve fibers relay information to the brain stem [so it can] work its magic and use the brain’s own natural mechanisms for reducing pain,” said Brian M. Grosberg, MD, director of the Hartford Healthcare Ayer Neuroscience Institute Headache Center, West Hartford, Conn.  

These mechanisms are like a bait-and-switch for the brain, said Britany Klenofsky, MD, assistant professor of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “You’re trying to stimulate pain somewhere else [on the body] to tell the brain to protect itself and release [the neurotransmitter] serotonin,” she said. “You do this by putting the device on your arm, an area that’s away from the head where the pain is actively occurring, turning the device on, and increasing the stimulation to a nearly painful stimulus.”

This pseudo pain prompts the brain to release serotonin, the feel-good hormone along with norepinephrine and noradrenaline. The device works best when it’s used as soon as a migraine starts, so patients should hook up Nerivio within the first 20-30 minutes of onset of pain, said Dr. Grosberg, who was an investigator on the double-blind treatment study that led to FDA clearance. If patients wait too long, the device may not work.

This is why as soon as Ms. Montgomery feels a migraine aura (there are six types of migraine auras, including visual changes and muscle weakness) that occurs right before a migraine strikes, she puts the device armband on her upper arm and launches its smartphone app. Then she turns on the device for a 45-minute treatment, which begins with what she characterizes as tingling and vibration sensations on her arm. She turns up the intensity of the sensations, which are mild electric currents, until they are well-felt but not painful.

Ms. Montgomery said she can use the device and multitask since there’s no need for her to lie down or sit in a darkened room. And since it is worn on the arm, she can wear it under a shirtsleeve while working or out in public without anyone noticing. She also uses the app’s migraine diary and guided meditation to help reduce the anxiety that often accompanies her migraines.

The device is approved for adolescents and adults and can be used for both episodic and chronic migraines. From an efficacy standpoint, the device provides relief about as well as a commonly used pharmaceutical class of drugs, triptans. About 37% of people with episodic migraine achieved complete freedom from pain 2 hours after their treatment. In addition, about two-thirds of people reported pain relief after 2 hours, which is better success than people find with many prescription and nonprescription drugs.

A separate study looked at acute treatment for chronic migraine sufferers and found nearly 60% of people using the device found relief and 21% said they were pain-free after 2 hours. Almost two-thirds of those who experienced pain relief were pain-free 24 hours after the treatment.
 

Finding the perfect patient

There are other FDA-cleared noninvasive devices to treat migraines. One device, CEFALY, is an external trigeminal nerve stimulation device that sits on the forehead. Another device, SpringTMS, uses transcranial magnetic stimulation on the back of the head. A third option, the gammaCore Sapphire, is placed on the neck to stimulate the vagus nerve. All three have been cleared by the FDA to work as preventive and acute treatments for migraine.

Theranica, the company that developed Nerivio, is trying to boost use of the device by allowing patients to get a prescription via telehealth visits with a physician.

The company, as well as the companies behind the other neuromodulation devices, are marketing their treatments to children ages 12 and up since nonpharmacologic options are often preferable for parents, said Thomas Berk, MD, a clinical associate professor in the division of headache at NYU Langone Health in New York.

Dr. Berk said the devices could be appealing for those people who don’t want or can’t take medication, such as pregnant women or those who don’t respond well to drugs. “[They] could also be used by somebody who needs something in addition to a medication,” he said.

For now, people like Ms. Montgomery say they are happy to have another tool in their migraine arsenal. “Overall, I’m taking less medication because I haven’t had to have my Ubrelvy refilled as often as I used to,” she said. “It’s really helped me manage changes and stresses in my life.”

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

The Endocrine Society is among several organizations and individuals petitioning the Food and Drug Administration to remove its approvals of bisphenol A (BPA), citing recent evidence that exposure to it is unsafe.

The chemical is used to make plastics in items such as food containers, pitchers, and inner linings of metal products. Small amounts of BPA can leak into food and beverages.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

The petition points to a December 2021 report by the European Food Safety Authority titled: “Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs,” which summarizes evidence gathered since 2013.

It concludes that “there is a health concern from BPA exposure for all age groups.” Specific concerns include harm to the immune system and male and female reproductive systems.
 

Average American exposed to 5,000 times the safe level of BPA

The EFSA established a new “tolerable daily intake” of BPA of 0.04 ng/kg of body weight per day. By contrast, in 2014 the FDA estimated that the mean BPA intake for the U.S. population older than 2 years was 200 ng/kg bw/day and that the 90th percentile for BPA intake was 500 ng/kg of body weight per day.

