MDedge ObGyn

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Increasingly, clinicians are being called upon to advise athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 on when it is safe for them to return to play.

Now, they have two reports that offer more insights into the cardiotoxic effects of COVID-19 on the athletic heart.

In the first report, researchers report a high prevalence of pericardial involvement in college-student athletes who have recovered from COVID-19 and give their practical advice on how to let these athletes return to play safely.

In the second report, an expert panel of sports cardiologists provides a comprehensive guide to the appropriate imaging of athletes who may have cardiovascular complications from COVID-19.

Both are published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

“We were asked by the editors of JACC to submit this paper, and the impetus for it was the fact that there are so many athletes returning after being infected with COVID-19, we need to try and give guidance to cardiologists as to how best to evaluate these athletes,” Dermot Phelan, MD, PhD, Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, N.C., and lead author of the consensus statement, said in an interview.

The consensus statement acknowledges that information about the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 continues to evolve. Meanwhile, pathologies such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and right ventricular dysfunction, in the absence of significant clinical symptoms, in athletes who have been affected by COVID-19 remain of considerable concern.

It also emphasizes the unique challenges the average cardiologist faces in distinguishing between what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is true pathology after COVID-19 infection; details how different imaging modalities can help in screening, evaluating, and monitoring athletes with suspected cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 infection; and discusses the strengths and limitations of these modalities.

Finally, the consensus statement provides some well-needed guidance on return-to-play decision-making, for both the athlete and the clinician.
 

Athletic remodeling or covid-19 damage?

Athletes can develop certain cardiovascular characteristics because of their athletic activity, and sometimes, this can cloud the diagnostic picture.

“Is this change due to the effects of COVID-19, or is it just because this is an athlete’s heart? This was an international expert consensus, made up of sports cardiologists from all over the world who have a lot of experience in dealing with athletes,” Dr. Phelan said. “We were trying to relay the important information to the cardiologist who is not used to dealing with athletes on a day-to-day basis, as to what they might expect to find in that athlete, and what is not an expected finding and should be tested further.”

Phelan, a sports cardiologist, is familiar with what is normal for an athlete’s heart and what is pathology.

“We know that athletes, particularly long-term endurance athletes, develop changes in the heart that can affect not only the electrics but the structure of the heart, and sometimes, that overlaps with abnormalities with pathology. This can be a challenge for the nonsports cardiologist to differentiate,” he said.

Phelan and his group have written two other consensus documents on the management of cardiovascular problems that develop in some athletes who have been infected with COVID-19.

The first was published in May in JAMA Cardiology, and the second, which revised some of the original recommendations made in the first document, was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA Cardiology.

The first set of recommendations called for imaging studies to be done in all athletes, but the second set states that athletes who recover and are asymptomatic do not need extensive (and expensive) imaging tests.

“These two papers work hand in hand,” Dr. Phelan said. “In May, we had very little experience with COVID, and there was a lot of concern about hospitalized patients having a very high incidence of heart disease. We published those recommendations, but we recognized at the time that we had very little data and that we would reconsider once we had more experience with data.

“This current set of recommendations that we have put forth here are for those athletes who do need to get further testing, so it’s a step beyond,” Dr. Phelan added. “So the second iteration states that young athletes who had mild or no symptoms didn’t need to go through all of that cardiac testing, but others do need it.”

To do widespread cardiovascular imaging for many individuals would be very costly. Realistically, there are not that many centers in the United States that have all the sophisticated equipment required to do such testing, Dr. Phelan noted.

“One of our major points is difficulty obtaining the test, but also the cost; these are very expensive tests. There are limitations. They are useful when used in the correct context,” he said.
 

To play or not to play, that is the question

Partho P. Sengupta, MD, DM, had to answer that question for more than 50 young athletes who were returning to college at West Virginia University, anxious to be back with their teams and on the playing field. They had been infected with COVID-19 and needed to know when they could return to play.

Dr. Sengupta, who is also an author for the Phelan et al consensus statement on imaging, said there was a lot of pressure – from all the various stakeholders, and from anxious parents, worried college athletes, their teammates, and the university – to determine if the youngsters could return to play.

The fear was that COVID-19 infection left the young athlete’s heart vulnerable to myocarditis and, thus, sudden death on the playing field after strenuous activity.

“At the time we were doing this imaging, there was a lot of concern in the media, and papers were coming out reporting a lot of cardiac involvement or myocarditis associated with COVID-19. Nobody really knew what to do,” he explained.

“There were all kinds of questions, concerns. The parents were putting pressure on us, the athletes wanted to know, the teams, the university. So we put together a team and completed all of the examinations, including testing of blood markers, within a 2-week period. These young athletes, they’re scared, they’re worried and anxious, they don’t know what’s going to happen with their scholarship, so there was some urgency to this work,” Dr. Sengupta said.

“We had to screen all comers within a very short period. We had 54 consecutive patients, gave them full screening, full battery of tests, blood tests, all in a 2-week period,” he said.

Speed was of the essence, and Dr. Sengupta and his team rolled up their sleeves and got to work “We had to know who was safe to clear to return to play and who might need extra follow-up.”
 

Screening echocardiograms

They performed screening echocardiograms on 54 consecutive college athletes who had tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasal swab testing or who showed that they had IgG antibodies against COVID-19. The screening echocardiograms were done after the athletes had quarantined for at least 14 days and were no longer infectious.

Most (85%) were male, and the mean age was 19 years. A total of 16 (30%) athletes were asymptomatic, 36 (66%) reported mild COVID-19 related symptoms, and two (4%) reported moderate symptoms.

Of the 54 athletes who were initially screened with echocardiography, 48 (11 asymptomatic, 37 symptomatic), went on to have cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

Results showed that more than half the athletes (27; 56.3%), showed some cardiac abnormality. The most common was pericardial late enhancement with associated pericardial effusion, affecting 19 (39.5%) athletes.

Of these, six (12.5%) had reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS) or an increased native T1.

One patient showed myocardial enhancement.

Additionally, seven athletes (14.6%) had reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or reduced GLS with or without increased native T1. Native T2 levels were normal in all subjects and no specific imaging features of myocardial inflammation were identified.

Participants were brought back to receive the results of their tests and to get an individualized plan about their safe return to play 3 to 5 weeks after they had ceased to be infectious with COVID-19.

“We saw pericardial inflammation that was resolving. We did not see any blood biomarkers to suggest that there was active inflammation going on,” he said. “We also did not see any muscle inflammation, but we did see pockets of fluid in over a third of our athletes.”

Fortunately, most were deemed able to get back to playing safely, despite having evidence of pericardial inflammation.

This was on strict condition that they be monitored very closely for any adverse events that might occur as they began to exercise again.

“Once they go back to the field to start exercising and practicing, it is under great supervision. We instructed all of our sports physicians and other team managers that these people need to be observed very carefully. So as long as they were asymptomatic, even though the signs of pericardial inflammation were there, if there were no signs of inflammation in the blood, we let them go back to play, closely monitored,” Dr. Sengupta said.

A small number remained very symptomatic at the end of the 5 weeks and were referred to cardiac rehabilitation, Dr. Sengupta said. “They were tired, fatigued, short of breath, even 5 weeks after they got over COVID, so we sent them for cardiac rehab to help them get conditioned again.”

The researchers plan to reevaluate and reimage all of the athletes in another 3 months to monitor their cardiac health.

Dr. Sengupta acknowledged the limitations of this single-center, nonrandomized, controlled report, but insists reports such as this add a bit more to what we are learning about COVID-19 every day.

“These kids were coming to us and asking questions. You have to use the best science you have available to you at that point in time. Some people ask why we did not have a control group, but how do you design a control population in the midst of a pandemic? The science may or may not be perfect, I agree, but the information we obtained is important,” he said.

“Right now, I don’t think we have enough science, and we are still learning. It is very difficult to predict who will develop the heart muscle disease or the pericardial disease,” Dr. Sengupta said. “We had to do our work quickly to give answers to the young athletes, their parents, their teammates, their university, as soon as possible, and we were doing this under pandemic conditions.”

The work was supported by the National Science Foundation National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Phelan reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sengupta reported that he is a consultant for HeartSciences, Kencor Health, and Ultromics.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The largest U.S. physician organization on Tuesday took a step to prepare for future payments for administration of two leading COVID-19 vaccine candidates, publishing new billing codes tailored to track each use of these medications.

