User login
First AI device for colonoscopy: Extra set of expert ‘eyes’
The GI Genius module is the first and only commercially available computer-aided detection system that uses AI to identify colorectal polyps during routine colonoscopy.
The technology is compatible with most standard video endoscopy systems and has been “trained” to identify colonic lesions that are possibly cancerous, according to Medtronic, the distributor of the device.
“I think that anything we can do within a reasonable cost that enhances quality and patient outcomes during colonoscopy warrants very close consideration,” David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview.
He was not involved with the development of the GI Genius system but has worked with a similar AI device that is used in conjunction with colonoscopy.
“The whole development of the technology for AI is done by inputting repetitive images into the computer, where it develops what is called the ‘neural network,’ ” he explained.
The computer then draws upon the “education” of this neural network to identify different types of colonic lesions, “and the more inputs that are put into the computer to enhance the neural network, the more capable the program becomes in the identification of variants and lesion size and characteristics,” Dr. Johnson added.
During routine colonoscopy, the GI Genius system generates visual markers – essentially, small green squares – and a low-volume sound whenever the software detects a region of interest.
These squares are superimposed on the video generated by the endoscope camera to alert the colonoscopist to regions that may require closer assessment, either visually, by tissue sampling, or by removal of the lesion itself.
“Colonoscopy is a durable screening and surveillance strategy, but it’s not perfect [because] it depends on a physician’s skill and their ability to pick up polyps in the colon,” Jeremy Glissen Brown, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. He has also worked with an AI device.
Studies of adenoma detection during “all-comer” colonoscopies show that the rate of missed lesions ranges from a low of 6% to 40%, “so polyps are still missed during colonoscopy, and any technology that can solve parts of that problem is welcome,” Dr. Glissen Brown commented.
Clinical trial data that led to approval
The recent FDA approval of the GI Genius device was based on a prospective, randomized trial that was published in Gastroenterology in 2020. That trial involved 700 patients who were being screened or followed with colonoscopy every 3 years or longer. Participants underwent either white-light standard colonoscopy with the assistance of the GI Genius technology or standard white-light colonoscopy alone.
Results showed that the combination of standard colonoscopy and the GI Genius module identified laboratory-confirmed adenomas or carcinomas in 54.8% of patients, compared with 40.4% of patients who underwent colonoscopy alone.
In the Gastroenterology article, the authors wrote that the “14% absolute increase in adenoma detection rate obtained by computer-aided detection (CADe) in our study indicates that failure in polyp recognition is a clinically relevant cause of miss rate. Of note, the efficacy of CADe in reversing such miss rate also indicates that the same operator who missed the lesion in the first place was able to correctly diagnose it when the lesion was presented by the CADe. This underlines that the main cognitive challenge in polyp recognition is the discrimination between the candidate lesion and the surrounding healthy mucosa, whereas its correct characterization as neoplastic tissue that occurs after CADe detection is apparently a much easier task.”
The authors also noted that they did “not assess the actual number of false-positive activations by the system, as this would have altered the routine setting of our study,” but they refer to a study published in Gut in 2020 in which false-positive frames were seen in fewer than 1% of frames from the whole colonoscopy.
Because the new device improves on the ability of colonoscopy to detect lesions overall, it may reduce the risk of interval cancers between colonoscopies, Medtronic suggests.
Previous research has shown that every 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate results in a 3% decrease in the risk for colorectal cancer.
“More than 19 million screening colonoscopies are performed in the United State each year. ... Detection of adenomas during colonoscopy is an important quality metric,” James Weber, MD, a gastroenterologist affiliated with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Southlake, commented in a Medtronic press release.
“The addition of AI can increase the quality of colonoscopies, potentially improving diagnosis and outcomes for colon cancer patients,” he added.
Dr. Weber is also the CEO of GI Alliance, a physician-led national health care platform of independent GI practices in six states in the United States.
Computer-aided detection
Unlike other computer-aided detection technologies, GI Genius does not characterize or “diagnose” a lesion, nor does it replace laboratory sampling as a means of confirming a cancer diagnosis.
The technology acts essentially as an extra set of expert “eyes” to detect suspicious lesions during colonoscopy, which should prove helpful, Dr. Johnson and Dr. Glissen Brown both commented.
“When a gastroenterologist looks at the video image, typically, our eyes are focused in the center of that image – that’s where our 20/20 vision is,” Dr. Johnson explained.
The computer has 20/20 vision over the whole image, including the periphery, “so the technology really gives an extremely expanded acuity of vision and highlights areas that we may need to investigate further,” he added.
Dr. Glissen Brown was involved in a trial of another AI device – the real-time automatic polyp detection system (Shanghai Wision AI). That study showed an increase in colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates, but this was mainly because of a higher number of diminutive adenomas detected by the automatic detection system, Dr. Gliseen Brown said. There was no important difference in the number of larger adenomas detected with the device and the number detected without it.
However, there was a significant increase in the detection of hyperplastic polyps when the automatic detection system was used. “We definitely want to look at the false positive rate – both the false positive rate under the camera when we are doing colonoscopy and under the microscope when we do biopsies,” Dr. Glissen Brown acknowledged.
In numerous prospective studies of various computer-aided detection technologies such as the GI Genius system, the false positive rate resulting in the performance of biopsy of insignificant lesions is relatively low, he said.
“Ultimately, the decision to remove or biopsy a lesion is with the physician, because the GI Genius technology just points the provider to the area of concern, and then it’s up to them to look at it and decide whether it needs to be biopsied or not,” Dr. Glissen Brown said.
“So the technology serves more as a digital safety net and points the physician in the right direction, so it shouldn’t lead to much in the way of histologic false positives,” he noted.
The only potential disadvantage to using an AI system such as the GI Genius module is the time it might take for endoscopists to learn how to use it and how much the technology might increase the time required to perform the procedure, he added.
For about 18 months, Dr. Johnson has been running a clinical trial with a similar type of AI technology during colonoscopy. He has found that the learning curve for using these systems is “inordinately short.” Dr. Glissen Brown agreed and suggested that, if physicians are already performing colonoscopies regularly, they could probably learn to use an AI system such as GI Genius in about a week.
In his experience, Dr. Johnson has found that the delay caused by use of an AI system during colonoscopy is “minimal.”
If there is any delay at all, “we know that time in the colon on withdrawal increases the detection of polyps, so more time during withdrawal may be a good thing,” he added. It should be noted that endoscopy societies recommend a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes, which is one of the metrics used to ensure the quality of a colonoscopy, Dr. Glissen Brown explained.
Indeed, the pivotal study upon which the FDA approved the GI Genius module required a minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes. Participants said they did not find that using the GI Genius increased withdrawal time, he added.
“I think there is enough prospective evidence at this point to suggest that this technology may really be of benefit to clinicians with a lot of different skill levels, so I would be eager to know how clinicians interact with it in the clinical setting,” Dr. Glissen Brown commented.
Dr. Johnson agreed, noting that “even the good can get better.”
Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with this news organization, CRH Medical, the American College of Gastroenterology Research Institute, and HyGIeaCare. Dr. Glissen Brown disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Article updated April 21, 2021.
The GI Genius module is the first and only commercially available computer-aided detection system that uses AI to identify colorectal polyps during routine colonoscopy.
