Pediatric News

For pregnant women, just half a cup of coffee a day may reduce neonatal birth size and body weight, according to a prospective study involving more than 2,500 women.

kjekol/thinkstock

That’s only 50 mg of a caffeine day, which falls below the upper threshold of 200 mg set by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, lead author Jessica Gleason, PhD, MPH, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md, and colleagues reported.

“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that maternal caffeine consumption, even in doses lower than 200 mg, is associated with a higher risk for low birth weight, small for gestational age (SGA), and fetal growth restriction, suggesting there may be no safe amount of caffeine during pregnancy,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Findings to date have been inconsistent, with a 2014 meta-analysis reporting contrary or null results in four out of nine studies.

Dr. Gleason and colleagues suggested that such discrepancies may be caused by uncontrolled confounding factors in some of the studies, such as smoking, as well as the inadequacy of self-reporting, which fails to incorporate variations in caffeine content between beverages, or differences in rates of metabolism between individuals.

“To our knowledge, no studies have examined the association between caffeine intake and neonatal anthropometric measures beyond weight, length, and head circumference, and few have analyzed plasma concentrations of caffeine and its metabolites or genetic variations in the rate of metabolism associated with neonatal size,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Gleason and colleagues set out to address this knowledge gap with a prospective cohort study, including 2,055 nonsmoking women with low risk of birth defects who presented at 12 centers between 2009 and 2013. Mean participant age was 28.3 years and mean body mass index was 23.6. Races and ethnicities were represented almost evenly even across four groups: Hispanic (28.2%), White (27.4%), Black (25.2%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (19.2%). Rate of caffeine metabolism was defined by the single-nucleotide variant rs762551 (CYP1A2*1F), according to which, slightly more women had slow metabolism (52.7%) than fast metabolism (47.3%).

Women were enrolled at 8-13 weeks’ gestational age, at which time they underwent interviews and blood draws, allowing for measurement of caffeine and paraxanthine plasma levels, as well as self-reported caffeine consumption during the preceding week.

Over the course of six visits, fetal growth was observed via ultrasound. Medical records were used to determine birth weights and neonatal anthropometric measures, including fat and skin fold mass, body length, and circumferences of the thigh, arm, abdomen, and head.

Neonatal measurements were compared with plasma levels of caffeine and paraxanthine, both continuously and as quartiles (Q1, ≤ 28.3 ng/mL; Q2, 28.4-157.1 ng/mL; Q3, 157.2-658.8 ng/mL; Q4, > 658.8 ng/mL). Comparisons were also made with self-reported caffeine intake.

Women who reported drinking 1-50 mg of caffeine per day had neonates with smaller subscapular skin folds (beta = –0.14 mm; 95% confidence interval, –0.27 to -–0.01 mm), while those who reported more than 50 mg per day had newborns with lower birth weight (beta = –66 g; 95% CI, –121 to –10 g), and smaller circumferences of mid-upper thigh (beta = –0.32 cm; 95% CI, –0.55 to –0.09 cm), anterior thigh skin fold (beta = –0.24 mm; 95% CI, –0.47 to -.01 mm), and mid-upper arm (beta = –0.17 cm; 95% CI, –0.31 to –0.02 cm).

Caffeine plasma concentrations supported these findings.

Compared with women who had caffeine plasma concentrations in the lowest quartile, those in the highest quartile gave birth to neonates with shorter length (beta = –0.44 cm; P = .04 for trend) and lower body weight (beta = –84.3 g; P = .04 for trend), as well as smaller mid-upper arm circumference (beta = -0.25 cm; P = .02 for trend), mid-upper thigh circumference (beta = –0.29 cm; P = .07 for trend), and head circumference (beta = –0.28 cm; P < .001 for trend). A comparison of lower and upper paraxanthine quartiles revealed the similar trends, as did analyses of continuous measures.

“Our results suggest that caffeine consumption during pregnancy, even at levels much lower than the recommended 200 mg per day of caffeine may be associated with decreased fetal growth,” the investigators concluded.

Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, suggested that the findings “do not demonstrate that caffeine has a clinically meaningful negative clinical impact on newborn size and weight.”

She noted that there was no difference in the rate of SGA between plasma caffeine quartiles, and that most patients were thin, which may not accurately represent the U.S. population.

“Based on these new data, my take home message to patients would be that increasing amounts of caffeine can have a small but real impact on the size of their baby at birth, though it is unlikely to result in a diagnosis of SGA,” she said. “Pregnant patients may want to limit caffeine intake even more than the ACOG recommendation of 200 mg per day.”

According to Robert M. Silver, MD, of the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, “data from this study are of high quality, owing to the prospective cohort design, large numbers, assessment of biomarkers, and sophisticated analyses.”

Still, he urged a cautious interpretation from a clinical perspective.

“It is important to not overreact to these data,” he said. “The decrease in fetal growth associated with caffeine is small and may prove to be clinically meaningless. Accordingly, clinical recommendations regarding caffeine intake during pregnancy should not be modified solely based on this study.”

Dr. Silver suggested that the findings deserve additional investigation.

“These observations warrant further research about the effects of caffeine exposure during pregnancy,” he said. “Ideally, studies should assess the effect of caffeine exposure on fetal growth in various pregnancy epochs as well as on neonatal and childhood growth.”

The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the NICHD. Dr. Gerlanc is an employee of The Prospective Group, which was contracted to provide statistical support.

For pregnant women, just half a cup of coffee a day may reduce neonatal birth size and body weight, according to a prospective study involving more than 2,500 women.

kjekol/thinkstock

That’s only 50 mg of a caffeine day, which falls below the upper threshold of 200 mg set by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, lead author Jessica Gleason, PhD, MPH, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md, and colleagues reported.

“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that maternal caffeine consumption, even in doses lower than 200 mg, is associated with a higher risk for low birth weight, small for gestational age (SGA), and fetal growth restriction, suggesting there may be no safe amount of caffeine during pregnancy,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Findings to date have been inconsistent, with a 2014 meta-analysis reporting contrary or null results in four out of nine studies.

Dr. Gleason and colleagues suggested that such discrepancies may be caused by uncontrolled confounding factors in some of the studies, such as smoking, as well as the inadequacy of self-reporting, which fails to incorporate variations in caffeine content between beverages, or differences in rates of metabolism between individuals.

“To our knowledge, no studies have examined the association between caffeine intake and neonatal anthropometric measures beyond weight, length, and head circumference, and few have analyzed plasma concentrations of caffeine and its metabolites or genetic variations in the rate of metabolism associated with neonatal size,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Gleason and colleagues set out to address this knowledge gap with a prospective cohort study, including 2,055 nonsmoking women with low risk of birth defects who presented at 12 centers between 2009 and 2013. Mean participant age was 28.3 years and mean body mass index was 23.6. Races and ethnicities were represented almost evenly even across four groups: Hispanic (28.2%), White (27.4%), Black (25.2%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (19.2%). Rate of caffeine metabolism was defined by the single-nucleotide variant rs762551 (CYP1A2*1F), according to which, slightly more women had slow metabolism (52.7%) than fast metabolism (47.3%).

Women were enrolled at 8-13 weeks’ gestational age, at which time they underwent interviews and blood draws, allowing for measurement of caffeine and paraxanthine plasma levels, as well as self-reported caffeine consumption during the preceding week.

Over the course of six visits, fetal growth was observed via ultrasound. Medical records were used to determine birth weights and neonatal anthropometric measures, including fat and skin fold mass, body length, and circumferences of the thigh, arm, abdomen, and head.

Neonatal measurements were compared with plasma levels of caffeine and paraxanthine, both continuously and as quartiles (Q1, ≤ 28.3 ng/mL; Q2, 28.4-157.1 ng/mL; Q3, 157.2-658.8 ng/mL; Q4, > 658.8 ng/mL). Comparisons were also made with self-reported caffeine intake.