The American Medical Association updated its CPT code set to reflect the expected future availability of COVID-19 vaccines. The new codes apply to the experimental vaccine being developed by Pfizer, in collaboration with a smaller German firm BioNTech, and to the similar product expected from Moderna, according to an AMA press release.

Positive news has emerged this week about both of these vaccines, which were developed using a newer – and as yet unproven – approach. They seek to use messenger RNA to instruct cells to produce a target protein for SARS-CoV-2.

New York–based Pfizer on Monday announced interim phase 3 data that was widely viewed as promising. Pfizer said the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in trial volunteers who were without evidence of prior infection of the virus.

In a press release, Pfizer said it plans to ask the Food and Drug Administration to consider a special clearance, known as an emergency-use authorization, “soon after” a safety milestone is achieved in its vaccine trial. That milestone could be reached this month.

Moderna said it was on track to report early data from a late-stage trial of its experimental coronavirus vaccine later this month, and could file with the FDA for an emergency-use authorization in early December, according to a Reuters report.

The severity of the global pandemic has put the FDA under pressure to move quickly on approval of COVID-19 vaccines, based on limited data, while also working to make sure these products are safe. The creation of CPT codes for each of two coronavirus vaccines, as well as accompanying administration codes, will set up a way to keep tabs on each dose of each of these shots, the AMA said.

American Medical Association

“Correlating each coronavirus vaccine with its own unique CPT code provides analytical advantages to help track, allocate and optimize resources as an immunization program ramps up in the United States,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in the release.

AMA plans to introduce more vaccine-specific CPT codes as more vaccine candidates approach FDA review. These vaccine-specific CPT codes can go into effect only after the FDA grants a clearance.

The newly created Category I CPT codes and long descriptors for the vaccine products are:
 

• 91300; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3mL dosage, diluent reconstituted, for intramuscular use (Pfizer/BioNTech)
• 91301; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5mL dosage, for intramuscular use (Moderna)

These two administrative codes would apply to the Pfizer-BioNTech shot:

• 0001A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; first dose.
• 0002A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 30 mcg/0.3 mL dosage, diluent reconstituted; second dose.

And these two administrative codes would apply to the Moderna shot:

• 0011A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; first dose.
• 0012A; Immunization administration by intramuscular injection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) vaccine, mRNA-LNP, spike protein, preservative free, 100 mcg/0.5 mL dosage; second dose.

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

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020. For the first time, the guidelines are mandated to include dietary recommendations from birth to 24 months and for women who are pregnant or lactating.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.

The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.

Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
 

Promote healthy dietary patterns

The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.

Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

• Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
• Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
• Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
• From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.

The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
 

Recommendations during pregnancy

Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.

The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.

Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.

The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
 

Addressing a gap

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.

Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.

Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.

For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.

Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.

To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”

Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020. For the first time, the guidelines are mandated to include dietary recommendations from birth to 24 months and for women who are pregnant or lactating.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.

The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.

Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
 

Promote healthy dietary patterns

The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.

Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

• Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
• Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
• Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
• From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.

The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
 

Recommendations during pregnancy

Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.

The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.

Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.

The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
 

Addressing a gap

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.

Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.

Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.

For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.

Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.

To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”

Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health & Human Services aim to release new dietary guidelines by the end of 2020. For the first time, the guidelines are mandated to include dietary recommendations from birth to 24 months and for women who are pregnant or lactating.

Bonnie Becker/MDedge News

An advisory committee submitted to the agencies a scientific report that examines relationships between diet and health at various life stages. Four chapters focus on dietary considerations for infants and toddlers, and two chapters focus on diet during pregnancy and lactation.

The report may inform the development of the new guidelines. The advisory committee’s recommendations include introducing infants to foods that are rich in zinc and iron at about age 6 months and having women who are lactating eat sources of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, such as fish, to improve the fatty acid status of infants.

Ahead of the release of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Joan Younger Meek, MD, discussed parts of the scientific report at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held virtually this year.

While the 2015-2020 guidelines use ChooseMyPlate to help people implement the recommendations, it is not known how the new guidelines will be presented to the public, she said. “Many of you will remember the pyramids earlier and different food groups before that.”
 

Promote healthy dietary patterns

The advisory committee’s report notes that diet in the first years of life contributes to long-term health and shapes taste preferences, said Dr. Meek, professor of clinical sciences at Florida State University, Orlando. Human milk or infant formula are primary sources of nutrition until approximately 6 months, when families may introduce complementary foods and beverages. Between 6 months and 24 months, children transition to the typical family diet.

Dr. Meek highlighted some of the advisory committee’s findings and recommendations.

• Infants who are ever breastfed have a reduced risk of overweight or obesity, type 1 diabetes, and asthma. Likewise, longer duration of breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes and asthma, and exclusive breastfeeding is associated with lower risk of type 1 diabetes.
• Complementary foods and beverages should not be introduced before age 4 months. Limited evidence indicates that their introduction before 4 months may be associated with increased odds of overweight or obesity. Introducing complementary foods or beverages at 4 or 5 months, compared with 6 months, is not associated with long-term advantages or disadvantages.
• Introducing peanut and egg after age 4 months may reduce the risk of food allergies.
• From age 12 months to 24 months, children should consume a variety of nutrient-rich protein sources from animals – including meat, poultry, seafood, eggs, and dairy – plus nuts, seeds, fruits, vegetables, and grains.
• The report prioritizes oils over solid fats, and whole grains over refined grains. It also discourages added sugars, particularly from sugar-sweetened beverages. Other sources of added sugars include sweets, baked goods, and sweetened dairy products.

The report acknowledges that dietary guidelines should accommodate cultural preferences and cost considerations.
 

Recommendations during pregnancy

Healthy dietary patterns before or during pregnancy may modestly reduce the odds of gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth, according to the report.

The report recommends that during pregnancy women consume 8-12 ounces per week of seafood with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids and low levels of methylmercury, consistent with existing recommendations.

Egg and milk consumption during pregnancy does not influence the risk of food allergy, asthma, or atopic disease in the child, according to the report.

The advisory committee recommended universal folic acid supplementation during pregnancy.
 

Addressing a gap

The Agricultural Act of 2014 required that infants and toddlers and women who are pregnant or lactating be included in the 2020-2025 guidelines. Covering these populations in the scientific report was a substantial undertaking, said Kathryn Dewey, PhD, of the Institute for Global Nutrition at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Dewey chaired the subcommittee on birth to 24 months for the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

“Given that this age group had not been covered before, we could not rely on previous dietary guidelines’ reports,” Dr. Dewey said in an interview.

Outlining food patterns for infants and toddlers proved challenging. The committee explored models that considered various scenarios including children who consumed human milk, children who consumed formula, and those with vegetarian diets. Future research should clarify dietary reference intakes for these age groups, Dr. Dewey said.

Dr. Dewey sees the committee’s report on dietary guidance for birth to 24 months as a starting point and not necessarily an exhaustive look at the subject.

For one, the committee focused more on what to feed infants and toddlers rather than on how to feed them. Information about how to feed children is considered more in depth in a 2020 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. That report summarizes existing guidance from various organizations on feeding infants and children from birth to 24 months. Dr. Dewey chaired the committee that created the National Academies report.

Sharing the new USDA and HHS guidelines after they are released could be the next important step. “The public does not necessarily know about the guidelines or they do not necessarily seek them out unless there is a very well-constructed strategy for dissemination and implementation,” Dr. Dewey said.

To that end, health care providers can play a role, Dr. Meek said. “Be aware of changes in guidance, adopt those new recommendations, and then advocate those with our patients as well as with the public at large.”

Dr. Meek and Dr. Dewey had no relevant financial disclosures.

jremaly@mdedge.com

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

About 1 in 11 patients discharged after COVID-19 treatment is readmitted to the same hospital, according to researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Older age and chronic diseases are associated with increased risk, said senior author Adi V. Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, chief public health informatics officer of the CDC’s Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services.

Gundlapalli and colleagues published the finding November 9 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

To get a picture of readmission after COVID-19 hospitalization, the researchers analyzed records of 126,137 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March and July and included in the Premier Healthcare Database, which covers discharge records from 865 nongovernmental, community, and teaching hospitals.

Overall, 15% of the patients died during hospitalization. Of those who survived to discharge, 9% were readmitted to the same hospital within 2 months of discharge; 1.6% of patients were readmitted more than once. The median interval from discharge to first readmission was 8 days (interquartile range, 3-20 days). This short interval suggests that patients are probably not suffering a relapse, Gundlapalli said in an interview. More likely they experienced some adverse event, such as difficulty breathing, that led their caretakers to send them back to the hospital.