The technology is compatible with most standard video endoscopy systems and has been “trained” to identify colonic lesions that are possibly cancerous, according to Medtronic, the distributor of the device.
“I think that anything we can do within a reasonable cost that enhances quality and patient outcomes during colonoscopy warrants very close consideration,” David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview.
He was not involved with the development of the GI Genius system but has worked with a similar AI device that is used in conjunction with colonoscopy.
“The whole development of the technology for AI is done by inputting repetitive images into the computer, where it develops what is called the ‘neural network,’ ” he explained.
The computer then draws upon the “education” of this neural network to identify different types of colonic lesions, “and the more inputs that are put into the computer to enhance the neural network, the more capable the program becomes in the identification of variants and lesion size and characteristics,” Dr. Johnson added.
During routine colonoscopy, the GI Genius system generates visual markers – essentially, small green squares – and a low-volume sound whenever the software detects a region of interest.
These squares are superimposed on the video generated by the endoscope camera to alert the colonoscopist to regions that may require closer assessment, either visually, by tissue sampling, or by removal of the lesion itself.
“Colonoscopy is a durable screening and surveillance strategy, but it’s not perfect [because] it depends on a physician’s skill and their ability to pick up polyps in the colon,” Jeremy Glissen Brown, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. He has also worked with an AI device.
Studies of adenoma detection during “all-comer” colonoscopies show that the rate of missed lesions ranges from a low of 6% to 40%, “so polyps are still missed during colonoscopy, and any technology that can solve parts of that problem is welcome,” Dr. Glissen Brown commented.
Clinical trial data that led to approval
The recent FDA approval of the GI Genius device was based on a prospective, randomized trial that was published in Gastroenterology in 2020. That trial involved 700 patients who were being screened or followed with colonoscopy every 3 years or longer. Participants underwent either white-light standard colonoscopy with the assistance of the GI Genius technology or standard white-light colonoscopy alone.
Results showed that the combination of standard colonoscopy and the GI Genius module identified laboratory-confirmed adenomas or carcinomas in 54.8% of patients, compared with 40.4% of patients who underwent colonoscopy alone.
In the Gastroenterology article, the authors wrote that the “14% absolute increase in adenoma detection rate obtained by computer-aided detection (CADe) in our study indicates that failure in polyp recognition is a clinically relevant cause of miss rate. Of note, the efficacy of CADe in reversing such miss rate also indicates that the same operator who missed the lesion in the first place was able to correctly diagnose it when the lesion was presented by the CADe. This underlines that the main cognitive challenge in polyp recognition is the discrimination between the candidate lesion and the surrounding healthy mucosa, whereas its correct characterization as neoplastic tissue that occurs after CADe detection is apparently a much easier task.”
The authors also noted that they did “not assess the actual number of false-positive activations by the system, as this would have altered the routine setting of our study,” but they refer to a study published in Gut in 2020 in which false-positive frames were seen in fewer than 1% of frames from the whole colonoscopy.
Because the new device improves on the ability of colonoscopy to detect lesions overall, it may reduce the risk of interval cancers between colonoscopies, Medtronic suggests.
Previous research has shown that every 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate results in a 3% decrease in the risk for colorectal cancer.
“More than 19 million screening colonoscopies are performed in the United State each year. ... Detection of adenomas during colonoscopy is an important quality metric,” James Weber, MD, a gastroenterologist affiliated with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Southlake, commented in a Medtronic press release.
“The addition of AI can increase the quality of colonoscopies, potentially improving diagnosis and outcomes for colon cancer patients,” he added.
Dr. Weber is also the CEO of GI Alliance, a physician-led national health care platform of independent GI practices in six states in the United States.
Computer-aided detection
Unlike other computer-aided detection technologies, GI Genius does not characterize or “diagnose” a lesion, nor does it replace laboratory sampling as a means of confirming a cancer diagnosis.
The technology acts essentially as an extra set of expert “eyes” to detect suspicious lesions during colonoscopy, which should prove helpful, Dr. Johnson and Dr. Glissen Brown both commented.
“When a gastroenterologist looks at the video image, typically, our eyes are focused in the center of that image – that’s where our 20/20 vision is,” Dr. Johnson explained.
The computer has 20/20 vision over the whole image, including the periphery, “so the technology really gives an extremely expanded acuity of vision and highlights areas that we may need to investigate further,” he added.
Dr. Glissen Brown was involved in a trial of another AI device – the real-time automatic polyp detection system (Shanghai Wision AI). That study showed an increase in colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates, but this was mainly because of a higher number of diminutive adenomas detected by the automatic detection system, Dr. Gliseen Brown said. There was no important difference in the number of larger adenomas detected with the device and the number detected without it.
However, there was a significant increase in the detection of hyperplastic polyps when the automatic detection system was used. “We definitely want to look at the false positive rate – both the false positive rate under the camera when we are doing colonoscopy and under the microscope when we do biopsies,” Dr. Glissen Brown acknowledged.
In numerous prospective studies of various computer-aided detection technologies such as the GI Genius system, the false positive rate resulting in the performance of biopsy of insignificant lesions is relatively low, he said.
“Ultimately, the decision to remove or biopsy a lesion is with the physician, because the GI Genius technology just points the provider to the area of concern, and then it’s up to them to look at it and decide whether it needs to be biopsied or not,” Dr. Glissen Brown said.
“So the technology serves more as a digital safety net and points the physician in the right direction, so it shouldn’t lead to much in the way of histologic false positives,” he noted.
The only potential disadvantage to using an AI system such as the GI Genius module is the time it might take for endoscopists to learn how to use it and how much the technology might increase the time required to perform the procedure, he added.
For about 18 months, Dr. Johnson has been running a clinical trial with a similar type of AI technology during colonoscopy. He has found that the learning curve for using these systems is “inordinately short.” Dr. Glissen Brown agreed and suggested that, if physicians are already performing colonoscopies regularly, they could probably learn to use an AI system such as GI Genius in about a week.
In his experience, Dr. Johnson has found that the delay caused by use of an AI system during colonoscopy is “minimal.”
If there is any delay at all, “we know that time in the colon on withdrawal increases the detection of polyps, so more time during withdrawal may be a good thing,” he added. It should be noted that endoscopy societies recommend a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes, which is one of the metrics used to ensure the quality of a colonoscopy, Dr. Glissen Brown explained.
Indeed, the pivotal study upon which the FDA approved the GI Genius module required a minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes. Participants said they did not find that using the GI Genius increased withdrawal time, he added.
“I think there is enough prospective evidence at this point to suggest that this technology may really be of benefit to clinicians with a lot of different skill levels, so I would be eager to know how clinicians interact with it in the clinical setting,” Dr. Glissen Brown commented.
Dr. Johnson agreed, noting that “even the good can get better.”
Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with this news organization, CRH Medical, the American College of Gastroenterology Research Institute, and HyGIeaCare. Dr. Glissen Brown disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Article updated April 21, 2021.
The GI Genius module is the first and only commercially available computer-aided detection system that uses AI to identify colorectal polyps during routine colonoscopy.
The technology is compatible with most standard video endoscopy systems and has been “trained” to identify colonic lesions that are possibly cancerous, according to Medtronic, the distributor of the device.