Women who reported drinking 1-50 mg of caffeine per day had neonates with smaller subscapular skin folds (beta = –0.14 mm; 95% confidence interval, –0.27 to -–0.01 mm), while those who reported more than 50 mg per day had newborns with lower birth weight (beta = –66 g; 95% CI, –121 to –10 g), and smaller circumferences of mid-upper thigh (beta = –0.32 cm; 95% CI, –0.55 to –0.09 cm), anterior thigh skin fold (beta = –0.24 mm; 95% CI, –0.47 to -.01 mm), and mid-upper arm (beta = –0.17 cm; 95% CI, –0.31 to –0.02 cm).

Caffeine plasma concentrations supported these findings.

Compared with women who had caffeine plasma concentrations in the lowest quartile, those in the highest quartile gave birth to neonates with shorter length (beta = –0.44 cm; P = .04 for trend) and lower body weight (beta = –84.3 g; P = .04 for trend), as well as smaller mid-upper arm circumference (beta = -0.25 cm; P = .02 for trend), mid-upper thigh circumference (beta = –0.29 cm; P = .07 for trend), and head circumference (beta = –0.28 cm; P < .001 for trend). A comparison of lower and upper paraxanthine quartiles revealed the similar trends, as did analyses of continuous measures.

“Our results suggest that caffeine consumption during pregnancy, even at levels much lower than the recommended 200 mg per day of caffeine may be associated with decreased fetal growth,” the investigators concluded.

Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, suggested that the findings “do not demonstrate that caffeine has a clinically meaningful negative clinical impact on newborn size and weight.”

She noted that there was no difference in the rate of SGA between plasma caffeine quartiles, and that most patients were thin, which may not accurately represent the U.S. population.

“Based on these new data, my take home message to patients would be that increasing amounts of caffeine can have a small but real impact on the size of their baby at birth, though it is unlikely to result in a diagnosis of SGA,” she said. “Pregnant patients may want to limit caffeine intake even more than the ACOG recommendation of 200 mg per day.”

According to Robert M. Silver, MD, of the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, “data from this study are of high quality, owing to the prospective cohort design, large numbers, assessment of biomarkers, and sophisticated analyses.”

Still, he urged a cautious interpretation from a clinical perspective.

“It is important to not overreact to these data,” he said. “The decrease in fetal growth associated with caffeine is small and may prove to be clinically meaningless. Accordingly, clinical recommendations regarding caffeine intake during pregnancy should not be modified solely based on this study.”

Dr. Silver suggested that the findings deserve additional investigation.

“These observations warrant further research about the effects of caffeine exposure during pregnancy,” he said. “Ideally, studies should assess the effect of caffeine exposure on fetal growth in various pregnancy epochs as well as on neonatal and childhood growth.”

The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the NICHD. Dr. Gerlanc is an employee of The Prospective Group, which was contracted to provide statistical support.

For pregnant women, just half a cup of coffee a day may reduce neonatal birth size and body weight, according to a prospective study involving more than 2,500 women.

kjekol/thinkstock

That’s only 50 mg of a caffeine day, which falls below the upper threshold of 200 mg set by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, lead author Jessica Gleason, PhD, MPH, of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md, and colleagues reported.

“Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported that maternal caffeine consumption, even in doses lower than 200 mg, is associated with a higher risk for low birth weight, small for gestational age (SGA), and fetal growth restriction, suggesting there may be no safe amount of caffeine during pregnancy,” the investigators wrote in JAMA Network Open.

Findings to date have been inconsistent, with a 2014 meta-analysis reporting contrary or null results in four out of nine studies.

Dr. Gleason and colleagues suggested that such discrepancies may be caused by uncontrolled confounding factors in some of the studies, such as smoking, as well as the inadequacy of self-reporting, which fails to incorporate variations in caffeine content between beverages, or differences in rates of metabolism between individuals.

“To our knowledge, no studies have examined the association between caffeine intake and neonatal anthropometric measures beyond weight, length, and head circumference, and few have analyzed plasma concentrations of caffeine and its metabolites or genetic variations in the rate of metabolism associated with neonatal size,” the investigators wrote.

Dr. Gleason and colleagues set out to address this knowledge gap with a prospective cohort study, including 2,055 nonsmoking women with low risk of birth defects who presented at 12 centers between 2009 and 2013. Mean participant age was 28.3 years and mean body mass index was 23.6. Races and ethnicities were represented almost evenly even across four groups: Hispanic (28.2%), White (27.4%), Black (25.2%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (19.2%). Rate of caffeine metabolism was defined by the single-nucleotide variant rs762551 (CYP1A2*1F), according to which, slightly more women had slow metabolism (52.7%) than fast metabolism (47.3%).

Women were enrolled at 8-13 weeks’ gestational age, at which time they underwent interviews and blood draws, allowing for measurement of caffeine and paraxanthine plasma levels, as well as self-reported caffeine consumption during the preceding week.

Over the course of six visits, fetal growth was observed via ultrasound. Medical records were used to determine birth weights and neonatal anthropometric measures, including fat and skin fold mass, body length, and circumferences of the thigh, arm, abdomen, and head.

Neonatal measurements were compared with plasma levels of caffeine and paraxanthine, both continuously and as quartiles (Q1, ≤ 28.3 ng/mL; Q2, 28.4-157.1 ng/mL; Q3, 157.2-658.8 ng/mL; Q4, > 658.8 ng/mL). Comparisons were also made with self-reported caffeine intake.

Women who reported drinking 1-50 mg of caffeine per day had neonates with smaller subscapular skin folds (beta = –0.14 mm; 95% confidence interval, –0.27 to -–0.01 mm), while those who reported more than 50 mg per day had newborns with lower birth weight (beta = –66 g; 95% CI, –121 to –10 g), and smaller circumferences of mid-upper thigh (beta = –0.32 cm; 95% CI, –0.55 to –0.09 cm), anterior thigh skin fold (beta = –0.24 mm; 95% CI, –0.47 to -.01 mm), and mid-upper arm (beta = –0.17 cm; 95% CI, –0.31 to –0.02 cm).

Caffeine plasma concentrations supported these findings.

Compared with women who had caffeine plasma concentrations in the lowest quartile, those in the highest quartile gave birth to neonates with shorter length (beta = –0.44 cm; P = .04 for trend) and lower body weight (beta = –84.3 g; P = .04 for trend), as well as smaller mid-upper arm circumference (beta = -0.25 cm; P = .02 for trend), mid-upper thigh circumference (beta = –0.29 cm; P = .07 for trend), and head circumference (beta = –0.28 cm; P < .001 for trend). A comparison of lower and upper paraxanthine quartiles revealed the similar trends, as did analyses of continuous measures.

“Our results suggest that caffeine consumption during pregnancy, even at levels much lower than the recommended 200 mg per day of caffeine may be associated with decreased fetal growth,” the investigators concluded.

Sarah W. Prager, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, suggested that the findings “do not demonstrate that caffeine has a clinically meaningful negative clinical impact on newborn size and weight.”

She noted that there was no difference in the rate of SGA between plasma caffeine quartiles, and that most patients were thin, which may not accurately represent the U.S. population.

“Based on these new data, my take home message to patients would be that increasing amounts of caffeine can have a small but real impact on the size of their baby at birth, though it is unlikely to result in a diagnosis of SGA,” she said. “Pregnant patients may want to limit caffeine intake even more than the ACOG recommendation of 200 mg per day.”

According to Robert M. Silver, MD, of the University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, “data from this study are of high quality, owing to the prospective cohort design, large numbers, assessment of biomarkers, and sophisticated analyses.”

Still, he urged a cautious interpretation from a clinical perspective.

“It is important to not overreact to these data,” he said. “The decrease in fetal growth associated with caffeine is small and may prove to be clinically meaningless. Accordingly, clinical recommendations regarding caffeine intake during pregnancy should not be modified solely based on this study.”

Dr. Silver suggested that the findings deserve additional investigation.

“These observations warrant further research about the effects of caffeine exposure during pregnancy,” he said. “Ideally, studies should assess the effect of caffeine exposure on fetal growth in various pregnancy epochs as well as on neonatal and childhood growth.”

The study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the NICHD. Dr. Gerlanc is an employee of The Prospective Group, which was contracted to provide statistical support.

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Americans gained nearly 2 pounds per month under COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders in 2020, according to a new study published March 22, 2021, in JAMA Network Open.