Forty-five percent of the primary discharge diagnoses after readmission were infectious and parasitic diseases, primarily COVID-19. The next most common were circulatory system symptoms (11%) and digestive symptoms (7%).

After controlling for covariates, the researchers found that patients were more likely to be readmitted if they had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.4), heart failure (OR, 1.6), diabetes (OR, 1.2), or chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.6).

They also found increased odds among patients discharged from the index hospitalization to a skilled nursing facility (OR, 1.4) or with home health organization support (OR, 1.3), compared with being discharged to home or self-care. Looked at another way, the rate of readmission was 15% among those discharged to a skilled nursing facility, 12% among those needing home health care and 7% of those discharged to home or self-care.

The researchers also found that people who had been hospitalized within 3 months prior to the index hospitalization were 2.6 times more likely to be readmitted than were those without prior inpatient care.

Further, the odds of readmission increased significantly among people over 65 years of age, compared with people aged 18 to 39 years.

“The results are not surprising,” Gundlapalli said. “We have known from before that elderly patients, especially with chronic conditions, certain clinical conditions, and those who have been hospitalized before, are at risk for readmission.”

But admitting COVID-19 patients requires special planning because they must be isolated and because more personal protective equipment (PPE) is required, he pointed out.

One unexpected finding from the report is that non-Hispanic White people were more likely to be readmitted than were people of other racial or ethnic groups. This contrasts with other research showing Hispanic and Black individuals are more severely affected by COVID-19 than White people. More research is needed to explain this result, Gundlapalli said.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As an East Coast transplant residing in Texas, I look forward to the annual sojourn home to celebrate the holidays with family and friends – as do many of our patients and their families. But this is 2020. SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, is still circulating. To make matters worse, cases are rising in 45 states and internationally. The day of this writing 102,831 new cases were reported in the United States. As we prepare for the holidays, it is time to rethink how safe it is to travel and/or gather with people who do not live in our household.

Social distancing, wearing masks, and hand washing have been strategies recommended to help mitigate the spread of the virus. We know adherence is not always 100%. The reality is that several families will consider traveling and gathering with others over the holidays. Their actions may lead to increased infections, hospitalizations, and even deaths. It behooves us to at least remind them of the potential consequences of the activity, and if travel and/or holiday gatherings are inevitable, to provide some guidance to help them look at both the risks and benefits and offer strategies to minimize infection and spread.
 

What should be considered prior to travel?

Here is a list of points to ponder:

• Is your patient is in a high-risk group for developing severe disease or visiting someone who is in a high-risk group?
• What is their mode of transportation?
• What is their destination?
• How prevalent is the disease at their destination, compared with their community?
• What will be their accommodations?
• How will attendees prepare for the gathering, if at all?
• Will multiple families congregate after quarantining for 2 weeks or simply arrive?
• At the destination, will people wear masks and socially distance?
• Is an outdoor venue an option?

All of these questions should be considered by patients.
 

Review high-risk groups

In terms of high-risk groups, we usually focus on underlying medical conditions or extremes of age, but Black and LatinX children and their families have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized more frequently than other racial/ ethnic groups in the United States. Of 277,285 school-aged children infected between March 1 and Sept. 19, 2020, 42% were LatinX, 32% White, and 17% Black, yet they comprise 18%, 60%, and 11% of the U.S. population, respectively. Of those hospitalized, 45% were LatinX, 22% White, and 24% Black. LatinX and Black children also have disproportionately higher mortality rates.

Think about transmission and how to mitigate it

Many patients erroneously think combining multiple households for small group gatherings is inconsequential. These types of gatherings serve as a continued source of SARS-CoV-2 spread. For example, a person in Illinois with mild upper respiratory infection symptoms attended a funeral; he reported embracing the family members after the funeral. He dined with two people the evening prior to the funeral, sharing the meal using common serving dishes. Four days later, he attended a birthday party with nine family members. Some of the family members with symptoms subsequently attended church, infecting another church attendee. A cluster of 16 cases of COVID-19 was subsequently identified, including three deaths likely resulting from this one introduction of COVID-19 at these two family gatherings.

In Tennessee and Wisconsin, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was studied prospectively. A total of 101 index cases and 191 asymptomatic household contacts were enrolled between April and Sept. 2020; 102 of 191 (53%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected during the 14-day follow-up. Most infections (75%) were identified within 5 days and occurred whether the index case was an adult or child.

Lastly, one adolescent was identified as the source for an outbreak at a family gathering where 15 persons from five households and four states shared a house between 8 and 25 days in July 2020. Six additional members visited the house. The index case had an exposure to COVID-19 and had a negative antigen test 4 days after exposure. She was asymptomatic when tested. She developed nasal congestion 2 days later, the same day she and her family departed for the gathering. A total of 11 household contacts developed confirmed, suspected, or probable COVID-19, and the teen developed symptoms. This report illustrates how easily SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted, and how when implemented, mitigation strategies work because none of the six who only visited the house was infected. It also serves as a reminder that antigen testing is indicated only for use within the first 5-12 days of onset of symptoms. In this case, the adolescent was asymptomatic when tested and had a false-negative test result.
 

Ponder modes of transportation

How will your patient arrive to their holiday destination? Nonstop travel by car with household members is probably the safest way. However, for many families, buses and trains are the only options, and social distancing may be challenging. Air travel is a must for others. Acquisition of COVID-19 during air travel appears to be low, but not absent based on how air enters and leaves the cabin. The challenge is socially distancing throughout the check in and boarding processes, as well as minimizing contact with common surfaces. There also is loss of social distancing once on board. Ideally, masks should be worn during the flight. Additionally, for those with international destinations, most countries now require a negative polymerase chain reaction COVID-19 test within a specified time frame for entry.

Essentially the safest place for your patients during the holidays is celebrating at home with their household contacts. The risk for disease acquisition increases with travel. You will not have the opportunity to discuss holiday plans with most parents. However, you can encourage them to consider the pros and cons of travel with reminders via telephone, e-mail, and /or social messaging directly from your practices similar to those sent for other medically necessary interventions. As for me, I will be celebrating virtually this year. There is a first time for everything.

For additional information that also is patient friendly, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offers information about travel within the United States and international travel.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at pdnews@mdedge.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With this week’s announcement that Pfizer’s vaccine candidate against SARS-CoV-2 was 90% effective in preventing COVID-19, the world is one step closer to an effective vaccine.

Nevertheless, with a limited supply of initial doses, the question becomes, who should get it first? Individuals with severe mental illness should be a priority group to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, assert the authors of a perspective article published Nov. 1 in World Psychiatry.

Patients with underlying physical conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, obesity, immunodeficiency, and cancer, are particularly vulnerable to developing more severe illness and dying from COVID-19.

In these populations, the risk of a more severe course of infection or early death is significant enough for the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to make these patients priority recipients of a vaccine against COVID-19.

Marc De Hert, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at KU Leuven (Belgium), and coauthors argued that those with severe mental illness also fit into this group.

Even without factoring COVID-19 into the calculation, those with severe mental illness have a two- to threefold higher mortality rate than the general population, resulting in reduction in life expectancy of 10-20 years, they noted. This is largely because of physical diseases including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and respiratory ailments.

Individuals with severe mental illness also have higher rates of obesity than the general population and obesity is a risk factor for dying from COVID-19.
 

High-risk population

Like their peers with physical illnesses, recent studies suggest that those with severe mental illness are also at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

For example, a recent U.S. case-control study with over 61 million adults showed that those recently diagnosed with a mental health disorder had a significantly increased risk for COVID-19 infection, an effect strongest for depression and schizophrenia.

Other recent studies have confirmed these data, including one linking a psychiatric diagnosis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 to a significantly increased risk for death, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

Dr. De Hert and colleagues put these findings into perspective with this example: In 2017, there were an estimated 11.2 million adults in the United States with severe mental illness. Taking into account the 8.5% death rate in COVID-19 patients recently diagnosed with a severe mental illness, this means that about 1 million patients with severe mental illness in the United States would die if all were infected with the virus.

In light of this knowledge, and taking into account published ethical principles that should guide vaccine allocation, Dr. De Hert and colleagues said it is “paramount” that persons with severe mental illness be prioritized to guarantee that they receive a COVID-19 vaccine during the first phase of its distribution.

“It is our responsibility as psychiatrists in this global health crisis to advocate for the needs of our patients with governments and public health policy bodies,” they wrote.