“I think that anything we can do within a reasonable cost that enhances quality and patient outcomes during colonoscopy warrants very close consideration,” David Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, said in an interview.
He was not involved with the development of the GI Genius system but has worked with a similar AI device that is used in conjunction with colonoscopy.
“The whole development of the technology for AI is done by inputting repetitive images into the computer, where it develops what is called the ‘neural network,’ ” he explained.
The computer then draws upon the “education” of this neural network to identify different types of colonic lesions, “and the more inputs that are put into the computer to enhance the neural network, the more capable the program becomes in the identification of variants and lesion size and characteristics,” Dr. Johnson added.
During routine colonoscopy, the GI Genius system generates visual markers – essentially, small green squares – and a low-volume sound whenever the software detects a region of interest.
These squares are superimposed on the video generated by the endoscope camera to alert the colonoscopist to regions that may require closer assessment, either visually, by tissue sampling, or by removal of the lesion itself.
“Colonoscopy is a durable screening and surveillance strategy, but it’s not perfect [because] it depends on a physician’s skill and their ability to pick up polyps in the colon,” Jeremy Glissen Brown, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, said in an interview. He has also worked with an AI device.
Studies of adenoma detection during “all-comer” colonoscopies show that the rate of missed lesions ranges from a low of 6% to 40%, “so polyps are still missed during colonoscopy, and any technology that can solve parts of that problem is welcome,” Dr. Glissen Brown commented.
Clinical trial data that led to approval
The recent FDA approval of the GI Genius device was based on a prospective, randomized trial that was published in Gastroenterology in 2020. That trial involved 700 patients who were being screened or followed with colonoscopy every 3 years or longer. Participants underwent either white-light standard colonoscopy with the assistance of the GI Genius technology or standard white-light colonoscopy alone.
Results showed that the combination of standard colonoscopy and the GI Genius module identified laboratory-confirmed adenomas or carcinomas in 54.8% of patients, compared with 40.4% of patients who underwent colonoscopy alone.
In the Gastroenterology article, the authors wrote that the “14% absolute increase in adenoma detection rate obtained by computer-aided detection (CADe) in our study indicates that failure in polyp recognition is a clinically relevant cause of miss rate. Of note, the efficacy of CADe in reversing such miss rate also indicates that the same operator who missed the lesion in the first place was able to correctly diagnose it when the lesion was presented by the CADe. This underlines that the main cognitive challenge in polyp recognition is the discrimination between the candidate lesion and the surrounding healthy mucosa, whereas its correct characterization as neoplastic tissue that occurs after CADe detection is apparently a much easier task.”
The authors also noted that they did “not assess the actual number of false-positive activations by the system, as this would have altered the routine setting of our study,” but they refer to a study published in Gut in 2020 in which false-positive frames were seen in fewer than 1% of frames from the whole colonoscopy.
Because the new device improves on the ability of colonoscopy to detect lesions overall, it may reduce the risk of interval cancers between colonoscopies, Medtronic suggests.
Previous research has shown that every 1% increase in the adenoma detection rate results in a 3% decrease in the risk for colorectal cancer.
“More than 19 million screening colonoscopies are performed in the United State each year. ... Detection of adenomas during colonoscopy is an important quality metric,” James Weber, MD, a gastroenterologist affiliated with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants, Southlake, commented in a Medtronic press release.
“The addition of AI can increase the quality of colonoscopies, potentially improving diagnosis and outcomes for colon cancer patients,” he added.
Dr. Weber is also the CEO of GI Alliance, a physician-led national health care platform of independent GI practices in six states in the United States.
Computer-aided detection
Unlike other computer-aided detection technologies, GI Genius does not characterize or “diagnose” a lesion, nor does it replace laboratory sampling as a means of confirming a cancer diagnosis.
The technology acts essentially as an extra set of expert “eyes” to detect suspicious lesions during colonoscopy, which should prove helpful, Dr. Johnson and Dr. Glissen Brown both commented.
“When a gastroenterologist looks at the video image, typically, our eyes are focused in the center of that image – that’s where our 20/20 vision is,” Dr. Johnson explained.
The computer has 20/20 vision over the whole image, including the periphery, “so the technology really gives an extremely expanded acuity of vision and highlights areas that we may need to investigate further,” he added.
Dr. Glissen Brown was involved in a trial of another AI device – the real-time automatic polyp detection system (Shanghai Wision AI). That study showed an increase in colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates, but this was mainly because of a higher number of diminutive adenomas detected by the automatic detection system, Dr. Gliseen Brown said. There was no important difference in the number of larger adenomas detected with the device and the number detected without it.
However, there was a significant increase in the detection of hyperplastic polyps when the automatic detection system was used. “We definitely want to look at the false positive rate – both the false positive rate under the camera when we are doing colonoscopy and under the microscope when we do biopsies,” Dr. Glissen Brown acknowledged.
In numerous prospective studies of various computer-aided detection technologies such as the GI Genius system, the false positive rate resulting in the performance of biopsy of insignificant lesions is relatively low, he said.
“Ultimately, the decision to remove or biopsy a lesion is with the physician, because the GI Genius technology just points the provider to the area of concern, and then it’s up to them to look at it and decide whether it needs to be biopsied or not,” Dr. Glissen Brown said.
“So the technology serves more as a digital safety net and points the physician in the right direction, so it shouldn’t lead to much in the way of histologic false positives,” he noted.
The only potential disadvantage to using an AI system such as the GI Genius module is the time it might take for endoscopists to learn how to use it and how much the technology might increase the time required to perform the procedure, he added.
For about 18 months, Dr. Johnson has been running a clinical trial with a similar type of AI technology during colonoscopy. He has found that the learning curve for using these systems is “inordinately short.” Dr. Glissen Brown agreed and suggested that, if physicians are already performing colonoscopies regularly, they could probably learn to use an AI system such as GI Genius in about a week.
In his experience, Dr. Johnson has found that the delay caused by use of an AI system during colonoscopy is “minimal.”
If there is any delay at all, “we know that time in the colon on withdrawal increases the detection of polyps, so more time during withdrawal may be a good thing,” he added. It should be noted that endoscopy societies recommend a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes, which is one of the metrics used to ensure the quality of a colonoscopy, Dr. Glissen Brown explained.
Indeed, the pivotal study upon which the FDA approved the GI Genius module required a minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes. Participants said they did not find that using the GI Genius increased withdrawal time, he added.
“I think there is enough prospective evidence at this point to suggest that this technology may really be of benefit to clinicians with a lot of different skill levels, so I would be eager to know how clinicians interact with it in the clinical setting,” Dr. Glissen Brown commented.
Dr. Johnson agreed, noting that “even the good can get better.”
Dr. Johnson disclosed relationships with this news organization, CRH Medical, the American College of Gastroenterology Research Institute, and HyGIeaCare. Dr. Glissen Brown disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Article updated April 21, 2021.
Dr. G. Gayle Stephens was a teacher, progressive force, and ‘poet laureate of family medicine’
G. Gayle Stephens, MD, who is roundly regarded as one of the founders of family medicine, gave his talk “Family Medicine as Counterculture” at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine annual conference in 1979, 10 years after the specialty’s establishment.