Those who kept the same lockdown habits could have gained 20 pounds during the past year, the study authors said.

“We know that weight gain is a public health problem in the U.S. already, so anything making it worse is definitely concerning, and shelter-in-place orders are so ubiquitous that the sheer number of people affected by this makes it extremely relevant,” Gregory Marcus, MD, the senior author and a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, told the New York Times.

Dr. Marcus and colleagues analyzed more than 7,000 weight measurements from 269 people in 37 states who used Bluetooth-connected scales from Feb. 1 to June 1, 2020. Among the participants, about 52% were women, 77% were White, and they had an average age of 52 years.

The research team found that participants had a steady weight gain of more than half a pound every 10 days. That equals about 1.5-2 pounds per month.

Many of the participants were losing weight before the shelter-in-place orders went into effect, Dr. Marcus said. The lockdown effects could be even greater for those who weren’t losing weight before.

“It’s reasonable to assume these individuals are more engaged with their health in general, and more disciplined and on top of things,” he said. “That suggests we could be underestimating – that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

The small study doesn’t represent all of the nation and can’t be generalized to the U.S. population, the study authors noted, but it’s an indicator of what happened during the pandemic. The participants’ weight increased regardless of their location and chronic medical conditions.

Overall, people don’t move around as much during lockdowns, the UCSF researchers reported in another study published in Annals of Internal Medicine in November 2020. According to smartphone data, daily step counts decreased by 27% in March 2020. The step counts increased again throughout the summer but still remained lower than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The detrimental health outcomes suggested by these data demonstrate a need to identify concurrent strategies to mitigate weight gain,” the authors wrote in the JAMA Network Open study, “such as encouraging healthy diets and exploring ways to enhance physical activity, as local governments consider new constraints in response to SARS-CoV-2 and potential future pandemics.”

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of vitamin D than traditionally considered sufficient may help prevent COVID-19 infection – particularly in Black patients, shows a new single-center, retrospective study looking at the role of vitamin D in prevention of infection.

The study, published recently in JAMA Network Open, noted that expert opinion varies as to what “sufficient” levels of vitamin D are, some define this as 30 ng/mL, while others cite 40 ng/mL or greater.

In their discussion, the authors also noted that their results showed the “risk of positive COVID-19 test results decreased significantly with increased vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or greater when measured as a continuous variable.”

“These new results tell us that having vitamin D levels above those normally considered sufficient is associated with decreased risk of testing positive for COVID-19, at least in Black individuals,” lead author, David Meltzer, MD, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, said in a press release from his institution.

“These findings suggest that randomized clinical trials to determine whether increasing vitamin D levels to greater than 30-40 ng/mL affect COVID-19 risk are warranted, especially in Black individuals,” he and his coauthors said.
 

Vitamin D at time of testing most strongly associated with COVID risk

An earlier study by the same researchers found that vitamin D deficiency (less than 20 ng/mL) may raise the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in people from various ethnicities, as reported by this news organization.

Data for this latest study were drawn from electronic health records for 4,638 individuals at the University of Chicago Medicine and were used to examine whether the likelihood of a positive COVID-19 test was associated with a person’s most recent vitamin D level (within the previous year), and whether there was any effect of ethnicity on this outcome.

Mean age was 52.8 years, 69% were women, 49% were Black, 43% White, and 8% were another race/ethnicity. A total of 27% of the individuals were deficient in vitamin D (less than 20 ng/mL), 27% had insufficient levels (20-30 ng/mL), 22% had sufficient levels (30-40 ng/mL), and the remaining 24% had levels of 40 ng/mL or greater.

In total, 333 (7%) of people tested positive for COVID-19, including 102 (5%) Whites and 211 (9%) Blacks. And 36% of Black individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 were classified as vitamin D deficient, compared with 16% of Whites.

A positive test result for COVID-19 was not significantly associated with vitamin D levels in white individuals but was in Black individuals.

In Black people, compared with levels of at least 40 ng/mL, vitamin D levels of 30-40 ng/mL were associated with an incidence rate ratio of 2.64 for COVID-19 positivity (P = .01). For levels of 20-30 ng/mL, the IRR was 1.69 (P = 0.21); and for less than 20 ng/mL the IRR was 2.55 (P = .009).

The researchers also found that the risk of positive test results with lower vitamin D levels increased when those levels were lower just prior to the positive COVID-19 test, lending “support [to] the idea that vitamin D level at the time of testing is most strongly associated with COVID-19 risk,” they wrote.
 

Try upping vitamin D levels to 40 ng/mL or greater to prevent COVID?

In their discussion, the authors noted that significant association of vitamin D levels with COVID-19 risk in Blacks but not in Whites, “could reflect their higher COVID-19 risk, to which socioeconomic factors and structural inequities clearly contribute.

“Biological susceptibility to vitamin D deficiency may also be less frequent in White than Black individuals, since lighter skin increases vitamin D production in response to sunlight, and vitamin D binding proteins may vary by race and affect vitamin D bioavailability.”

Given less than 10% of U.S. adults have a vitamin D level greater than 40 ng/mL, the study findings increase the urgency to consider whether increased sun exposure or supplementation could reduce COVID-19 risk, according to the authors.

“When increased sun exposure is impractical, achieving vitamin D levels of 40 ng/mL or greater typically requires greater supplementation than currently recommended for most individuals of 600-800 IU/d vitamin D3,” they added.

However, Dr. Meltzer also acknowledged that “this is an observational study. We can see that there’s an association between vitamin D levels and likelihood of a COVID-19 diagnosis, but we don’t know exactly why that is, or whether these results are due to the vitamin D directly or other related biological factors.”

All in all, the authors suggested that randomized clinical trials are needed to understand if vitamin D can reduce COVID-19 risk, and as such they should include doses of supplements likely to increase vitamin D to at least 40 ng/mL, and perhaps even higher, although they pointed out that the latter must be achieved safely.

“Studies should also consider the role of vitamin D testing, loading doses, dose adjustments for individuals who are obese or overweight, risks for hypercalcemia, and strategies to monitor for and mitigate hypercalcemia, and that non-White populations, such as Black individuals, may have greater needs for supplementation,” they outlined.

They are now recruiting participants for two separate clinical trials testing the efficacy of vitamin D supplements for preventing COVID-19.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines Wednesday to confirm Vice Adm. Vivek H. Murthy, MD, MBA, to serve as the 21st Surgeon General of the United States.

Seven Republicans – Bill Cassidy (La.), Susan Collins (Maine), Roger Marshall (Kan.), Susan Murkowski (Alaska), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Dan Sullivan (Alaska) – joined all the Democrats and independents in the 57-43 vote approving Dr. Murthy’s nomination.

Dr. Murthy, 43, previously served as the 19th Surgeon General, from December 2014 to April 2017, when he was asked to step down by President Donald J. Trump.

Surgeons General serve 4-year terms.

During his first tenure, Dr. Murthy issued the first-ever Surgeon General’s report on the crisis of addiction and issued a call to action to doctors to help battle the opioid crisis.

When Dr. Murthy was nominated by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. in December, he was acting as cochair of the incoming administration’s COVID-19 transition advisory board.

Early in 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Dr. Murthy published a timely book: “Together: The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World”.

He earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard and his MD and MBA degrees from Yale. He completed his internal medicine residency at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where he also served as a hospitalist, and later joined Harvard Medical School as a faculty member in internal medicine.

He is married to Alice Chen, MD. The couple have two children.
 

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

Although supine sleep positioning of preterm infants is becoming more common, racial disparities remain, according to a retrospective analysis involving more than 66,000 mothers.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

Non-Hispanic Black preterm infants were 39%-56% less likely to sleep on their backs than were non-Hispanic White preterm infants, reported lead author Sunah S. Hwang, MD, MPH, of the University Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, these findings may explain, in part, why the risk of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) is more than twofold higher among non-Hispanic Black preterm infants than non-Hispanic White preterm infants.