The authors also encourage public health agencies to develop and implement targeted programs to ensure that patients with severe mental illness and their health care providers “are made aware of these increased risks as well as the benefits of vaccination.”
 

An argument for fairness

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, New York, also believes those with severe mental illness should be a priority group for a COVID vaccine.

“When we’re prioritizing groups for a COVID-19 vaccine, let’s not forget that people with serious mental illness have much lower life expectancies, more obesity, and more undiagnosed chronic conditions. They should be a priority group,” Dr. Appelbaum said in an interview.

“The argument for including people with severe mental illnesses among the vulnerable populations who should be prioritized for receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine is an argument for fairness in constructing that group,” he added.

“Like people with other chronic conditions associated with poor outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be hospitalized and more likely to die. Although they are often systematically ignored when decisions are made about allocation of resources, there is some hope that, with enough public attention to this issue, they can be included this time,” Dr. Appelbaum said.

Dr. De Hert and Dr. Applebaum disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who used injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return to normal fertility after discontinuing use, according to a new prospective cohort study.

Women who used hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, and implants had the shortest delays, based on the same research project, which involved analyzing data from approximately 18,000 women in North America and Denmark.

“Most research on the use of contraceptives and fertility has focused on the effect of oral contraceptives on fecundability,” and data on the association between fertility and other contraceptive methods are limited, wrote Jennifer J. Yland, MS, of Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues.

“Given the increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptive methods and other alternatives to oral contraceptives, more research into their short- and long-term effects on fertility is needed,” the researchers noted.

In the study, which was published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from a total of 17,954 women from three cohort studies of individuals planning pregnancies between 2007 and 2019. Participants reported their contraceptive use and typical menstrual cycle at baseline, then responded to questionnaires every 2 months for up to a year or until pregnancy.

On average, users of injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return of normal fertility (five to eight menstrual cycles), compared with four cycles for patch contraceptives, three cycles for oral and ring contraceptives, and two cycles for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices and implants.

A total of 10,729 pregnancies were reported within 66,759 menstrual cycles; approximately 77% of the women conceived within 12 months, and 56% conceived within 6 months.

Oral contraceptives were the most common method of contraception (38%), followed by barrier methods (31%), natural methods (15%), and long-acting reversible contraceptives (13%). Intrauterine devices were the most frequently used of long-acting reversible contraceptives (8% hormonal, 4% copper).

The time until fertility returned after discontinuing contraceptives was not associated with duration of contraceptive use.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of menstrual cycles and the use of self-reports for the time of contraceptive discontinuation, especially for users of injectable contraceptives, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and show “little or no lasting effect” of long-term use of any of the reported contraceptive methods on fertility, the researchers noted. “Understanding the comparative effects of different contraceptives on fecundity is essential for family planning, counseling for contraception, and management of infertility,” they said.
 

Comparison of contraceptives can inform counseling

The study is important because the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs, implants, patches, and injectable contraceptives) has become increasingly common worldwide, corresponding author Jennifer J. Yland, MS, said in an interview. “Many women are concerned about the potential effects of contraception on future fertility. However, previous research on this topic has focused mostly on oral contraceptives,” she said.

Ms. Yland said that the findings on oral and injectable contraceptives were consistent with previous publications. However, “we were surprised to find that women who had recently used the hormonal IUD had a shorter time to pregnancy, compared with women who used barrier methods,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is that delays in the return to normal fertility were temporary for all hormonal contraceptive methods, Ms. Yland emphasized. “However, delays in the return of fertility after discontinuing certain hormonal methods, such as injectables, were considerably longer than that shown for oral contraceptives. These findings should be taken into account when women are considering contraceptive choice in the context of family planning and infertility management,” she noted.

“Future research should evaluate the potential associations between recent use of hormonal contraceptives and perinatal outcomes,” she added.
 

Managing expectations helps patients plan

“The question of return to fertility is one that many patients who use contraception have unless they have completed their child bearing,” said Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “For patients who want to plan a pregnancy, knowing what to expect in terms of return to fertility is important so they can make sure they are in the space and place they want to be with their health, life, job, and partner,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings because they agree with previously published data. “Overall, except for the injection, people using any form of contraception are back to their baseline fertility within a few months,” she noted. “It also makes perfect sense for return to fertility to be longer with the injection, as it is designed to prevent pregnancy for 16 weeks after the injection is given. Unlike all the other methods, it cannot be removed from the body once given,” she said.

“Clinicians should continue to advise patients that their return to baseline fertility is relatively rapid with any contraception other than the Depo-Provera injection,” said Dr. Prager. “There are no data to support a benefit in switching from an IUD or implant to a combination hormonal method (pills, patch, ring) before starting to try to conceive,” she said.

“This study tries to account for differences in baseline fertility for people using the different methods, but since the choice of method was not randomized, there could still be baseline differences that were not measured or accounted for,” Dr. Prager noted. “A randomized study would certainly eliminate some of these biases; however, I don’t think the differences found in this study are so profound as to require such study,” she said. “Generally speaking, almost 80% of people using any form of contraception were able to conceive within 1 year of trying, which has been the stated fertility data for decades,” she said.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Lead author Ms. Yland had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yland JJ et al. BMJ. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3966.

Women who used injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return to normal fertility after discontinuing use, according to a new prospective cohort study.

Women who used hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, and implants had the shortest delays, based on the same research project, which involved analyzing data from approximately 18,000 women in North America and Denmark.

“Most research on the use of contraceptives and fertility has focused on the effect of oral contraceptives on fecundability,” and data on the association between fertility and other contraceptive methods are limited, wrote Jennifer J. Yland, MS, of Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues.

“Given the increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptive methods and other alternatives to oral contraceptives, more research into their short- and long-term effects on fertility is needed,” the researchers noted.

In the study, which was published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from a total of 17,954 women from three cohort studies of individuals planning pregnancies between 2007 and 2019. Participants reported their contraceptive use and typical menstrual cycle at baseline, then responded to questionnaires every 2 months for up to a year or until pregnancy.

On average, users of injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return of normal fertility (five to eight menstrual cycles), compared with four cycles for patch contraceptives, three cycles for oral and ring contraceptives, and two cycles for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices and implants.

A total of 10,729 pregnancies were reported within 66,759 menstrual cycles; approximately 77% of the women conceived within 12 months, and 56% conceived within 6 months.

Oral contraceptives were the most common method of contraception (38%), followed by barrier methods (31%), natural methods (15%), and long-acting reversible contraceptives (13%). Intrauterine devices were the most frequently used of long-acting reversible contraceptives (8% hormonal, 4% copper).

The time until fertility returned after discontinuing contraceptives was not associated with duration of contraceptive use.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of menstrual cycles and the use of self-reports for the time of contraceptive discontinuation, especially for users of injectable contraceptives, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and show “little or no lasting effect” of long-term use of any of the reported contraceptive methods on fertility, the researchers noted. “Understanding the comparative effects of different contraceptives on fecundity is essential for family planning, counseling for contraception, and management of infertility,” they said.
 

Comparison of contraceptives can inform counseling

The study is important because the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs, implants, patches, and injectable contraceptives) has become increasingly common worldwide, corresponding author Jennifer J. Yland, MS, said in an interview. “Many women are concerned about the potential effects of contraception on future fertility. However, previous research on this topic has focused mostly on oral contraceptives,” she said.

Ms. Yland said that the findings on oral and injectable contraceptives were consistent with previous publications. However, “we were surprised to find that women who had recently used the hormonal IUD had a shorter time to pregnancy, compared with women who used barrier methods,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is that delays in the return to normal fertility were temporary for all hormonal contraceptive methods, Ms. Yland emphasized. “However, delays in the return of fertility after discontinuing certain hormonal methods, such as injectables, were considerably longer than that shown for oral contraceptives. These findings should be taken into account when women are considering contraceptive choice in the context of family planning and infertility management,” she noted.

“Future research should evaluate the potential associations between recent use of hormonal contraceptives and perinatal outcomes,” she added.
 

Managing expectations helps patients plan

“The question of return to fertility is one that many patients who use contraception have unless they have completed their child bearing,” said Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “For patients who want to plan a pregnancy, knowing what to expect in terms of return to fertility is important so they can make sure they are in the space and place they want to be with their health, life, job, and partner,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings because they agree with previously published data. “Overall, except for the injection, people using any form of contraception are back to their baseline fertility within a few months,” she noted. “It also makes perfect sense for return to fertility to be longer with the injection, as it is designed to prevent pregnancy for 16 weeks after the injection is given. Unlike all the other methods, it cannot be removed from the body once given,” she said.