The speech was then published, republished 10 years later, and, like many of Dr. Stephen’s other essays and articles, remains very much alive in the minds of practicing family physicians, in the teachings of FP academicians, and in the Google searches of budding FPs.
The late Dr. Stephens saw family medicine as a counterculture within medicine, rooted in social change. In his speech he examined these roots – in reform initiatives in the 1960s, and in certain philosophies and “minority” movements such as agrarianism and the preservation of rural life, utopianism, humanism, consumerism, and feminism.
He also looked forward, challenging the specialty to remain true to itself and its roots – to its belief in “uninhibited access” to medical care for everyone, for instance, and to continual whole-person and family-oriented care – and cautioned against moving to resemble the “rest of the medical bureaucracy.”
“Clearly we have been on the side of change in American life. We have identified ourselves with certain minorities and minority positions ... [and] been counter to many of the dominant forces in society,” Dr. Stephens said in his talk. Family practice “succeeded in the decade just past because we were identified with reforms that are more pervasive and powerful than ourselves.”
The family practice movement has “more in common with [the] counterculture than it does with the dominant scientific medical establishment,” he said.
A teacher and founder of medical education programs
Larry A. Green, MD, who was pursuing his own residency training as Dr. Stephens was leading a department of family practice, said
“It was from this philosophical position that he became a synthesizer and observer and interpreter of what was going on in the development of family medicine,” said Dr. Green, Distinguished Professor and Epperson Zorn Chair for Innovation in Family Medicine and Primary Care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Dr. Stephens, who died at home in 2014 at the age of 85, was “probably the most important person in exposing what I now consider to be a fact – that family medicine was the product of social changes ... of social movements related to women’s rights, civil rights, and social responsibility,” Dr. Green said. “He could recall lessons from the past and forecast the challenges of the future. And there was no one more effective in clarifying the importance of personal [doctor-patient] relationships in family medicine.”
After years of general practice in rural Wichita, Kan., his wife Eula Jean’s hometown, Dr. Stephens founded and led one of the first family medicine residencies at Wesley Hospital in Wichita in 1967. His core principles, as described on today’s Wesley Family Medicine Residency website, included that a family physician consider the whole person, be honest, have a full scope of training including behavioral and mental health, and be “reflective about him/herself ... [learning about] his/her assets, liabilities, foibles, and idiosyncrasies.” Dr. Stephens, who had grown up in rural Ashburn, Mo., later became the founding dean of the School of Primary Medical Care at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and then chaired the department of family practice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
A thought leader for family medicine
He held numerous state and national leadership positions, and initiated what became the Keystone Conference Series – an invitational gathering of leaders in family medicine that examined and discuss the specialty’s ongoing development. In 2006, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science.
Dr. Stephens authored a textbook, The Intellectual Basis of Family Medicine (Tucson, Ariz.: Winter Publishing Company, 1982), and authored essays, which Dr. Green said will stand the test of time.
“Some of us refer to him as the poet laureate of family medicine,” Dr. Green noted.
In a 1974 article on clinical wisdom, Dr. Stephens wrote that “it is not enough to determine what condition the patient has, but also what patient has the condition.” In another of these essays, which was published in 1979, Dr. Stephens wrote that “physicians need to keep in touch with their own tradition and with public welfare if they are to be considered moral by the society that sponsors them, and from which they take their strength and privilege.”
These excerpts are featured in an article by John P. Geyman, MD, published in 2011 in Family Medicine, called “G. Gayle Stephens Festschrift”.
A ‘progressive force’
Linda Prine, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, knows of Dr. Stephens from her teachers. “The people I looked up to when I was a younger physician were quoting his Counterculture article,” she said.
“It’s not that I studied him. But whenever I heard someone speak about the values of family medicine, his name would come up [and] the values of universal health care and community care and putting the patients’ interests first ahead of the insurance companies and being a doctor for the whole family,” Dr. Prine said. Dr. Stephens was a “progressive force that our specialty has not always lived up to.”
Dr. Stephens voiced serious concerns about the impact of managed care in the 1980s and of “gatekeeping,” a practice intended to control access to specialists and reduce costs.
“He was many times not welcomed by family medicine [for his warnings] against the temptations that managed care presented,” said Dr. Green, the founding director of the Robert Graham Center, Washington. “He saw the conflict of interest of being a gatekeeper, how that would erode trust in a personal relationship with your personal doctor.”
“Gayle thought it was a disaster waiting to happen, and it was,” he said, referring to the eventual rejection by the public of barriers to direct access to specialists.
Through the 1990s and more recently, Dr. Stephens expressed frustration with the “medical-industrial complex” and the decline of family medicine after its surge in the 1970s and 1980s, Dr. Green said. “But in my opinion, near the end of his life, he was encouraged by young leaders who he saw grasped the important ideas from the ages.”
Dr. Stephens’ interest in medical education extended to nurses and nurse practitioners (the latter of whom had begun their discipline in the mid-1960s), and to optometrists, for whom he taught a recurring course in “physical diagnosis.”
A listener and proponent of listening
Linda Tompkins, RN, FNP, of Newton, Kan., trained with Dr. Stephens at part of a year-long nurse education program in the early 1970s at Wichita (Kan.) State University, where he was leading the department of family practice (prior to moving to Alabama). “You couldn’t ask too many questions,” she said. “And he never talked down to us, he wasn’t condescending. There were not a lot of doctors like that.”
Dr. Stephens spoke and wrote often about the importance of listening –about how it was vital to the “durable clinical relationship.” It was also vital to his writing and to his impact on the teachers of family medicine, said Dan Ostergaard, MD, who served as a residency director and in various staff leadership positions at the American Academy of Family Physicians, including in its division of education.
“He created a lot of aha moments for me, about where we came from and what we really need to be [as a specialty] and where we need to go,” said Dr. Ostergaard. “To be such a great thinker and a great writer, you have to be a great listener.”
“I can just visualize him,” he said, “leaning back in his chair while we were talking about residency criteria [or other issues], with a half-smile on his face and his reading glasses down his note, smoking his pipe and just looking at all of us, listening.”
Dr. Stephens’ papers are housed in the Center for the History of Family Medicine, a project of the AAFP Foundation.
G. Gayle Stephens, MD, who is roundly regarded as one of the founders of family medicine, gave his talk “Family Medicine as Counterculture” at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine annual conference in 1979, 10 years after the specialty’s establishment.
The speech was then published, republished 10 years later, and, like many of Dr. Stephen’s other essays and articles, remains very much alive in the minds of practicing family physicians, in the teachings of FP academicians, and in the Google searches of budding FPs.
The late Dr. Stephens saw family medicine as a counterculture within medicine, rooted in social change. In his speech he examined these roots – in reform initiatives in the 1960s, and in certain philosophies and “minority” movements such as agrarianism and the preservation of rural life, utopianism, humanism, consumerism, and feminism.
He also looked forward, challenging the specialty to remain true to itself and its roots – to its belief in “uninhibited access” to medical care for everyone, for instance, and to continual whole-person and family-oriented care – and cautioned against moving to resemble the “rest of the medical bureaucracy.”
“Clearly we have been on the side of change in American life. We have identified ourselves with certain minorities and minority positions ... [and] been counter to many of the dominant forces in society,” Dr. Stephens said in his talk. Family practice “succeeded in the decade just past because we were identified with reforms that are more pervasive and powerful than ourselves.”