“During the first year of life, one of the most effective and modifiable parental behaviors that may reduce the risk for SUID is adhering to safe infant sleep practices, including supine sleep positioning or back-sleeping,” wrote Dr. Hwang and colleagues. The report is in the Journal of Pediatrics. “For the healthy-term population, research on the racial/ethnic disparity in adherence to safe sleep practices is robust, but for preterm infants who are at much higher risk for SUID, less is known.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators conducted a retrospective study using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), a population-based perinatal surveillance system. The final dataset involved 66,131 mothers who gave birth to preterm infants in 16 states between 2000 and 2015. The sample size was weighted to 1,020,986 mothers.

The investigators evaluated annual marginal prevalence of supine sleep positioning among two cohorts: early preterm infants (gestational age less than 34 weeks) and late preterm infants (gestational age 34-36 weeks). The primary outcome was rate of supine sleep positioning, a practice that must have been followed consistently, excluding other positions (i.e. prone or side). Mothers were grouped by race/ethnicity into four categories: non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and other. Several other maternal and infant characteristics were recorded, including marital status, maternal age, education, insurance prior to birth, history of previous live birth, insurance, method of delivery, birth weight, and sex.

From 2000 to 2015, the overall adjusted odds of supine sleep positioning increased by 8.5% in the early preterm group and 5.2% in the late preterm group. This intergroup difference may be due to disparate levels of in-hospital education, the investigators suggested.

“Perhaps the longer NICU hospitalization for early preterm infants compared with late preterm infants affords greater opportunities for parental education and engagement about safe sleep practices,” they wrote.

Among early preterm infants, odds percentages increased by 7.3%, 7.7%, and 10.0% for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White mothers, respectively. For late preterm infants, respective rates increased by 5.9%, 4.8%, and 5.8% for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White mothers.

Despite these improvements, racial disparities were still observed. Non-Hispanic Black mothers reported lower rates of supine sleep positioning for both early preterm infants (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; P less than .0001) and late preterm infants (OR, 0.44; P less than .0001) compared with non-Hispanic White mothers.

These disparities seem “to be in line with racial/ethnic disparity trends in infant mortality and in SUID rates that have persisted for decades among infants,” the investigators wrote.

To a lesser degree, and lacking statistical significance, Hispanic mothers reported lower odds of supine sleep positioning than the odds of White mothers for both early preterm infants (OR, 0.80; P = .1670) and late preterm infants (OR, 0.81; P = .1054).

According to Dr. Hwang and colleagues, more specific demographic data are needed to accurately describe supine sleep positioning rates among Hispanic mothers, partly because of the heterogeneity of this cohort.

“A large body of literature has shown significant variability by immigrant status and country of origin in several infant health outcomes among the Hispanic population,” the investigators wrote. “This study was unable to stratify the Hispanic cohort by these characteristics and thus the distribution of supine sleep positioning prevalence across different Hispanic subgroups could not be demonstrated in this study.”

The investigators also suggested that interventional studies are needed.

“Additional efforts to understand the barriers and facilitators to SSP [supine sleep positioning] adherence among all preterm infant caregivers, particularly non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic parents, are needed so that novel interventions can then be developed,” they wrote.

According to Denice Cora-Bramble, MD, MBA, chief diversity officer at Children’s National Hospital and professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, the observed improvements in supine sleep positioning may predict lower rates of infant mortality, but more work in the area is needed.

“In spite of improvement in infants’ supine sleep positioning during the study period, racial/ethnic disparities persisted among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics,” Dr. Cora-Bramble said. “That there was improvement among the populations included in the study is significant because of the associated and expected decrease in infant mortality. However, the study results need to be evaluated within the context of [the study’s] limitations, such as the inclusion of only sixteen states in the data analysis. More research is needed to understand and effectively address the disparities highlighted in the study.”

The investigators and Dr. Cora-Bramble reported no conflicts of interest.

Although supine sleep positioning of preterm infants is becoming more common, racial disparities remain, according to a retrospective analysis involving more than 66,000 mothers.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

Non-Hispanic Black preterm infants were 39%-56% less likely to sleep on their backs than were non-Hispanic White preterm infants, reported lead author Sunah S. Hwang, MD, MPH, of the University Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, these findings may explain, in part, why the risk of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) is more than twofold higher among non-Hispanic Black preterm infants than non-Hispanic White preterm infants.

“During the first year of life, one of the most effective and modifiable parental behaviors that may reduce the risk for SUID is adhering to safe infant sleep practices, including supine sleep positioning or back-sleeping,” wrote Dr. Hwang and colleagues. The report is in the Journal of Pediatrics. “For the healthy-term population, research on the racial/ethnic disparity in adherence to safe sleep practices is robust, but for preterm infants who are at much higher risk for SUID, less is known.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators conducted a retrospective study using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), a population-based perinatal surveillance system. The final dataset involved 66,131 mothers who gave birth to preterm infants in 16 states between 2000 and 2015. The sample size was weighted to 1,020,986 mothers.

The investigators evaluated annual marginal prevalence of supine sleep positioning among two cohorts: early preterm infants (gestational age less than 34 weeks) and late preterm infants (gestational age 34-36 weeks). The primary outcome was rate of supine sleep positioning, a practice that must have been followed consistently, excluding other positions (i.e. prone or side). Mothers were grouped by race/ethnicity into four categories: non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and other. Several other maternal and infant characteristics were recorded, including marital status, maternal age, education, insurance prior to birth, history of previous live birth, insurance, method of delivery, birth weight, and sex.

From 2000 to 2015, the overall adjusted odds of supine sleep positioning increased by 8.5% in the early preterm group and 5.2% in the late preterm group. This intergroup difference may be due to disparate levels of in-hospital education, the investigators suggested.

“Perhaps the longer NICU hospitalization for early preterm infants compared with late preterm infants affords greater opportunities for parental education and engagement about safe sleep practices,” they wrote.

Among early preterm infants, odds percentages increased by 7.3%, 7.7%, and 10.0% for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White mothers, respectively. For late preterm infants, respective rates increased by 5.9%, 4.8%, and 5.8% for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White mothers.

Despite these improvements, racial disparities were still observed. Non-Hispanic Black mothers reported lower rates of supine sleep positioning for both early preterm infants (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; P less than .0001) and late preterm infants (OR, 0.44; P less than .0001) compared with non-Hispanic White mothers.

These disparities seem “to be in line with racial/ethnic disparity trends in infant mortality and in SUID rates that have persisted for decades among infants,” the investigators wrote.

To a lesser degree, and lacking statistical significance, Hispanic mothers reported lower odds of supine sleep positioning than the odds of White mothers for both early preterm infants (OR, 0.80; P = .1670) and late preterm infants (OR, 0.81; P = .1054).

According to Dr. Hwang and colleagues, more specific demographic data are needed to accurately describe supine sleep positioning rates among Hispanic mothers, partly because of the heterogeneity of this cohort.

“A large body of literature has shown significant variability by immigrant status and country of origin in several infant health outcomes among the Hispanic population,” the investigators wrote. “This study was unable to stratify the Hispanic cohort by these characteristics and thus the distribution of supine sleep positioning prevalence across different Hispanic subgroups could not be demonstrated in this study.”

The investigators also suggested that interventional studies are needed.

“Additional efforts to understand the barriers and facilitators to SSP [supine sleep positioning] adherence among all preterm infant caregivers, particularly non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic parents, are needed so that novel interventions can then be developed,” they wrote.

According to Denice Cora-Bramble, MD, MBA, chief diversity officer at Children’s National Hospital and professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, the observed improvements in supine sleep positioning may predict lower rates of infant mortality, but more work in the area is needed.

“In spite of improvement in infants’ supine sleep positioning during the study period, racial/ethnic disparities persisted among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics,” Dr. Cora-Bramble said. “That there was improvement among the populations included in the study is significant because of the associated and expected decrease in infant mortality. However, the study results need to be evaluated within the context of [the study’s] limitations, such as the inclusion of only sixteen states in the data analysis. More research is needed to understand and effectively address the disparities highlighted in the study.”

The investigators and Dr. Cora-Bramble reported no conflicts of interest.

Although supine sleep positioning of preterm infants is becoming more common, racial disparities remain, according to a retrospective analysis involving more than 66,000 mothers.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

Non-Hispanic Black preterm infants were 39%-56% less likely to sleep on their backs than were non-Hispanic White preterm infants, reported lead author Sunah S. Hwang, MD, MPH, of the University Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

According to the investigators, these findings may explain, in part, why the risk of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) is more than twofold higher among non-Hispanic Black preterm infants than non-Hispanic White preterm infants.