“Clinicians should continue to advise patients that their return to baseline fertility is relatively rapid with any contraception other than the Depo-Provera injection,” said Dr. Prager. “There are no data to support a benefit in switching from an IUD or implant to a combination hormonal method (pills, patch, ring) before starting to try to conceive,” she said.

“This study tries to account for differences in baseline fertility for people using the different methods, but since the choice of method was not randomized, there could still be baseline differences that were not measured or accounted for,” Dr. Prager noted. “A randomized study would certainly eliminate some of these biases; however, I don’t think the differences found in this study are so profound as to require such study,” she said. “Generally speaking, almost 80% of people using any form of contraception were able to conceive within 1 year of trying, which has been the stated fertility data for decades,” she said.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Lead author Ms. Yland had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yland JJ et al. BMJ. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3966.

Women who used injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return to normal fertility after discontinuing use, according to a new prospective cohort study.

Women who used hormonal intrauterine devices, copper intrauterine devices, and implants had the shortest delays, based on the same research project, which involved analyzing data from approximately 18,000 women in North America and Denmark.

“Most research on the use of contraceptives and fertility has focused on the effect of oral contraceptives on fecundability,” and data on the association between fertility and other contraceptive methods are limited, wrote Jennifer J. Yland, MS, of Boston University School of Public Health and colleagues.

“Given the increasing popularity of long acting reversible contraceptive methods and other alternatives to oral contraceptives, more research into their short- and long-term effects on fertility is needed,” the researchers noted.

In the study, which was published in the BMJ, the researchers reviewed data from a total of 17,954 women from three cohort studies of individuals planning pregnancies between 2007 and 2019. Participants reported their contraceptive use and typical menstrual cycle at baseline, then responded to questionnaires every 2 months for up to a year or until pregnancy.

On average, users of injectable contraceptives had the longest delay in return of normal fertility (five to eight menstrual cycles), compared with four cycles for patch contraceptives, three cycles for oral and ring contraceptives, and two cycles for hormonal and copper intrauterine devices and implants.

A total of 10,729 pregnancies were reported within 66,759 menstrual cycles; approximately 77% of the women conceived within 12 months, and 56% conceived within 6 months.

Oral contraceptives were the most common method of contraception (38%), followed by barrier methods (31%), natural methods (15%), and long-acting reversible contraceptives (13%). Intrauterine devices were the most frequently used of long-acting reversible contraceptives (8% hormonal, 4% copper).

The time until fertility returned after discontinuing contraceptives was not associated with duration of contraceptive use.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the potential misclassification of menstrual cycles and the use of self-reports for the time of contraceptive discontinuation, especially for users of injectable contraceptives, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large study size and show “little or no lasting effect” of long-term use of any of the reported contraceptive methods on fertility, the researchers noted. “Understanding the comparative effects of different contraceptives on fecundity is essential for family planning, counseling for contraception, and management of infertility,” they said.
 

Comparison of contraceptives can inform counseling

The study is important because the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (IUDs, implants, patches, and injectable contraceptives) has become increasingly common worldwide, corresponding author Jennifer J. Yland, MS, said in an interview. “Many women are concerned about the potential effects of contraception on future fertility. However, previous research on this topic has focused mostly on oral contraceptives,” she said.

Ms. Yland said that the findings on oral and injectable contraceptives were consistent with previous publications. However, “we were surprised to find that women who had recently used the hormonal IUD had a shorter time to pregnancy, compared with women who used barrier methods,” she said.

The take-home message for clinicians is that delays in the return to normal fertility were temporary for all hormonal contraceptive methods, Ms. Yland emphasized. “However, delays in the return of fertility after discontinuing certain hormonal methods, such as injectables, were considerably longer than that shown for oral contraceptives. These findings should be taken into account when women are considering contraceptive choice in the context of family planning and infertility management,” she noted.

“Future research should evaluate the potential associations between recent use of hormonal contraceptives and perinatal outcomes,” she added.
 

Managing expectations helps patients plan

“The question of return to fertility is one that many patients who use contraception have unless they have completed their child bearing,” said Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, in an interview. “For patients who want to plan a pregnancy, knowing what to expect in terms of return to fertility is important so they can make sure they are in the space and place they want to be with their health, life, job, and partner,” she said.

Dr. Prager said she was not surprised by the study findings because they agree with previously published data. “Overall, except for the injection, people using any form of contraception are back to their baseline fertility within a few months,” she noted. “It also makes perfect sense for return to fertility to be longer with the injection, as it is designed to prevent pregnancy for 16 weeks after the injection is given. Unlike all the other methods, it cannot be removed from the body once given,” she said.

“Clinicians should continue to advise patients that their return to baseline fertility is relatively rapid with any contraception other than the Depo-Provera injection,” said Dr. Prager. “There are no data to support a benefit in switching from an IUD or implant to a combination hormonal method (pills, patch, ring) before starting to try to conceive,” she said.

“This study tries to account for differences in baseline fertility for people using the different methods, but since the choice of method was not randomized, there could still be baseline differences that were not measured or accounted for,” Dr. Prager noted. “A randomized study would certainly eliminate some of these biases; however, I don’t think the differences found in this study are so profound as to require such study,” she said. “Generally speaking, almost 80% of people using any form of contraception were able to conceive within 1 year of trying, which has been the stated fertility data for decades,” she said.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. Lead author Ms. Yland had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Prager had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Yland JJ et al. BMJ. 2020 Nov 12. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m3966.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

The state of Tennessee, where I worked and attended medical school, did not have legislation in place prohibiting termination of employment based on sexual orientation alone. As a lesbian, I never felt safe at work knowing that I could be fired at any time simply because of who I loved and how I identified. When I started medical school in rural Appalachia, I decided I would be “out” but remained cautious. That meant inspecting everyone I encountered for signs of acceptance and safety before sharing details about my life. As a third-year medical student, I started wearing a rainbow triangle on my white coat. One of the first patients I cared for cried and thanked me for wearing the pin. She then proceeded to tell me about her partner, her own struggles with depression, and the secrets she had to keep from her community. It was overwhelming and, yet, so familiar. I was struck by how wearing this pin, a small gesture, made this patient feel safe enough to come out to me and seek help for her depression. Although I found a supportive community in Tennessee, it was only after I moved to Massachusetts for residency—where antidiscrimination laws protected lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, plus all other gender and sexual minority (LGBTQIA+) identified people—did I feel safe to freely share about my partner and our life together.

A landmark decision in the Supreme Court

This past June, in a 6 to 3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bostock v Clayton County that Title VII’s ban on discrimination also protects LGBTQIA+ employees. Title VII is a federal law that protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.¹ In this decision, the court determined that “sex” cannot be differentiated from sexual orientation. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, stated, “It is impossible… to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”² Title VII not only protects employees in hiring and firing practices but also protects against harassment and retaliation. Prior to this ruling, there were no federal antidiscrimination laws for LGBTQIA+ individuals, and only 22 states and the District of Columbia had laws in place that specified antidiscrimination protection for this community.³ Because of this landmark decision, Title VII now protects all employees in all states from discrimination, including due to an individual’s sexual orientation.

This is a huge victory in the battle for equality; however, the fight is not over. Justice Gorsuch stated, “We do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind…whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.”² This victory sets a new precedent and will continue to be further defined with more court cases as states and employers push back against these protections.

Continue to: A worrying shift in the Court...

A worrying shift in the Court

We have already started to see the repercussions of this ruling from Supreme Court justices themselves. Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented in the Obergefell v Hodges decision in 2015, which established the constitutional right for marriage equality, recently wrote a petition to have the Supreme Court reconsider that ruling. He wrote “Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss.”³ After the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court became decidedly more conservative with the appointment of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whose mentor was the late Justice Antonin Scalia, who also dissented in the 2015 case.

As we celebrate this huge win for equality in this June decision, we also must recognize that LGBTQIA+ rights are still at risk.

LGBTQIA+ patients at higher risk for litany of conditions

Even with the Bostock v Clayton County ruling, we must not forget that discrimination will continue to exist. As health care providers, we have a responsibility to advocate on behalf of our LGBTQIA+ colleagues and patients. According to the Healthy People 2020 survey, there are higher rates of obesity, tobacco dependence, and sexually transmitted infection, as well as lower adherence to cancer screening recommendations in the LGBTQIA+ community.⁴ These disparities are a result of systemic, legal, and social factors, including limited access to affirming and inclusive health care.⁵ The LGBTQIA+ community deserves better.