The family practice movement has “more in common with [the] counterculture than it does with the dominant scientific medical establishment,” he said.
A teacher and founder of medical education programs
Larry A. Green, MD, who was pursuing his own residency training as Dr. Stephens was leading a department of family practice, said
“It was from this philosophical position that he became a synthesizer and observer and interpreter of what was going on in the development of family medicine,” said Dr. Green, Distinguished Professor and Epperson Zorn Chair for Innovation in Family Medicine and Primary Care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Dr. Stephens, who died at home in 2014 at the age of 85, was “probably the most important person in exposing what I now consider to be a fact – that family medicine was the product of social changes ... of social movements related to women’s rights, civil rights, and social responsibility,” Dr. Green said. “He could recall lessons from the past and forecast the challenges of the future. And there was no one more effective in clarifying the importance of personal [doctor-patient] relationships in family medicine.”
After years of general practice in rural Wichita, Kan., his wife Eula Jean’s hometown, Dr. Stephens founded and led one of the first family medicine residencies at Wesley Hospital in Wichita in 1967. His core principles, as described on today’s Wesley Family Medicine Residency website, included that a family physician consider the whole person, be honest, have a full scope of training including behavioral and mental health, and be “reflective about him/herself ... [learning about] his/her assets, liabilities, foibles, and idiosyncrasies.” Dr. Stephens, who had grown up in rural Ashburn, Mo., later became the founding dean of the School of Primary Medical Care at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and then chaired the department of family practice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
A thought leader for family medicine
He held numerous state and national leadership positions, and initiated what became the Keystone Conference Series – an invitational gathering of leaders in family medicine that examined and discuss the specialty’s ongoing development. In 2006, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science.
Dr. Stephens authored a textbook, The Intellectual Basis of Family Medicine (Tucson, Ariz.: Winter Publishing Company, 1982), and authored essays, which Dr. Green said will stand the test of time.
“Some of us refer to him as the poet laureate of family medicine,” Dr. Green noted.
In a 1974 article on clinical wisdom, Dr. Stephens wrote that “it is not enough to determine what condition the patient has, but also what patient has the condition.” In another of these essays, which was published in 1979, Dr. Stephens wrote that “physicians need to keep in touch with their own tradition and with public welfare if they are to be considered moral by the society that sponsors them, and from which they take their strength and privilege.”
These excerpts are featured in an article by John P. Geyman, MD, published in 2011 in Family Medicine, called “G. Gayle Stephens Festschrift”.
A ‘progressive force’
Linda Prine, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, knows of Dr. Stephens from her teachers. “The people I looked up to when I was a younger physician were quoting his Counterculture article,” she said.
“It’s not that I studied him. But whenever I heard someone speak about the values of family medicine, his name would come up [and] the values of universal health care and community care and putting the patients’ interests first ahead of the insurance companies and being a doctor for the whole family,” Dr. Prine said. Dr. Stephens was a “progressive force that our specialty has not always lived up to.”
Dr. Stephens voiced serious concerns about the impact of managed care in the 1980s and of “gatekeeping,” a practice intended to control access to specialists and reduce costs.
“He was many times not welcomed by family medicine [for his warnings] against the temptations that managed care presented,” said Dr. Green, the founding director of the Robert Graham Center, Washington. “He saw the conflict of interest of being a gatekeeper, how that would erode trust in a personal relationship with your personal doctor.”
“Gayle thought it was a disaster waiting to happen, and it was,” he said, referring to the eventual rejection by the public of barriers to direct access to specialists.
Through the 1990s and more recently, Dr. Stephens expressed frustration with the “medical-industrial complex” and the decline of family medicine after its surge in the 1970s and 1980s, Dr. Green said. “But in my opinion, near the end of his life, he was encouraged by young leaders who he saw grasped the important ideas from the ages.”
Dr. Stephens’ interest in medical education extended to nurses and nurse practitioners (the latter of whom had begun their discipline in the mid-1960s), and to optometrists, for whom he taught a recurring course in “physical diagnosis.”
A listener and proponent of listening
Linda Tompkins, RN, FNP, of Newton, Kan., trained with Dr. Stephens at part of a year-long nurse education program in the early 1970s at Wichita (Kan.) State University, where he was leading the department of family practice (prior to moving to Alabama). “You couldn’t ask too many questions,” she said. “And he never talked down to us, he wasn’t condescending. There were not a lot of doctors like that.”
Dr. Stephens spoke and wrote often about the importance of listening –about how it was vital to the “durable clinical relationship.” It was also vital to his writing and to his impact on the teachers of family medicine, said Dan Ostergaard, MD, who served as a residency director and in various staff leadership positions at the American Academy of Family Physicians, including in its division of education.
“He created a lot of aha moments for me, about where we came from and what we really need to be [as a specialty] and where we need to go,” said Dr. Ostergaard. “To be such a great thinker and a great writer, you have to be a great listener.”
“I can just visualize him,” he said, “leaning back in his chair while we were talking about residency criteria [or other issues], with a half-smile on his face and his reading glasses down his note, smoking his pipe and just looking at all of us, listening.”
Dr. Stephens’ papers are housed in the Center for the History of Family Medicine, a project of the AAFP Foundation.
G. Gayle Stephens, MD, who is roundly regarded as one of the founders of family medicine, gave his talk “Family Medicine as Counterculture” at the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine annual conference in 1979, 10 years after the specialty’s establishment.
The speech was then published, republished 10 years later, and, like many of Dr. Stephen’s other essays and articles, remains very much alive in the minds of practicing family physicians, in the teachings of FP academicians, and in the Google searches of budding FPs.
The late Dr. Stephens saw family medicine as a counterculture within medicine, rooted in social change. In his speech he examined these roots – in reform initiatives in the 1960s, and in certain philosophies and “minority” movements such as agrarianism and the preservation of rural life, utopianism, humanism, consumerism, and feminism.
He also looked forward, challenging the specialty to remain true to itself and its roots – to its belief in “uninhibited access” to medical care for everyone, for instance, and to continual whole-person and family-oriented care – and cautioned against moving to resemble the “rest of the medical bureaucracy.”
“Clearly we have been on the side of change in American life. We have identified ourselves with certain minorities and minority positions ... [and] been counter to many of the dominant forces in society,” Dr. Stephens said in his talk. Family practice “succeeded in the decade just past because we were identified with reforms that are more pervasive and powerful than ourselves.”
The family practice movement has “more in common with [the] counterculture than it does with the dominant scientific medical establishment,” he said.
A teacher and founder of medical education programs
Larry A. Green, MD, who was pursuing his own residency training as Dr. Stephens was leading a department of family practice, said
“It was from this philosophical position that he became a synthesizer and observer and interpreter of what was going on in the development of family medicine,” said Dr. Green, Distinguished Professor and Epperson Zorn Chair for Innovation in Family Medicine and Primary Care at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.
Dr. Stephens, who died at home in 2014 at the age of 85, was “probably the most important person in exposing what I now consider to be a fact – that family medicine was the product of social changes ... of social movements related to women’s rights, civil rights, and social responsibility,” Dr. Green said. “He could recall lessons from the past and forecast the challenges of the future. And there was no one more effective in clarifying the importance of personal [doctor-patient] relationships in family medicine.”