“During the first year of life, one of the most effective and modifiable parental behaviors that may reduce the risk for SUID is adhering to safe infant sleep practices, including supine sleep positioning or back-sleeping,” wrote Dr. Hwang and colleagues. The report is in the Journal of Pediatrics. “For the healthy-term population, research on the racial/ethnic disparity in adherence to safe sleep practices is robust, but for preterm infants who are at much higher risk for SUID, less is known.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators conducted a retrospective study using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), a population-based perinatal surveillance system. The final dataset involved 66,131 mothers who gave birth to preterm infants in 16 states between 2000 and 2015. The sample size was weighted to 1,020,986 mothers.

The investigators evaluated annual marginal prevalence of supine sleep positioning among two cohorts: early preterm infants (gestational age less than 34 weeks) and late preterm infants (gestational age 34-36 weeks). The primary outcome was rate of supine sleep positioning, a practice that must have been followed consistently, excluding other positions (i.e. prone or side). Mothers were grouped by race/ethnicity into four categories: non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and other. Several other maternal and infant characteristics were recorded, including marital status, maternal age, education, insurance prior to birth, history of previous live birth, insurance, method of delivery, birth weight, and sex.

From 2000 to 2015, the overall adjusted odds of supine sleep positioning increased by 8.5% in the early preterm group and 5.2% in the late preterm group. This intergroup difference may be due to disparate levels of in-hospital education, the investigators suggested.

“Perhaps the longer NICU hospitalization for early preterm infants compared with late preterm infants affords greater opportunities for parental education and engagement about safe sleep practices,” they wrote.

Among early preterm infants, odds percentages increased by 7.3%, 7.7%, and 10.0% for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White mothers, respectively. For late preterm infants, respective rates increased by 5.9%, 4.8%, and 5.8% for non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White mothers.

Despite these improvements, racial disparities were still observed. Non-Hispanic Black mothers reported lower rates of supine sleep positioning for both early preterm infants (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; P less than .0001) and late preterm infants (OR, 0.44; P less than .0001) compared with non-Hispanic White mothers.

These disparities seem “to be in line with racial/ethnic disparity trends in infant mortality and in SUID rates that have persisted for decades among infants,” the investigators wrote.

To a lesser degree, and lacking statistical significance, Hispanic mothers reported lower odds of supine sleep positioning than the odds of White mothers for both early preterm infants (OR, 0.80; P = .1670) and late preterm infants (OR, 0.81; P = .1054).

According to Dr. Hwang and colleagues, more specific demographic data are needed to accurately describe supine sleep positioning rates among Hispanic mothers, partly because of the heterogeneity of this cohort.

“A large body of literature has shown significant variability by immigrant status and country of origin in several infant health outcomes among the Hispanic population,” the investigators wrote. “This study was unable to stratify the Hispanic cohort by these characteristics and thus the distribution of supine sleep positioning prevalence across different Hispanic subgroups could not be demonstrated in this study.”

The investigators also suggested that interventional studies are needed.

“Additional efforts to understand the barriers and facilitators to SSP [supine sleep positioning] adherence among all preterm infant caregivers, particularly non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic parents, are needed so that novel interventions can then be developed,” they wrote.

According to Denice Cora-Bramble, MD, MBA, chief diversity officer at Children’s National Hospital and professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, Washington, the observed improvements in supine sleep positioning may predict lower rates of infant mortality, but more work in the area is needed.

“In spite of improvement in infants’ supine sleep positioning during the study period, racial/ethnic disparities persisted among non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics,” Dr. Cora-Bramble said. “That there was improvement among the populations included in the study is significant because of the associated and expected decrease in infant mortality. However, the study results need to be evaluated within the context of [the study’s] limitations, such as the inclusion of only sixteen states in the data analysis. More research is needed to understand and effectively address the disparities highlighted in the study.”

The investigators and Dr. Cora-Bramble reported no conflicts of interest.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine develop a strong immune response and produce antibodies that can transfer to the fetus through the placenta and to newborns through breast milk, according to a prospective cohort study published March 25 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The findings revealed that the antibody response to vaccination in this cohort was greater than that from a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. Though the researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, it’s not yet known how much protection these antibodies might provide to newborns.

“The presence of neutralizing antibody transfer in nearly all cords, and improved transfer with increased time from vaccination, points to the promise of mRNA vaccine–induced delivery of immunity to neonates,” wrote Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynecology, and colleagues. “Transfer would perhaps be optimized if vaccination is administered earlier during gestation, though this needs to be directly examined in future studies.”

The researchers tracked 84 pregnant women, 31 lactating women, and 16 nonpregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The titers of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, receptor binding domain (RBD), and S1 and S2 components of the spike were measured in the 131 participants’ blood and in the lactating women’s breast milk four times: at baseline, when they received their second vaccine dose, at 2-6 weeks after their second dose, and at delivery for the 13 women who delivered during the study period.

The study population included health care workers and was predominantly White and non-Hispanic. In addition, two pregnant women, two lactating women, and one nonpregnant woman in the study had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Most of the pregnant women received the vaccine in their second (46%) or third (40%) trimester. The women across all three groups – pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant – experienced similar side effects from the each dose of the vaccine, including fever/chills in 32% of the pregnant women and half the nonpregnant women after the second dose.

Titers induced by the vaccine were similar across the pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women, and titers did not differ based on the trimester when women received the vaccine. The researchers then compared the titers from the vaccine recipients to titers of 37 pregnant women drawn 4-12 weeks after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine-induced titers were significantly greater than those measured in the women who had a natural infection during pregnancy (P < .001).

The researchers identified IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in the breast milk samples, including a boost in IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose from baseline. “However, whether these antibodies were transferred efficiently to infants remained unclear,” the authors noted.

The researchers found vaccine-induced antibodies in all 10 umbilical cord blood samples tested, all but one of which had been exposed to two doses of the vaccine.

“The cord with the lowest spike- and RBD-specific IgG belonged to a mother who delivered between the first and second vaccine doses and had received her first vaccine dose 17 days prior to delivery, suggesting that 2 doses may be essential to optimize humoral immune transfer to the neonate,” the authors wrote. “Based on what is known about other vaccines, the amount of maternal IgG transferred across the placenta to the cord is likely to differ by trimester of vaccination.”

Although umbilical cord sera had lower titers of neutralizing antibodies than found in maternal sera, the difference was not significant (median interquartile range 52.3 vs. 104.7, P = .05). The two cord blood samples without neutralizing antibodies came from a woman who had not had the second dose and a woman who received the second dose 1 week before delivery.

“These data provide a compelling argument that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce similar humoral immunity in pregnant and lactating women as in the nonpregnant population,” the authors wrote. “These data do not elucidate potential risks to the fetus.”

While the study provides evidence about the immune response induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnant, it leaves other questions unanswered, said Kevin A. Ault, MD, professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“The important thing about these findings is that the COVID vaccines are immunogenic in pregnant women. There may be a benefit to the newborns because antibodies are passed on through the placenta,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “The main questions that remain are safety of the vaccine during pregnancy and effectiveness of the vaccine during pregnancy.”

He said he expects to see more studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Despite more than 73,600 infections and 80 deaths from COVID-19 in people who were pregnant, none of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials included pregnant or lactating participants.

“This is an important initial study to confirm the antibody generation from mRNA vaccination in pregnant women, and the passage of antibody via cord blood and breast milk,” said Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Washington, Seattle, who specializes in maternal immunization. “Further studies are important to look at the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and whether it influences the level of antibody passed to the fetus.”