Take action

In the coming months and years, as the US Supreme Court hears more cases that will threaten the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, I challenge all clinicians to take action. Even the smallest of gestures, such as wearing a rainbow pin, can be transformative for our patients and within our communities.

• Advocate for your state to enact nondiscrimination laws protecting the LGBTQIA+ community. Find out if your state has a law.
• Support your LGBTQIA+ colleagues by establishing an employee support group.
• Educate yourself and your colleagues on LGBTQIA+ inclusive medical practices.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Of his many plans to expand insurance coverage, President-elect Joe Biden’s simplest strategy is lowering the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 60.

But the plan is sure to face long odds, even if the Democrats can snag control of the Senate in January by winning two runoff elections in Georgia.

roobcio/Thinkstock

Republicans, who fought the creation of Medicare in the 1960s and typically oppose expanding government entitlement programs, are not the biggest obstacle. Instead, the nation’s hospitals, a powerful political force, are poised to derail any effort. Hospitals fear adding millions of people to Medicare will cost them billions of dollars in revenue.

“Hospitals certainly are not going to be happy with it,” said Jonathan Oberlander, professor of health policy and management at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Medicare reimbursement rates for patients admitted to hospitals average half what commercial or employer-sponsored insurance plans pay.

“It will be a huge lift [in Congress] as the realities of lower Medicare reimbursement rates will activate some powerful interests against this,” said Josh Archambault, a senior fellow with the conservative Foundation for Government Accountability.

Biden, who turns 78 this month, said his plan will help Americans who retire early and those who are unemployed or can’t find jobs with health benefits.

“It reflects the reality that, even after the current crisis ends, older Americans are likely to find it difficult to secure jobs,” Biden wrote in April.

Lowering the Medicare eligibility age is popular. About 85% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans favor allowing those as young as 50 to buy into Medicare, according to a KFF tracking poll from January 2019. (KHN is an editorially independent program of KFF.)

Although opposition from the hospital industry is expected to be fierce, that is not the only obstacle to Biden’s plan.

Critics, especially Republicans on Capitol Hill, will point to the nation’s $3 trillion budget deficit as well as the dim outlook for the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. That fund is on track to reach insolvency in 2024. That means there won’t be enough money to fully pay hospitals and nursing homes for inpatient care for Medicare beneficiaries.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether expanding Medicare will fit on the Democrats’ crowded health agenda, which also includes dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, possibly rescuing the Affordable Care Act if the Supreme Court strikes down part or all of the law in a current case, expanding Obamacare subsidies and lowering drug costs.

Biden’s proposal is a nod to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which has advocated for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) government-run “Medicare for All” health system that would provide universal coverage. Biden opposed that effort, saying the nation could not afford it. He wanted to retain the private health insurance system, which covers 180 million people.

To expand coverage, Biden has proposed two major initiatives. In addition to the Medicare eligibility change, he wants Congress to approve a government-run health plan that people could buy into instead of purchasing coverage from insurance companies on their own or through the Obamacare marketplaces. Insurers helped beat back this “public option” initiative in 2009 during the congressional debate over the ACA.

The appeal of lowering Medicare eligibility to help those without insurance lies with leveraging a popular government program that has low administrative costs.

“It is hard to find a reform idea that is more popular than opening up Medicare” to people as young as 60, Oberlander said. He said early retirees would like the concept, as would employers, who could save on their health costs as workers gravitate to Medicare.

The eligibility age has been set at 65 since Medicare was created in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society reform package. It was designed to coincide with the age when people at that time qualified for Social Security. Today, people generally qualify for early, reduced Social Security benefits at age 62, though they have to wait until age 66 for full benefits.

While people can qualify on the basis of other criteria, such as having a disability or end-stage renal disease, 85% of the 57 million Medicare enrollees are in the program simply because they’re old enough.

Lowering the age to 60 could add as many as 23 million people to Medicare, according to an analysis by the consulting firm Avalere Health. It’s unclear, however, if everyone who would be eligible would sign up or if Biden would limit the expansion to the 1.7 million people in that age range who are uninsured and the 3.2 million who buy coverage on their own.

Avalere says 3.2 million people in that age group buy coverage on the individual market.

While the 60-to-65 group has the lowest uninsured rate (8%) among adults, it has the highest health costs and pays the highest rates for individual coverage, said Cristina Boccuti, director of health policy at West Health, a nonpartisan research group.

About 13 million of those between 60 and 65 have coverage through their employer, according to Avalere. While they would not have to drop coverage to join Medicare, they could possibly opt to also pay to join the federal program and use it as a wraparound for their existing coverage. Medicare might then pick up costs for some services that the consumers would have to shoulder out-of-pocket.

Some 4 million people between 60 and 65 are enrolled in Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for low-income people. Shifting them to Medicare would make that their primary health insurer, a move that would save states money since they split Medicaid costs with the federal government.

Chris Pope, a senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute, said getting health industry support, particularly from hospitals, will be vital for any health coverage expansion. “Hospitals are very aware about generous commercial rates being replaced by lower Medicare rates,” he said.

“Members of Congress, a lot of them are close to their hospitals and do not want to see them with a revenue hole,” he said.

President Barack Obama made a deal with the industry on the way to passing the ACA. In exchange for gaining millions of paying customers and lowering their uncompensated care by billions of dollars, the hospital industry agreed to give up future Medicare funds designed to help them cope with the uninsured. Showing the industry’s prowess on Capitol Hill, Congress has delayed those funding cuts for more than six years.

Jacob Hacker, a Yale University political scientist, noted that expanding Medicare would reduce the number of Americans who rely on employer-sponsored coverage. The pitfalls of the employer system were highlighted in 2020 as millions lost their jobs and workplace health coverage.

Even if they can win the two Georgia seats and take control of the Senate with the vice president breaking any ties, Democrats would be unlikely to pass major legislation without GOP support — unless they are willing to jettison the long-standing filibuster rule so they can pass most legislation with a simple 51-vote majority instead of 60 votes.

Hacker said that slim margin would make it difficult for Democrats to deal with many health issues all at once.

“Congress is not good at parallel processing,” Hacker said, referring to handling multiple priorities at the same time. “And the window is relatively short.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Matthew Lewin, MD, PhD, founder of the Center for Exploration and Travel Health at the California Academy of Sciences, was researching snakebite treatments in rural locations in preparation for an expedition to the Philippines in 2011.

The story of a renowned herpetologist from the academy, Joseph Slowinski, who was bitten by a highly venomous krait in Myanmar and couldn’t get to a hospital in time to save his life a decade earlier, weighed on the emergency room doctor.

“I concluded that I needed something small and compact and that doesn’t care what kind of snake,” Dr. Lewin said.

It didn’t exist. That set Dr. Lewin in pursuit of a modern snakebite drug, a journey that finds his Corte Madera, Calif., company, Ophirex, nearing a promising oral treatment that fits in a pocket; is stable, easy to use, and affordable; and treats the venom from many species. “That’s the holy grail of snakebite treatment,” he said.

His work has gotten a boost with multimillion-dollar grants from a British charity and the U.S. Army. If it works – and it has been shown to work extremely well in mice and pigs – it could save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Dr. Lewin and Ophirex are not alone in their quest. Snakebites kill nearly 140,000 people a year, overwhelmingly in impoverished rural areas of Asia and Africa without adequate medical infrastructure and knowledge to administer antivenom. Though just a few people die each year in the United States from snakebites, the problem has risen to the top of the list of global health concerns in recent years. Funding has soared, and other research groups have also done promising work on new treatments. Herpetologists say deforestation and climate change are increasing human-snake encounters by forcing snakes to move to new habitats.

Dr. Lewin’s research is centered on a drug called varespladib. The enzyme inhibitor has proven itself in in-vitro lab studies and has effectively saved mice and pigs dosed with venom.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin and his team have come across another potential use for the drug. Varespladib has a positive effect on acute respiratory distress syndrome, associated with COVID-19. Next year, Ophirex will conduct human trials for the possible treatment of the condition funded with $9.9 million from the Army.

The link to a snakebite? The inflammation of the lungs caused by the coronavirus produces the sPLA2 enzyme. A more deadly version of the same enzyme is produced by snake venom.

The other companies that have come up with promising approaches to snakebite aren’t as far along as Ophirex. At the University of California-Irvine, chemist Ken Shea and his team created a nanogel – a kind of polymer used in medical applications – that blocks key proteins in the venom that cause cell destruction. At the Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Andreas Laustsen is looking at engineering bacteria to manufacture anti-venom in fermentation tanks.