After years of general practice in rural Wichita, Kan., his wife Eula Jean’s hometown, Dr. Stephens founded and led one of the first family medicine residencies at Wesley Hospital in Wichita in 1967. His core principles, as described on today’s Wesley Family Medicine Residency website, included that a family physician consider the whole person, be honest, have a full scope of training including behavioral and mental health, and be “reflective about him/herself ... [learning about] his/her assets, liabilities, foibles, and idiosyncrasies.” Dr. Stephens, who had grown up in rural Ashburn, Mo., later became the founding dean of the School of Primary Medical Care at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and then chaired the department of family practice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.
A thought leader for family medicine
He held numerous state and national leadership positions, and initiated what became the Keystone Conference Series – an invitational gathering of leaders in family medicine that examined and discuss the specialty’s ongoing development. In 2006, he was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Science.
Dr. Stephens authored a textbook, The Intellectual Basis of Family Medicine (Tucson, Ariz.: Winter Publishing Company, 1982), and authored essays, which Dr. Green said will stand the test of time.
“Some of us refer to him as the poet laureate of family medicine,” Dr. Green noted.
In a 1974 article on clinical wisdom, Dr. Stephens wrote that “it is not enough to determine what condition the patient has, but also what patient has the condition.” In another of these essays, which was published in 1979, Dr. Stephens wrote that “physicians need to keep in touch with their own tradition and with public welfare if they are to be considered moral by the society that sponsors them, and from which they take their strength and privilege.”
These excerpts are featured in an article by John P. Geyman, MD, published in 2011 in Family Medicine, called “G. Gayle Stephens Festschrift”.
A ‘progressive force’
Linda Prine, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, knows of Dr. Stephens from her teachers. “The people I looked up to when I was a younger physician were quoting his Counterculture article,” she said.
“It’s not that I studied him. But whenever I heard someone speak about the values of family medicine, his name would come up [and] the values of universal health care and community care and putting the patients’ interests first ahead of the insurance companies and being a doctor for the whole family,” Dr. Prine said. Dr. Stephens was a “progressive force that our specialty has not always lived up to.”
Dr. Stephens voiced serious concerns about the impact of managed care in the 1980s and of “gatekeeping,” a practice intended to control access to specialists and reduce costs.
“He was many times not welcomed by family medicine [for his warnings] against the temptations that managed care presented,” said Dr. Green, the founding director of the Robert Graham Center, Washington. “He saw the conflict of interest of being a gatekeeper, how that would erode trust in a personal relationship with your personal doctor.”
“Gayle thought it was a disaster waiting to happen, and it was,” he said, referring to the eventual rejection by the public of barriers to direct access to specialists.
Through the 1990s and more recently, Dr. Stephens expressed frustration with the “medical-industrial complex” and the decline of family medicine after its surge in the 1970s and 1980s, Dr. Green said. “But in my opinion, near the end of his life, he was encouraged by young leaders who he saw grasped the important ideas from the ages.”
Dr. Stephens’ interest in medical education extended to nurses and nurse practitioners (the latter of whom had begun their discipline in the mid-1960s), and to optometrists, for whom he taught a recurring course in “physical diagnosis.”
A listener and proponent of listening
Linda Tompkins, RN, FNP, of Newton, Kan., trained with Dr. Stephens at part of a year-long nurse education program in the early 1970s at Wichita (Kan.) State University, where he was leading the department of family practice (prior to moving to Alabama). “You couldn’t ask too many questions,” she said. “And he never talked down to us, he wasn’t condescending. There were not a lot of doctors like that.”
Dr. Stephens spoke and wrote often about the importance of listening –about how it was vital to the “durable clinical relationship.” It was also vital to his writing and to his impact on the teachers of family medicine, said Dan Ostergaard, MD, who served as a residency director and in various staff leadership positions at the American Academy of Family Physicians, including in its division of education.
“He created a lot of aha moments for me, about where we came from and what we really need to be [as a specialty] and where we need to go,” said Dr. Ostergaard. “To be such a great thinker and a great writer, you have to be a great listener.”
“I can just visualize him,” he said, “leaning back in his chair while we were talking about residency criteria [or other issues], with a half-smile on his face and his reading glasses down his note, smoking his pipe and just looking at all of us, listening.”
Dr. Stephens’ papers are housed in the Center for the History of Family Medicine, a project of the AAFP Foundation.
Twenty percent of dialysis patients are hesitant about COVID-19 vaccine
Among U.S. patients who regularly undergo hemodialysis, 20% had some degree of hesitancy about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in a survey of 1,515 patients conducted during January and February 2021.
The most frequently cited concern associated with hesitancy over vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus was with regard to possible adverse effects. This was cited by more than half of the patients who were concerned about being vaccinated.
Hesitancy rates were highest among people aged 44 years or younger, women, people who identified as non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic other (generally Native American or Pacific Islander), those with less than some college education, and those without a history of influenza vaccination, Pablo Garcia, MD, reported at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.
Hesitancy or access?
Overall, however, the findings suggest that the main barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake is “access rather than hesitancy,” explained Dr. Garcia, a nephrologist at Stanford (Calif.) University. He predicts that this barrier will soon resolve, in part because of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program launched in March 2021 that is supplying COVID-19 vaccine to U.S. dialysis centers to administer to their patients.
“This will facilitate access to the vaccine” for patients who regularly receive hemodialysis, Dr. Garcia said during his presentation.
“Administering vaccines in dialysis clinics will help. Patients are already accustomed to receiving influenza vaccine in the clinic,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and chief medical officer for the NKF.
Dr. Vassalotti cited the importance of protecting the vulnerable population of people who regularly receive hemodialysis. Among those patients, there was a 37% spike in all-cause mortality during peak weeks of the pandemic compared with similar periods during 2017-2019.
Any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning
In an interview, he said, “Vaccination is the key to reducing this burden, so any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning” with regard to patients who regularly undergo dialysis.
Hesitancy among patients who undergo dialysis appears to be less than in the general U.S. population, according to a series of surveys conducted from April through December 2020. In that series, hesitancy rates approached 50% in a sample of more than 8,000 people.
Hesitancy among people overall may have recently increased, at least for the short term, because of concerns over rare thrombotic events among people who receive certain types of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Vassalotti noted.
Dr. Garcia and associates conducted their survey from Jan. 8 to Feb. 11, 2021, among patients who regularly received hemodialysis at any of 150 randomly selected dialysis clinics that treat 30 or more patients and are managed by U.S. Renal Care. The study enrolled patients in 22 states. Most of the patients were aged 45-79 years; 30% were non-Hispanic White; 30% were Black, and 24% were Hispanic. The survey included 24 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete.
In reply to the statement, “If COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe and effective for the general population I would seek to get it,” 20% gave a reply of definitely not, probably not, or unsure; 79% answered either probably or definitely yes.
Another question asked about willingness to receive a vaccine if it was shown to be safe and effective for people receiving dialysis. In answer to that question, 19% said definitely not, probably not, or unsure.