Though this study is not a safety study, it “does not show increased expected vaccine reactions, such as aches, pains, and fever, in pregnant versus nonpregnant patients,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “It is not able to evaluate pregnancy outcome data, but it does allow pregnant women being vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines to know that the vaccine is generating protection for them, and the protection is being passed to the fetus in utero via cordblood and to the infant via breast milk.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health along with the Gates Foundation, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR), the Musk Foundation, the Ragon Institute of MGH and MIT, and Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Lead author Dr. Gray has consulted for Illumina, BillionToOne, and Aetion, and three other authors have financial or scientific/medical advising connections to Alba Therapeutics, NextCure, Viome, Systems Seromyx, and Mirvie. Dr. Ault and Dr. Eckert had no disclosures.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine develop a strong immune response and produce antibodies that can transfer to the fetus through the placenta and to newborns through breast milk, according to a prospective cohort study published March 25 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The findings revealed that the antibody response to vaccination in this cohort was greater than that from a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. Though the researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, it’s not yet known how much protection these antibodies might provide to newborns.

“The presence of neutralizing antibody transfer in nearly all cords, and improved transfer with increased time from vaccination, points to the promise of mRNA vaccine–induced delivery of immunity to neonates,” wrote Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynecology, and colleagues. “Transfer would perhaps be optimized if vaccination is administered earlier during gestation, though this needs to be directly examined in future studies.”

The researchers tracked 84 pregnant women, 31 lactating women, and 16 nonpregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The titers of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, receptor binding domain (RBD), and S1 and S2 components of the spike were measured in the 131 participants’ blood and in the lactating women’s breast milk four times: at baseline, when they received their second vaccine dose, at 2-6 weeks after their second dose, and at delivery for the 13 women who delivered during the study period.

The study population included health care workers and was predominantly White and non-Hispanic. In addition, two pregnant women, two lactating women, and one nonpregnant woman in the study had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Most of the pregnant women received the vaccine in their second (46%) or third (40%) trimester. The women across all three groups – pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant – experienced similar side effects from the each dose of the vaccine, including fever/chills in 32% of the pregnant women and half the nonpregnant women after the second dose.

Titers induced by the vaccine were similar across the pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women, and titers did not differ based on the trimester when women received the vaccine. The researchers then compared the titers from the vaccine recipients to titers of 37 pregnant women drawn 4-12 weeks after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine-induced titers were significantly greater than those measured in the women who had a natural infection during pregnancy (P < .001).

The researchers identified IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in the breast milk samples, including a boost in IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose from baseline. “However, whether these antibodies were transferred efficiently to infants remained unclear,” the authors noted.

The researchers found vaccine-induced antibodies in all 10 umbilical cord blood samples tested, all but one of which had been exposed to two doses of the vaccine.

“The cord with the lowest spike- and RBD-specific IgG belonged to a mother who delivered between the first and second vaccine doses and had received her first vaccine dose 17 days prior to delivery, suggesting that 2 doses may be essential to optimize humoral immune transfer to the neonate,” the authors wrote. “Based on what is known about other vaccines, the amount of maternal IgG transferred across the placenta to the cord is likely to differ by trimester of vaccination.”

Although umbilical cord sera had lower titers of neutralizing antibodies than found in maternal sera, the difference was not significant (median interquartile range 52.3 vs. 104.7, P = .05). The two cord blood samples without neutralizing antibodies came from a woman who had not had the second dose and a woman who received the second dose 1 week before delivery.

“These data provide a compelling argument that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce similar humoral immunity in pregnant and lactating women as in the nonpregnant population,” the authors wrote. “These data do not elucidate potential risks to the fetus.”

While the study provides evidence about the immune response induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnant, it leaves other questions unanswered, said Kevin A. Ault, MD, professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“The important thing about these findings is that the COVID vaccines are immunogenic in pregnant women. There may be a benefit to the newborns because antibodies are passed on through the placenta,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “The main questions that remain are safety of the vaccine during pregnancy and effectiveness of the vaccine during pregnancy.”

He said he expects to see more studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Despite more than 73,600 infections and 80 deaths from COVID-19 in people who were pregnant, none of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials included pregnant or lactating participants.

“This is an important initial study to confirm the antibody generation from mRNA vaccination in pregnant women, and the passage of antibody via cord blood and breast milk,” said Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Washington, Seattle, who specializes in maternal immunization. “Further studies are important to look at the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and whether it influences the level of antibody passed to the fetus.”

Though this study is not a safety study, it “does not show increased expected vaccine reactions, such as aches, pains, and fever, in pregnant versus nonpregnant patients,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “It is not able to evaluate pregnancy outcome data, but it does allow pregnant women being vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines to know that the vaccine is generating protection for them, and the protection is being passed to the fetus in utero via cordblood and to the infant via breast milk.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health along with the Gates Foundation, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR), the Musk Foundation, the Ragon Institute of MGH and MIT, and Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Lead author Dr. Gray has consulted for Illumina, BillionToOne, and Aetion, and three other authors have financial or scientific/medical advising connections to Alba Therapeutics, NextCure, Viome, Systems Seromyx, and Mirvie. Dr. Ault and Dr. Eckert had no disclosures.

Pregnant and breastfeeding women who receive an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine develop a strong immune response and produce antibodies that can transfer to the fetus through the placenta and to newborns through breast milk, according to a prospective cohort study published March 25 in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The findings revealed that the antibody response to vaccination in this cohort was greater than that from a COVID-19 infection during pregnancy. Though the researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, it’s not yet known how much protection these antibodies might provide to newborns.

“The presence of neutralizing antibody transfer in nearly all cords, and improved transfer with increased time from vaccination, points to the promise of mRNA vaccine–induced delivery of immunity to neonates,” wrote Kathryn J. Gray, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s department of obstetrics and gynecology, and colleagues. “Transfer would perhaps be optimized if vaccination is administered earlier during gestation, though this needs to be directly examined in future studies.”

The researchers tracked 84 pregnant women, 31 lactating women, and 16 nonpregnant women who received the COVID-19 vaccine. The titers of IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike, receptor binding domain (RBD), and S1 and S2 components of the spike were measured in the 131 participants’ blood and in the lactating women’s breast milk four times: at baseline, when they received their second vaccine dose, at 2-6 weeks after their second dose, and at delivery for the 13 women who delivered during the study period.

The study population included health care workers and was predominantly White and non-Hispanic. In addition, two pregnant women, two lactating women, and one nonpregnant woman in the study had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Most of the pregnant women received the vaccine in their second (46%) or third (40%) trimester. The women across all three groups – pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant – experienced similar side effects from the each dose of the vaccine, including fever/chills in 32% of the pregnant women and half the nonpregnant women after the second dose.

Titers induced by the vaccine were similar across the pregnant, lactating, and nonpregnant women, and titers did not differ based on the trimester when women received the vaccine. The researchers then compared the titers from the vaccine recipients to titers of 37 pregnant women drawn 4-12 weeks after a natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine-induced titers were significantly greater than those measured in the women who had a natural infection during pregnancy (P < .001).

The researchers identified IgG, IgA, and IgM antibodies in the breast milk samples, including a boost in IgG antibodies after the second vaccine dose from baseline. “However, whether these antibodies were transferred efficiently to infants remained unclear,” the authors noted.

The researchers found vaccine-induced antibodies in all 10 umbilical cord blood samples tested, all but one of which had been exposed to two doses of the vaccine.

“The cord with the lowest spike- and RBD-specific IgG belonged to a mother who delivered between the first and second vaccine doses and had received her first vaccine dose 17 days prior to delivery, suggesting that 2 doses may be essential to optimize humoral immune transfer to the neonate,” the authors wrote. “Based on what is known about other vaccines, the amount of maternal IgG transferred across the placenta to the cord is likely to differ by trimester of vaccination.”

Although umbilical cord sera had lower titers of neutralizing antibodies than found in maternal sera, the difference was not significant (median interquartile range 52.3 vs. 104.7, P = .05). The two cord blood samples without neutralizing antibodies came from a woman who had not had the second dose and a woman who received the second dose 1 week before delivery.

“These data provide a compelling argument that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines induce similar humoral immunity in pregnant and lactating women as in the nonpregnant population,” the authors wrote. “These data do not elucidate potential risks to the fetus.”

While the study provides evidence about the immune response induced by the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines during pregnant, it leaves other questions unanswered, said Kevin A. Ault, MD, professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.