The days of incising a snakebite and sucking out the poison are long over, but the current treatment for venomous snakebites remains archaic.

Since the early 1900s, antivenom has been made by injecting horses or other animals with venom milked from snakes and diluted. The animals’ immune systems generate antibodies over several months, and blood plasma is taken from the animals and antibodies extracted from it.

It’s extremely expensive. Hospitals in the United States can charge as much as $15,000 a vial – and a single snakebite might require anywhere from 4 to 50 vials. Moreover, antivenom exists for little more than half the world’s species of venomous snakes.

A major problem is the roughly 2 hours it takes on average for a snakebite victim to reach a hospital and begin treatment. The chemical weapon that is venom starts immediately to destroy cells as it digests its next meal, making fast treatment essential to saving lives and preventing tissue loss.

“The two-hour window between fang and needle is where the most damage occurs,” said Leslie Boyer, director of the University of Arizona’s Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute. “We have a saying, ‘Time is tissue.’ ”

That’s why the search for a new snakebite drug has focused on an inexpensive treatment that can be taken into the field. Dr. Lewin’s drug wouldn’t replace antivenom. Instead, he thinks of it as the first line of defense until the victim can reach a hospital for antivenom treatment.

Dr. Lewin said he expects the drug to be inexpensive, so people in regions where snakebites are common can afford it.

Venom is extremely complicated chemically, and Dr. Lewin began his search by sussing out which of its myriad components to block. He zeroed in on the sPLA2 enzyme.

Surveying the literature about drugs that had been clinically tested for other conditions, he came across varespladib. It had been developed jointly by Eli Lilly and Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, as a possible treatment for sepsis. They had never taken it to market.

If it worked, Dr. Lewin could license the right to produce the drug, which had already been thoroughly studied and was shown to be safe.

He placed venom in an array of test tubes. Varespladib and other drugs were added to the venom. He then added a reagent. If the venom was still active, the solution would turn yellow; if it was neutralized, it would remain clear.

The vials with varespladib “came up completely blank,” he said. “It was so stunning I said, ‘I must have made a mistake.’ ”

With a small grant, he sent the drug to the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery and found that varespladib effectively neutralized the venom of snakes found on six continents. The results were published in the journal Toxins and sent ripples through the small community of snakebite researchers.

Dr. Lewin then conducted tests on mice and pigs. Both were successful.

Human clinical trials are next, but they have been delayed by the pandemic. They are scheduled to get underway next spring.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin was fortunate enough to make some good connections that led to funding. In 2012, he attended a party at the Mill Valley, Calif., home of Jerry Harrison, the former guitarist and keyboardist for Talking Heads. Mr. Harrison had long been interested in business and start-ups – he said he was the most careful reader of the ’80s band’s contracts – and at the party he asked “if anyone had any ideas lying fallow,” Mr. Harrison said.

“And Matt pipes up and says, ‘I have this idea how to prevent people from dying from snakebites,’ ” Mr. Harrison said.

The musician said he was a bit taken aback by such an unusual and dire problem, but “I thought if it can save lives we have to do it,” he said. He became an investor and cofounder of Ophirex with Dr. Lewin.

Dr. Lewin met Lt. Col. Rebecca Carter, a biochemist who was assigned to lead the Medical Modernization Division of Air Force Special Operations Command, in 2016 when she attended a Venom Week conference in Greenville, N.C. He was presenting the results of his mouse studies. She told him about her first mission: to find a universal antivenom for medics on special operations teams in Africa. She persuaded the Special Operations Command Biomedical Research Advisory Group, which specializes in getting critical projects to production, to grant Ophirex $148,000 in 2017. She later retired from the Air Force and now works for Ophirex as vice president.

More multimillion-dollar grants followed, including the Army’s COVID grant. Clinical trials are scheduled to begin this winter.

Despite the progress and the sudden cash flow, Dr. Lewin tamps down talk of a universal snakebite cure. “There’s enough evidence to say the drug deserves to have its day in clinical trials,” he said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Matthew Lewin, MD, PhD, founder of the Center for Exploration and Travel Health at the California Academy of Sciences, was researching snakebite treatments in rural locations in preparation for an expedition to the Philippines in 2011.

The story of a renowned herpetologist from the academy, Joseph Slowinski, who was bitten by a highly venomous krait in Myanmar and couldn’t get to a hospital in time to save his life a decade earlier, weighed on the emergency room doctor.

“I concluded that I needed something small and compact and that doesn’t care what kind of snake,” Dr. Lewin said.

It didn’t exist. That set Dr. Lewin in pursuit of a modern snakebite drug, a journey that finds his Corte Madera, Calif., company, Ophirex, nearing a promising oral treatment that fits in a pocket; is stable, easy to use, and affordable; and treats the venom from many species. “That’s the holy grail of snakebite treatment,” he said.

His work has gotten a boost with multimillion-dollar grants from a British charity and the U.S. Army. If it works – and it has been shown to work extremely well in mice and pigs – it could save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Dr. Lewin and Ophirex are not alone in their quest. Snakebites kill nearly 140,000 people a year, overwhelmingly in impoverished rural areas of Asia and Africa without adequate medical infrastructure and knowledge to administer antivenom. Though just a few people die each year in the United States from snakebites, the problem has risen to the top of the list of global health concerns in recent years. Funding has soared, and other research groups have also done promising work on new treatments. Herpetologists say deforestation and climate change are increasing human-snake encounters by forcing snakes to move to new habitats.

Dr. Lewin’s research is centered on a drug called varespladib. The enzyme inhibitor has proven itself in in-vitro lab studies and has effectively saved mice and pigs dosed with venom.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin and his team have come across another potential use for the drug. Varespladib has a positive effect on acute respiratory distress syndrome, associated with COVID-19. Next year, Ophirex will conduct human trials for the possible treatment of the condition funded with $9.9 million from the Army.

The link to a snakebite? The inflammation of the lungs caused by the coronavirus produces the sPLA2 enzyme. A more deadly version of the same enzyme is produced by snake venom.

The other companies that have come up with promising approaches to snakebite aren’t as far along as Ophirex. At the University of California-Irvine, chemist Ken Shea and his team created a nanogel – a kind of polymer used in medical applications – that blocks key proteins in the venom that cause cell destruction. At the Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Andreas Laustsen is looking at engineering bacteria to manufacture anti-venom in fermentation tanks.

The days of incising a snakebite and sucking out the poison are long over, but the current treatment for venomous snakebites remains archaic.

Since the early 1900s, antivenom has been made by injecting horses or other animals with venom milked from snakes and diluted. The animals’ immune systems generate antibodies over several months, and blood plasma is taken from the animals and antibodies extracted from it.

It’s extremely expensive. Hospitals in the United States can charge as much as $15,000 a vial – and a single snakebite might require anywhere from 4 to 50 vials. Moreover, antivenom exists for little more than half the world’s species of venomous snakes.

A major problem is the roughly 2 hours it takes on average for a snakebite victim to reach a hospital and begin treatment. The chemical weapon that is venom starts immediately to destroy cells as it digests its next meal, making fast treatment essential to saving lives and preventing tissue loss.

“The two-hour window between fang and needle is where the most damage occurs,” said Leslie Boyer, director of the University of Arizona’s Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute. “We have a saying, ‘Time is tissue.’ ”

That’s why the search for a new snakebite drug has focused on an inexpensive treatment that can be taken into the field. Dr. Lewin’s drug wouldn’t replace antivenom. Instead, he thinks of it as the first line of defense until the victim can reach a hospital for antivenom treatment.

Dr. Lewin said he expects the drug to be inexpensive, so people in regions where snakebites are common can afford it.

Venom is extremely complicated chemically, and Dr. Lewin began his search by sussing out which of its myriad components to block. He zeroed in on the sPLA2 enzyme.

Surveying the literature about drugs that had been clinically tested for other conditions, he came across varespladib. It had been developed jointly by Eli Lilly and Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, as a possible treatment for sepsis. They had never taken it to market.

If it worked, Dr. Lewin could license the right to produce the drug, which had already been thoroughly studied and was shown to be safe.

He placed venom in an array of test tubes. Varespladib and other drugs were added to the venom. He then added a reagent. If the venom was still active, the solution would turn yellow; if it was neutralized, it would remain clear.