Possible adverse effects an issue
Asked the reason why they were hesitant to receive the vaccine, 53% cited possible adverse effects; 19% cited general unease about vaccines; 19% said they did not think the COVID-19 vaccines would work; 17% said they did not think they needed a COVID-19 vaccine; and 15% said they had read or heard that COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.
A set of questions asked survey respondents about their primary source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. About three-quarters cited television news; about 35% cited members of their dialysis clinic staff; about 30% cited friends and family; 20% cited social media; 20% cited their nephrologists; and roughly 15% cited newspapers.
The results suggest that potentially effective interventions to promote vaccine uptake include showing informational videos to patients during dialysis sessions and encouraging the staff at dialysis centers to proactively educate patients about COVID-19 vaccines and to promote uptake, suggest Dr. Garcia and Dr. Vassalotti.
Dr. Vassalotti noted that in a recent single-center survey of 90 U.S. patients undergoing hemodialysis that included 75 (85%) Black persons, the prevalence of hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines was 50%. Hesitancy was often linked with gaps in patient education.
“We need broad educational measures, as well as targeting specific demographic groups” among whom the level of hesitancy is high, said Dr. Vassalotti.
He noted that patients who undergo dialysis are receptive to messages from dialysis clinic staff members and that this offers an “opportunity to understand misconceptions that underlie hesitancy and address them on an individual basis.”
The NKF has prepared a fact sheet for educating patients with kidney disease about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Vassalotti noted.
Dr. Garcia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vassalotti is an adviser and consultant to Renalytix AI and is a consultant to Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among U.S. patients who regularly undergo hemodialysis, 20% had some degree of hesitancy about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in a survey of 1,515 patients conducted during January and February 2021.
The most frequently cited concern associated with hesitancy over vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus was with regard to possible adverse effects. This was cited by more than half of the patients who were concerned about being vaccinated.
Hesitancy rates were highest among people aged 44 years or younger, women, people who identified as non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic other (generally Native American or Pacific Islander), those with less than some college education, and those without a history of influenza vaccination, Pablo Garcia, MD, reported at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.
Hesitancy or access?
Overall, however, the findings suggest that the main barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake is “access rather than hesitancy,” explained Dr. Garcia, a nephrologist at Stanford (Calif.) University. He predicts that this barrier will soon resolve, in part because of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program launched in March 2021 that is supplying COVID-19 vaccine to U.S. dialysis centers to administer to their patients.
“This will facilitate access to the vaccine” for patients who regularly receive hemodialysis, Dr. Garcia said during his presentation.
“Administering vaccines in dialysis clinics will help. Patients are already accustomed to receiving influenza vaccine in the clinic,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and chief medical officer for the NKF.
Dr. Vassalotti cited the importance of protecting the vulnerable population of people who regularly receive hemodialysis. Among those patients, there was a 37% spike in all-cause mortality during peak weeks of the pandemic compared with similar periods during 2017-2019.
Any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning
In an interview, he said, “Vaccination is the key to reducing this burden, so any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning” with regard to patients who regularly undergo dialysis.
Hesitancy among patients who undergo dialysis appears to be less than in the general U.S. population, according to a series of surveys conducted from April through December 2020. In that series, hesitancy rates approached 50% in a sample of more than 8,000 people.
Hesitancy among people overall may have recently increased, at least for the short term, because of concerns over rare thrombotic events among people who receive certain types of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Vassalotti noted.
Dr. Garcia and associates conducted their survey from Jan. 8 to Feb. 11, 2021, among patients who regularly received hemodialysis at any of 150 randomly selected dialysis clinics that treat 30 or more patients and are managed by U.S. Renal Care. The study enrolled patients in 22 states. Most of the patients were aged 45-79 years; 30% were non-Hispanic White; 30% were Black, and 24% were Hispanic. The survey included 24 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete.
In reply to the statement, “If COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe and effective for the general population I would seek to get it,” 20% gave a reply of definitely not, probably not, or unsure; 79% answered either probably or definitely yes.
Another question asked about willingness to receive a vaccine if it was shown to be safe and effective for people receiving dialysis. In answer to that question, 19% said definitely not, probably not, or unsure.
Possible adverse effects an issue
Asked the reason why they were hesitant to receive the vaccine, 53% cited possible adverse effects; 19% cited general unease about vaccines; 19% said they did not think the COVID-19 vaccines would work; 17% said they did not think they needed a COVID-19 vaccine; and 15% said they had read or heard that COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.
A set of questions asked survey respondents about their primary source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. About three-quarters cited television news; about 35% cited members of their dialysis clinic staff; about 30% cited friends and family; 20% cited social media; 20% cited their nephrologists; and roughly 15% cited newspapers.
The results suggest that potentially effective interventions to promote vaccine uptake include showing informational videos to patients during dialysis sessions and encouraging the staff at dialysis centers to proactively educate patients about COVID-19 vaccines and to promote uptake, suggest Dr. Garcia and Dr. Vassalotti.
Dr. Vassalotti noted that in a recent single-center survey of 90 U.S. patients undergoing hemodialysis that included 75 (85%) Black persons, the prevalence of hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines was 50%. Hesitancy was often linked with gaps in patient education.
“We need broad educational measures, as well as targeting specific demographic groups” among whom the level of hesitancy is high, said Dr. Vassalotti.
He noted that patients who undergo dialysis are receptive to messages from dialysis clinic staff members and that this offers an “opportunity to understand misconceptions that underlie hesitancy and address them on an individual basis.”
The NKF has prepared a fact sheet for educating patients with kidney disease about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Vassalotti noted.
Dr. Garcia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vassalotti is an adviser and consultant to Renalytix AI and is a consultant to Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among U.S. patients who regularly undergo hemodialysis, 20% had some degree of hesitancy about receiving a COVID-19 vaccine in a survey of 1,515 patients conducted during January and February 2021.
The most frequently cited concern associated with hesitancy over vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus was with regard to possible adverse effects. This was cited by more than half of the patients who were concerned about being vaccinated.
Hesitancy rates were highest among people aged 44 years or younger, women, people who identified as non-Hispanic Black or non-Hispanic other (generally Native American or Pacific Islander), those with less than some college education, and those without a history of influenza vaccination, Pablo Garcia, MD, reported at the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) 2021 Spring Clinical Meetings.
Hesitancy or access?
Overall, however, the findings suggest that the main barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake is “access rather than hesitancy,” explained Dr. Garcia, a nephrologist at Stanford (Calif.) University. He predicts that this barrier will soon resolve, in part because of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention program launched in March 2021 that is supplying COVID-19 vaccine to U.S. dialysis centers to administer to their patients.
“This will facilitate access to the vaccine” for patients who regularly receive hemodialysis, Dr. Garcia said during his presentation.
“Administering vaccines in dialysis clinics will help. Patients are already accustomed to receiving influenza vaccine in the clinic,” said Joseph A. Vassalotti, MD, a nephrologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, and chief medical officer for the NKF.
Dr. Vassalotti cited the importance of protecting the vulnerable population of people who regularly receive hemodialysis. Among those patients, there was a 37% spike in all-cause mortality during peak weeks of the pandemic compared with similar periods during 2017-2019.
Any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning
In an interview, he said, “Vaccination is the key to reducing this burden, so any level of vaccine hesitancy is concerning” with regard to patients who regularly undergo dialysis.