“The important thing about these findings is that the COVID vaccines are immunogenic in pregnant women. There may be a benefit to the newborns because antibodies are passed on through the placenta,” Dr. Ault said in an interview. “The main questions that remain are safety of the vaccine during pregnancy and effectiveness of the vaccine during pregnancy.”

He said he expects to see more studies on the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. Despite more than 73,600 infections and 80 deaths from COVID-19 in people who were pregnant, none of the initial COVID-19 vaccine trials included pregnant or lactating participants.

“This is an important initial study to confirm the antibody generation from mRNA vaccination in pregnant women, and the passage of antibody via cord blood and breast milk,” said Linda Eckert, MD, a professor of ob.gyn. at The University of Washington, Seattle, who specializes in maternal immunization. “Further studies are important to look at the timing of vaccination in pregnancy and whether it influences the level of antibody passed to the fetus.”

Though this study is not a safety study, it “does not show increased expected vaccine reactions, such as aches, pains, and fever, in pregnant versus nonpregnant patients,” Dr. Eckert said in an interview. “It is not able to evaluate pregnancy outcome data, but it does allow pregnant women being vaccinated with the mRNA vaccines to know that the vaccine is generating protection for them, and the protection is being passed to the fetus in utero via cordblood and to the infant via breast milk.”

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health along with the Gates Foundation, the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR), the Musk Foundation, the Ragon Institute of MGH and MIT, and Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Lead author Dr. Gray has consulted for Illumina, BillionToOne, and Aetion, and three other authors have financial or scientific/medical advising connections to Alba Therapeutics, NextCure, Viome, Systems Seromyx, and Mirvie. Dr. Ault and Dr. Eckert had no disclosures.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

Recently, we had the opportunity to take part in a major EHR conversion project. During this “go-live,” 5 hospitals and approximately 300 ambulatory service and physician practice locations made the transition, consolidating over 100 disparate electronic systems and dozens of interfaces into one world-class medical record.

If you’ve ever been part of such an event, you know it is anything but simple. On the contrary, it requires an enormous financial investment along with years of planning, hours of meetings, and months of training. No matter how much preparation goes into it, there are sure to be bumps along the way. It is a traumatic and stressful time for all involved, but the end result is well worth the effort. Still, there are lessons to be learned and wisdom to be gleaned, and this month we’d like to share a few that we found most important. We believe that many of these are useful lessons even to those who will never live through a go-live.
 

Safety always comes first

Patient safety is a term so often used that it has a tendency to be taken for granted. Health systems build processes and procedures to ensure safety – some even win awards and recognition for their efforts. But the best (and safest) health care institutions build patient safety into their cultures. More than just being taught to use checklists or buzzwords, the staff at these institutions are encouraged to put the welfare of patients first, making all other activities secondary to this pursuit. We had the opportunity to witness the benefits of such a culture during this go-live and were incredibly impressed with the results.

To be successful in an EHR transition of any magnitude, an organization needs to hold patient safety as a core value and provide its employees with the tools to execute on that value. This enables staff to prepare adequately and to identify risks and opportunities before the conversion takes place. Once go-live occurs, staff also must feel empowered to speak up when they identify problem areas that might jeopardize patients’ care. They also must be given a clear escalation path to ensure their voices can be heard. Most importantly, everyone must understand that the electronic health record itself is just one piece of a major operational change.

As workflows are modified to adapt to the new technology, unsafe processes should be called out and fixed quickly. While the EHR may offer the latest in decision support and system integration, no advancement in technology can make up for bad outcomes, nor justify processes that lead to patient harm.
 

Training is no substitute for good support

It takes a long time to train thousands of employees, especially when that training must occur during the era of social distancing in the midst of a pandemic. Still, even in the best of times, education should be married to hands-on experience in order to have a real impact. Unfortunately, this is extremely challenging.

Trainees forget much of what they’ve learned in the weeks or months between education and go-live, so they must be given immediately accessible support to bridge the gap. This is known as “at-the-elbow” (ATE) support, and as the name implies, it consists of individuals who are familiar with the new system and are always available to end users, answering their questions and helping them navigate. Since health care never sleeps, this support needs to be offered 24/7, and it should also be flexible and plentiful.

There are many areas that will require more support than anticipated to accommodate the number of clinical and other staff who will use the system, so support staff must be nimble and available for redeployment. In addition, ensuring high-quality support is essential. As many ATE experts are hired contractors, their knowledge base and communications skills can vary widely. Accountability is key, and end users should feel empowered to identify gaps in coverage and deficits in knowledge base in the ATE.

As employees become more familiar with the new system, the need for ATE will wane, but there will still be questions that arise for many weeks to months, and new EHR users will also be added all the time. A good after–go-live support system should remain available so clinical and clerical employees can get just-in-time assistance whenever they need it.
 

Users should be given clear expectations

Clinicians going through an EHR conversion may be frustrated to discover that the data transferred from their old system into the new one is not quite what they expected. While structured elements such as allergies and immunizations may transfer, unstructured patient histories may not come over at all.

There may be gaps in data, or the opposite may even be true: an overabundance of useless information may transfer over, leaving doctors with dozens of meaningless data points to sift through and eliminate to clean up the chart. This can be extremely time-consuming and discouraging and may jeopardize the success of the go-live.

Providers deserve clear expectations prior to conversion. They should be told what will and will not transfer and be informed that there will be extra work required for documentation at the outset. They may also want the option to preemptively reduce patient volumes to accommodate the additional effort involved in preparing charts. No matter what, this will be a heavy lift, and physicians should understand the implications long before go-live to prepare accordingly.
 

Old habits die hard

One of the most common complaints we’ve heard following EHR conversions is that “things just worked better in the old system.” We always respond with a question: “Were things better, or just different?” The truth may lie somewhere in the middle, but there is no question that muscle memory develops over many years, and change is difficult no matter how much better the new system is. Still, appropriate expectations, access to just-in-time support, and a continual focus on safety will ensure that the long-term benefits of a patient-centered and integrated electronic record will far outweigh the initial challenges of go-live.

Dr. Notte is a family physician and chief medical officer of Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece.

One of the top research journals in the United States has placed its editor-in-chief on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into a controversial podcast episode that critics labeled as racist.

The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.

During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

This story will be updated.

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

One of the top research journals in the United States has placed its editor-in-chief on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into a controversial podcast episode that critics labeled as racist.

The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.

During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

This story will be updated.

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

One of the top research journals in the United States has placed its editor-in-chief on administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation into a controversial podcast episode that critics labeled as racist.

The American Medical Association’s Joint Oversight Committee announced that Howard Bauchner, MD, is on leave beginning at the end of the day on March 25. Dr. Bauchner is the top editor at JAMA, the journal of the AMA.

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

More than 2,000 people signed a petition on Change.org calling for an investigation at JAMA over the February podcast episode, called “Structural Racism for Doctors: What Is It?”

Already, Edward H. Livingston, MD, the host of the podcast, has resigned as deputy editor of the journal.

During the podcast, Dr. Livingston, who is White, said, “Structural racism is an unfortunate term. Personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help. Many of us are offended by the concept that we are racist.”

The audio of the podcast has been deleted from JAMA’s website. In its place is audio of a statement from Dr. Bauchner. In his statement, which he released in the week prior to his being on leave, he said the comments in the podcast, which also featured Mitch Katz, MD, were “inaccurate, offensive, hurtful, and inconsistent with the standards of JAMA.”

Also deleted was a JAMA tweet promoting the podcast episode. The tweet said: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care? An explanation of the idea by doctors for doctors in this user-friendly podcast.”

This story will be updated.

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

The American Contact Dermatitis Society has selected acetophenone azine, linked to reactions associated with shins pads and footwear, as the “Contact Allergen of the Year” for 2021.

©Jody Dingle/Fotolia.com

The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.

The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C₁₆H₁₆N₂.

Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).

A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.

In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.

In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.

The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.

In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.

“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.

Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society has selected acetophenone azine, linked to reactions associated with shins pads and footwear, as the “Contact Allergen of the Year” for 2021.

©Jody Dingle/Fotolia.com

The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.

The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C₁₆H₁₆N₂.

Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).

A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.

In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.

In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.

The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.

In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.

“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.

Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The American Contact Dermatitis Society has selected acetophenone azine, linked to reactions associated with shins pads and footwear, as the “Contact Allergen of the Year” for 2021.

©Jody Dingle/Fotolia.com

The announcement was made by Donald V. Belsito, MD, professor of dermatology, Columbia University, New York, during a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society, held virtually this year. In his opinion, he said, the most exciting selections occur when international cooperation results in the identification of a new allergen that could become problematic, and acetophenone azine falls into this category.

The chemical formula of acetophenone azine is C₁₆H₁₆N₂.

Acetophenone azine was highlighted as a contact allergen in a recent report in Dermatitis. The authors, Nadia Raison-Peyron, MD, from the department of dermatology at the University of Montpelier (France), and Denis Sasseville, MD, from the division of dermatology at McGill University Health Center, Quebec, described publications and reports of about 12 cases of severe allergic contact dermatitis secondary to shin pads or footwear, mainly in children and teens in Europe (one case was in Canada).

A common feature of these cases was the presence of a foam used for cushioning, made of ethyl vinyl acetate (EVA) used in the relevant products.

In one case, a 13-year-old boy who wore shin pads for soccer developed contact dermatitis on both shins that spread, and was described as severe. Patch testing revealed the EVA foam in the shin pads as the only positive reaction. Similar cases have been reported after exposure to EVA-containing products, including shin pads, sneakers, flip-flops, ski boots, insoles, swimming goggles, and bicycle seats, according to the authors.

In some reports, cases related to footwear presented as dyshidrosiform, vesiculobullous eczema, with or without palmar lesions, or presented as plantar hyperkeratotic dermatitis, they wrote. In other cases, patients experienced scarring and postinflammatory hypopigmentation.

The compound is likely not added to EVA intentionally, they added, but instead is thought to result from reactions between additives during the manufacturing process. The presence of acetophenone azine is not well explained, but the current theory is that it results from a combination of “the degradation of the initiator dicumylperoxide and hydrazine from the foaming agent azodicarbonamide,” the authors said.

In the paper, Dr. Raison-Peyron and Dr. Sasseville recommended a patch testing concentration of 0.1% in acetone or petrolatum, as acetophenone azine is not currently available from path test suppliers, although it can be obtained from chemical product distributors.

“Given the recent discovery of this allergen, it is presumed that cases of allergic contact dermatitis would have been missed and labeled irritant contact dermatitis or dyshidrosis,” they noted. To avoid missing more cases, acetophenone azine should be added to the patch testing shoe series, as well as plastics and glues series, they emphasized.

Although no cases of allergic reactions to acetophenone azine have been reported in the United States to date, it is an emerging allergen that should be on the radar for U.S. dermatologists, Amber Atwater, MD, outgoing ACDS president, said in an interview. The lack of reported cases may be in part attributed to the fact that acetophenone azine is not yet available to purchase for testing in the United States, and the allergen could be present in shin guards and other products identified in reported cases, added Dr. Atwater, associate professor of dermatology, Duke University, Durham, N.C.

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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

The new SARS-CoV-2 variants are not just problems for humans. 

New research shows they can also infect animals, and for the first time, variants have been able to infect mice, a development that may complicate efforts to rein in the global spread of the virus.

In addition, two new studies have implications for pets. Veterinarians in Texas and the United Kingdom have documented infections of B.1.1.7 – the fast-spreading variant first found in the United Kingdom – in dogs and cats. The animals in the U.K. study also had heart damage, but it’s unclear if the damage was caused by the virus or was already there and was found as a result of their infections.

Animal studies of SARS-CoV-2 and its emerging variants are urgent, said Sarah Hamer, DVM, PhD, a veterinarian and epidemiologist at Texas A&M University, College Station. 

She’s part of a network of scientists who are swabbing the pets of people who are diagnosed with COVID-19 to find out how often the virus passes from people to animals.

The collaboration is part of the One Health initiative through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One Health aims to tackle infectious diseases by recognizing that people can’t be fully protected from pathogens unless animals and the environment are also safeguarded. “Over 70% of emerging diseases of humans have their origins in animal populations,” Dr. Hamer said. “So if we are only focusing on studying disease as it emerges in humans and ignoring where those pathogens have been transmitted or circulating for years, then we might miss the ability to detect early emergence. We might miss the ability to control these diseases before they become problems for human health.”
 

Variants move to mice

In new work, researchers at the Institut Pasteur in Paris have shown that the B.1.351 and P.1 variants of concern, which were first identified in South Africa and Brazil, respectively, can infect mice, giving the virus a potential new host. Older versions of the virus couldn’t infect mice because they weren’t able bind to receptors on their cells. These two variants can.

On one hand, that’s a good thing, because it will help scientists more easily conduct experiments in mice. Before, if they wanted to do an experiment with SARS-CoV-2 in mice, they had to use a special strain of mouse that was bred to carry human ACE2 receptors on their lung cells. Now that mice can become naturally infected, any breed will do, making it less costly and time-consuming to study the virus in animals.

On the other hand, the idea that the virus could have more and different ways to spread isn’t good news.

“From the beginning of the epidemic and since human coronaviruses emerged from animals, it has been very important to establish in which species the virus can replicate, in particular the species that live close to humans,” said Xavier Montagutelli, DVM, PhD, head of the Mouse Genetics Laboratory at the Institut Pasteur. His study was published as a preprint ahead of peer review on BioRXIV.

Once a virus establishes itself within a population of animals, it will continue to spread and change and may eventually be passed back to humans. It’s the reason that birds and pigs are closely monitored for influenza viruses.

So far, with SARS-CoV-2, only one animal has been found to catch and spread the virus and pass it back to people – farmed mink. Researchers have also documented SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in escaped mink living near mink farms in Utah, suggesting the virus has the potential to be transmitted to wild populations.

And the move of the virus into mice suggests that SARS-CoV-2 could establish itself in a population of wild animals that live close to humans.

“At this point, we have no evidence that wild mice are infected, or can become infected from humans,” Dr. Montagutelli said. He added that his findings emphasize the need to regularly test animals for signs of the infection. He said these surveys will need to be updated as more variants emerge.

“So far, we’ve been lucky that our livestock species aren’t really susceptible to this,” said Scott Weese, DVM, a professor at Ontario Veterinary College at the University of Guelph, who studies emerging infectious diseases that pass between animals and people.

While the outbreaks on mink farms have been bad, imagine what would happen, Dr. Weese said, if the virus moved to pigs.

“If this infects a barn with a few thousand pigs – which is like the mink scenario – but we have a lot more pig farms than mink farms,” he said.

“With these variants, we have to reset,” he said. “We’ve figured all this about animals and how it spreads or how it doesn’t, but now we need to repeat all those studies to make sure it’s the same thing.”
 

Pets catch variants, too

Pets living with people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 can catch it from their owners, and cats are particularly susceptible, Dr. Weese said. 

Contact tracing studies, which also tested animals for signs of the virus, have found that about half of cats living with infected people have signs of infection, while 20%-30% of dogs were sick.

“It’s quite common,” for pets to get COVID, Dr. Weese said.

Now, two new studies have shown that pets can also be infected by the newer B.1.1.7 variant.

The first study, from researchers at Texas A&M, documented the variant in a dog and a cat from Brazos County, Texas. Neither the older black Lab mix or the older domestic shorthair cat had symptoms of COVID-19. They were tested as part of a project funded by the CDC.

Dr. Weese said pets are at risk by people who are infected, but they don’t seem to play a big role in spreading the disease to humans. So if you have pets, there’s no reason to worry that they could bring the virus home to you. You’re more likely to be a risk to them.

The second study, from a specialty animal hospital in southeast England, documented infection by the B.1.1.7 virus variant in 11 dogs and cats. Most of the pets had unusual symptoms, including inflamed hearts and heart damage.

Dr. Weese called this study interesting and said its findings deserve more investigation, but pointed out that the study can’t determine whether the infection caused the heart damage, or whether it was already there.

“This is a human virus. There’s no doubt about it. It can affect other species, but it likes people a lot better,” he said. “If you think about the big picture and what is the potential role of animals, pets are pretty low risk.”
 

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