The vials with varespladib “came up completely blank,” he said. “It was so stunning I said, ‘I must have made a mistake.’ ”

With a small grant, he sent the drug to the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery and found that varespladib effectively neutralized the venom of snakes found on six continents. The results were published in the journal Toxins and sent ripples through the small community of snakebite researchers.

Dr. Lewin then conducted tests on mice and pigs. Both were successful.

Human clinical trials are next, but they have been delayed by the pandemic. They are scheduled to get underway next spring.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin was fortunate enough to make some good connections that led to funding. In 2012, he attended a party at the Mill Valley, Calif., home of Jerry Harrison, the former guitarist and keyboardist for Talking Heads. Mr. Harrison had long been interested in business and start-ups – he said he was the most careful reader of the ’80s band’s contracts – and at the party he asked “if anyone had any ideas lying fallow,” Mr. Harrison said.

“And Matt pipes up and says, ‘I have this idea how to prevent people from dying from snakebites,’ ” Mr. Harrison said.

The musician said he was a bit taken aback by such an unusual and dire problem, but “I thought if it can save lives we have to do it,” he said. He became an investor and cofounder of Ophirex with Dr. Lewin.

Dr. Lewin met Lt. Col. Rebecca Carter, a biochemist who was assigned to lead the Medical Modernization Division of Air Force Special Operations Command, in 2016 when she attended a Venom Week conference in Greenville, N.C. He was presenting the results of his mouse studies. She told him about her first mission: to find a universal antivenom for medics on special operations teams in Africa. She persuaded the Special Operations Command Biomedical Research Advisory Group, which specializes in getting critical projects to production, to grant Ophirex $148,000 in 2017. She later retired from the Air Force and now works for Ophirex as vice president.

More multimillion-dollar grants followed, including the Army’s COVID grant. Clinical trials are scheduled to begin this winter.

Despite the progress and the sudden cash flow, Dr. Lewin tamps down talk of a universal snakebite cure. “There’s enough evidence to say the drug deserves to have its day in clinical trials,” he said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Matthew Lewin, MD, PhD, founder of the Center for Exploration and Travel Health at the California Academy of Sciences, was researching snakebite treatments in rural locations in preparation for an expedition to the Philippines in 2011.

The story of a renowned herpetologist from the academy, Joseph Slowinski, who was bitten by a highly venomous krait in Myanmar and couldn’t get to a hospital in time to save his life a decade earlier, weighed on the emergency room doctor.

“I concluded that I needed something small and compact and that doesn’t care what kind of snake,” Dr. Lewin said.

It didn’t exist. That set Dr. Lewin in pursuit of a modern snakebite drug, a journey that finds his Corte Madera, Calif., company, Ophirex, nearing a promising oral treatment that fits in a pocket; is stable, easy to use, and affordable; and treats the venom from many species. “That’s the holy grail of snakebite treatment,” he said.

His work has gotten a boost with multimillion-dollar grants from a British charity and the U.S. Army. If it works – and it has been shown to work extremely well in mice and pigs – it could save tens of thousands of lives a year.

Dr. Lewin and Ophirex are not alone in their quest. Snakebites kill nearly 140,000 people a year, overwhelmingly in impoverished rural areas of Asia and Africa without adequate medical infrastructure and knowledge to administer antivenom. Though just a few people die each year in the United States from snakebites, the problem has risen to the top of the list of global health concerns in recent years. Funding has soared, and other research groups have also done promising work on new treatments. Herpetologists say deforestation and climate change are increasing human-snake encounters by forcing snakes to move to new habitats.

Dr. Lewin’s research is centered on a drug called varespladib. The enzyme inhibitor has proven itself in in-vitro lab studies and has effectively saved mice and pigs dosed with venom.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin and his team have come across another potential use for the drug. Varespladib has a positive effect on acute respiratory distress syndrome, associated with COVID-19. Next year, Ophirex will conduct human trials for the possible treatment of the condition funded with $9.9 million from the Army.

The link to a snakebite? The inflammation of the lungs caused by the coronavirus produces the sPLA2 enzyme. A more deadly version of the same enzyme is produced by snake venom.

The other companies that have come up with promising approaches to snakebite aren’t as far along as Ophirex. At the University of California-Irvine, chemist Ken Shea and his team created a nanogel – a kind of polymer used in medical applications – that blocks key proteins in the venom that cause cell destruction. At the Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Andreas Laustsen is looking at engineering bacteria to manufacture anti-venom in fermentation tanks.

The days of incising a snakebite and sucking out the poison are long over, but the current treatment for venomous snakebites remains archaic.

Since the early 1900s, antivenom has been made by injecting horses or other animals with venom milked from snakes and diluted. The animals’ immune systems generate antibodies over several months, and blood plasma is taken from the animals and antibodies extracted from it.

It’s extremely expensive. Hospitals in the United States can charge as much as $15,000 a vial – and a single snakebite might require anywhere from 4 to 50 vials. Moreover, antivenom exists for little more than half the world’s species of venomous snakes.

A major problem is the roughly 2 hours it takes on average for a snakebite victim to reach a hospital and begin treatment. The chemical weapon that is venom starts immediately to destroy cells as it digests its next meal, making fast treatment essential to saving lives and preventing tissue loss.

“The two-hour window between fang and needle is where the most damage occurs,” said Leslie Boyer, director of the University of Arizona’s Venom Immunochemistry, Pharmacology and Emergency Response (VIPER) Institute. “We have a saying, ‘Time is tissue.’ ”

That’s why the search for a new snakebite drug has focused on an inexpensive treatment that can be taken into the field. Dr. Lewin’s drug wouldn’t replace antivenom. Instead, he thinks of it as the first line of defense until the victim can reach a hospital for antivenom treatment.

Dr. Lewin said he expects the drug to be inexpensive, so people in regions where snakebites are common can afford it.

Venom is extremely complicated chemically, and Dr. Lewin began his search by sussing out which of its myriad components to block. He zeroed in on the sPLA2 enzyme.

Surveying the literature about drugs that had been clinically tested for other conditions, he came across varespladib. It had been developed jointly by Eli Lilly and Shionogi, a Japanese pharmaceutical company, as a possible treatment for sepsis. They had never taken it to market.

If it worked, Dr. Lewin could license the right to produce the drug, which had already been thoroughly studied and was shown to be safe.

He placed venom in an array of test tubes. Varespladib and other drugs were added to the venom. He then added a reagent. If the venom was still active, the solution would turn yellow; if it was neutralized, it would remain clear.

The vials with varespladib “came up completely blank,” he said. “It was so stunning I said, ‘I must have made a mistake.’ ”

With a small grant, he sent the drug to the Yale Center for Molecular Discovery and found that varespladib effectively neutralized the venom of snakes found on six continents. The results were published in the journal Toxins and sent ripples through the small community of snakebite researchers.

Dr. Lewin then conducted tests on mice and pigs. Both were successful.

Human clinical trials are next, but they have been delayed by the pandemic. They are scheduled to get underway next spring.

Along the way, Dr. Lewin was fortunate enough to make some good connections that led to funding. In 2012, he attended a party at the Mill Valley, Calif., home of Jerry Harrison, the former guitarist and keyboardist for Talking Heads. Mr. Harrison had long been interested in business and start-ups – he said he was the most careful reader of the ’80s band’s contracts – and at the party he asked “if anyone had any ideas lying fallow,” Mr. Harrison said.

“And Matt pipes up and says, ‘I have this idea how to prevent people from dying from snakebites,’ ” Mr. Harrison said.

The musician said he was a bit taken aback by such an unusual and dire problem, but “I thought if it can save lives we have to do it,” he said. He became an investor and cofounder of Ophirex with Dr. Lewin.

Dr. Lewin met Lt. Col. Rebecca Carter, a biochemist who was assigned to lead the Medical Modernization Division of Air Force Special Operations Command, in 2016 when she attended a Venom Week conference in Greenville, N.C. He was presenting the results of his mouse studies. She told him about her first mission: to find a universal antivenom for medics on special operations teams in Africa. She persuaded the Special Operations Command Biomedical Research Advisory Group, which specializes in getting critical projects to production, to grant Ophirex $148,000 in 2017. She later retired from the Air Force and now works for Ophirex as vice president.

More multimillion-dollar grants followed, including the Army’s COVID grant. Clinical trials are scheduled to begin this winter.

Despite the progress and the sudden cash flow, Dr. Lewin tamps down talk of a universal snakebite cure. “There’s enough evidence to say the drug deserves to have its day in clinical trials,” he said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.