“Using FDA’s own exposure estimates, the average American is exposed to more than 5000 times the safe level of 0.04 ng BPA/kg [body weight per day] set by the EFSA expert panel. Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe ... Given the magnitude of the overexposure, we request an expedited review by FDA,” the petition reads.

In addition to the Endocrine Society, which has long warned about the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, other signatories to the petition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.

In a statement, Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, PhD, of North Carolina University, Raleigh, said the report’s findings “are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior, and metabolism.”

“The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health,” she urged.

The FDA is expected to decide within the next few days whether to open a docket to accept comments.

A final decision could take 6 months or longer, an Endocrine Society spokesperson told this news organization.

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

The Endocrine Society is among several organizations and individuals petitioning the Food and Drug Administration to remove its approvals of bisphenol A (BPA), citing recent evidence that exposure to it is unsafe.

The chemical is used to make plastics in items such as food containers, pitchers, and inner linings of metal products. Small amounts of BPA can leak into food and beverages.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

The petition points to a December 2021 report by the European Food Safety Authority titled: “Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs,” which summarizes evidence gathered since 2013.

It concludes that “there is a health concern from BPA exposure for all age groups.” Specific concerns include harm to the immune system and male and female reproductive systems.
 

Average American exposed to 5,000 times the safe level of BPA

The EFSA established a new “tolerable daily intake” of BPA of 0.04 ng/kg of body weight per day. By contrast, in 2014 the FDA estimated that the mean BPA intake for the U.S. population older than 2 years was 200 ng/kg bw/day and that the 90th percentile for BPA intake was 500 ng/kg of body weight per day.

“Using FDA’s own exposure estimates, the average American is exposed to more than 5000 times the safe level of 0.04 ng BPA/kg [body weight per day] set by the EFSA expert panel. Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe ... Given the magnitude of the overexposure, we request an expedited review by FDA,” the petition reads.

In addition to the Endocrine Society, which has long warned about the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, other signatories to the petition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.

In a statement, Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, PhD, of North Carolina University, Raleigh, said the report’s findings “are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior, and metabolism.”

“The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health,” she urged.

The FDA is expected to decide within the next few days whether to open a docket to accept comments.

A final decision could take 6 months or longer, an Endocrine Society spokesperson told this news organization.

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

The Endocrine Society is among several organizations and individuals petitioning the Food and Drug Administration to remove its approvals of bisphenol A (BPA), citing recent evidence that exposure to it is unsafe.

The chemical is used to make plastics in items such as food containers, pitchers, and inner linings of metal products. Small amounts of BPA can leak into food and beverages.

tezzstock/Thinkstock

The petition points to a December 2021 report by the European Food Safety Authority titled: “Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs,” which summarizes evidence gathered since 2013.

It concludes that “there is a health concern from BPA exposure for all age groups.” Specific concerns include harm to the immune system and male and female reproductive systems.
 

Average American exposed to 5,000 times the safe level of BPA

The EFSA established a new “tolerable daily intake” of BPA of 0.04 ng/kg of body weight per day. By contrast, in 2014 the FDA estimated that the mean BPA intake for the U.S. population older than 2 years was 200 ng/kg bw/day and that the 90th percentile for BPA intake was 500 ng/kg of body weight per day.

“Using FDA’s own exposure estimates, the average American is exposed to more than 5000 times the safe level of 0.04 ng BPA/kg [body weight per day] set by the EFSA expert panel. Without a doubt, these values constitute a high health risk and support the conclusion that uses of BPA are not safe ... Given the magnitude of the overexposure, we request an expedited review by FDA,” the petition reads.

In addition to the Endocrine Society, which has long warned about the dangers of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, other signatories to the petition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, Healthy Babies Bright Futures, and the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.

In a statement, Endocrine Society BPA expert Heather Patisaul, PhD, of North Carolina University, Raleigh, said the report’s findings “are extremely concerning and prove the point that even very low levels of BPA exposure can be harmful and lead to issues with reproductive health, breast cancer risk, behavior, and metabolism.”

“The FDA needs to acknowledge the science behind endocrine-disrupting chemicals and act accordingly to protect public health,” she urged.

The FDA is expected to decide within the next few days whether to open a docket to accept comments.

A final decision could take 6 months or longer, an Endocrine Society spokesperson told this news organization.

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