Hesitancy among patients who undergo dialysis appears to be less than in the general U.S. population, according to a series of surveys conducted from April through December 2020. In that series, hesitancy rates approached 50% in a sample of more than 8,000 people.
Hesitancy among people overall may have recently increased, at least for the short term, because of concerns over rare thrombotic events among people who receive certain types of COVID-19 vaccine, Dr. Vassalotti noted.
Dr. Garcia and associates conducted their survey from Jan. 8 to Feb. 11, 2021, among patients who regularly received hemodialysis at any of 150 randomly selected dialysis clinics that treat 30 or more patients and are managed by U.S. Renal Care. The study enrolled patients in 22 states. Most of the patients were aged 45-79 years; 30% were non-Hispanic White; 30% were Black, and 24% were Hispanic. The survey included 24 questions and took about 10 minutes to complete.
In reply to the statement, “If COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe and effective for the general population I would seek to get it,” 20% gave a reply of definitely not, probably not, or unsure; 79% answered either probably or definitely yes.
Another question asked about willingness to receive a vaccine if it was shown to be safe and effective for people receiving dialysis. In answer to that question, 19% said definitely not, probably not, or unsure.
Possible adverse effects an issue
Asked the reason why they were hesitant to receive the vaccine, 53% cited possible adverse effects; 19% cited general unease about vaccines; 19% said they did not think the COVID-19 vaccines would work; 17% said they did not think they needed a COVID-19 vaccine; and 15% said they had read or heard that COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous.
A set of questions asked survey respondents about their primary source of information about COVID-19 vaccines. About three-quarters cited television news; about 35% cited members of their dialysis clinic staff; about 30% cited friends and family; 20% cited social media; 20% cited their nephrologists; and roughly 15% cited newspapers.
The results suggest that potentially effective interventions to promote vaccine uptake include showing informational videos to patients during dialysis sessions and encouraging the staff at dialysis centers to proactively educate patients about COVID-19 vaccines and to promote uptake, suggest Dr. Garcia and Dr. Vassalotti.
Dr. Vassalotti noted that in a recent single-center survey of 90 U.S. patients undergoing hemodialysis that included 75 (85%) Black persons, the prevalence of hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines was 50%. Hesitancy was often linked with gaps in patient education.
“We need broad educational measures, as well as targeting specific demographic groups” among whom the level of hesitancy is high, said Dr. Vassalotti.
He noted that patients who undergo dialysis are receptive to messages from dialysis clinic staff members and that this offers an “opportunity to understand misconceptions that underlie hesitancy and address them on an individual basis.”
The NKF has prepared a fact sheet for educating patients with kidney disease about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines, Dr. Vassalotti noted.
Dr. Garcia has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vassalotti is an adviser and consultant to Renalytix AI and is a consultant to Janssen.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Unique oral drug candidate designed to overcome sickle cell disease
Progress is being made in the quest for an oral treatment for sickle cell disease. In preclinical trials, a new drug has shown the ability to induce blood cells to produce fetal hemoglobin at levels predicted to prevent sickling. The new small-molecule drug could be formulated into a convenient daily oral dosage, according to researchers who presented their results at the spring meeting of the American Chemical Society, which was held virtually.
The new drug candidate, designated FTX-6058 by Fulcrum Therapeutics, was developed using a proprietary small-molecule probe and CRISPR guide RNA libraries to screen “a disease-relevant cell model that allowed us to pinpoint a treatment target,” said Ivan V. Efremov, PhD, senior director, head of medicinal chemistry at the company, who presented the research.
Even though sickle cell patients carry genes leading to defective adult hemoglobin, they still carry stem cells in their bone marrow with the potential to produce fetal hemoglobin. FTX-6058 attaches to a protein inside these bone marrow stem cells destined to become mature red blood cells and reinstates their fetal hemoglobin expression, according to Dr. Efremov.
“What is really key is FTX-6058 upregulates fetal hemoglobin across all red blood cells, a pancellular distribution,” he explained, adding that if “some red blood cells did not express this, they could still sickle and cause disease symptoms.”
The premise behind the development of the drug evolved from the example of patients with sickle cell genes who also have a mutation that causes fetal hemoglobin production. The presence of fetal hemoglobin provides significant benefits to patients with sickle cell disease. At around 5%-10% levels of fetal hemoglobin expression, mortality is reduced. By 10%-25% levels of fetal hemoglobin, recurring events including vaso-occlusive crises, acute chest syndrome, and hospitalization are reduced. When fetal hemoglobin levels reaches around 25%-30%, enough red blood cell function is restored so that these patients become asymptomatic, Dr. Efremov said.
FTX-6058 was designed to mimic this effect.
FTX-6058 inhibits the action of the polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) via binding to the EED subunit. PRC2 acts as a histone methyltransferase to control gene expression. Inhibition of PRC2 leads to significant fetal hemoglobin protein expression in both cell and mouse models. Other such inhibitors are under study for the suppression of cancer progression.
Preclinical experiments comparing FTX-6058 with the fetal hemoglobin booster, hydroxyurea, approved in the 1990s, showed the new drug candidate outperforms the current treatment, Christopher Moxham, PhD, chief scientific officer of Fulcrum Therapeutics, said in a company press release. The company began a phase 1 safety trial in healthy adult volunteers last year after preclinical experiments with FTX-6058 in human-derived cell assay systems and mouse models also showed an increase in fetal hemoglobin to meet the 25%-30% asymptomatic symptom threshold level.
Ongoing studies
The researchers plan to launch phase 2 clinical trial enrolling patients with sickle cell disease by end of 2021. In addition, further characterization of the therapeutic molecule is continuing, using genomics and additional cell assay systems to expand details FTX-6058’s mode of action.
The company also is looking to explore the use of FTX-6058 in patients with beta-thalassemia to supplement their reduced hemoglobin production.
The pharmacologic profile of FTX-6058 indicates that the drug has the potential to be administered as a once-a-day oral formulation, Dr. Efremov stated. Both the preclinical PK [pharmacokinetic] data and “the emerging PK from the human clinical study supports once-a-day oral administration, which obviously offers significant convenience to patients,” he added.
Fulcrum Therapeutics is funding the studies.
Progress is being made in the quest for an oral treatment for sickle cell disease. In preclinical trials, a new drug has shown the ability to induce blood cells to produce fetal hemoglobin at levels predicted to prevent sickling. The new small-molecule drug could be formulated into a convenient daily oral dosage, according to researchers who presented their results at the spring meeting of the American Chemical Society, which was held virtually.
The new drug candidate, designated FTX-6058 by Fulcrum Therapeutics, was developed using a proprietary small-molecule probe and CRISPR guide RNA libraries to screen “a disease-relevant cell model that allowed us to pinpoint a treatment target,” said Ivan V. Efremov, PhD, senior director, head of medicinal chemistry at the company, who presented the research.
Even though sickle cell patients carry genes leading to defective adult hemoglobin, they still carry stem cells in their bone marrow with the potential to produce fetal hemoglobin. FTX-6058 attaches to a protein inside these bone marrow stem cells destined to become mature red blood cells and reinstates their fetal hemoglobin expression, according to Dr. Efremov.
“What is really key is FTX-6058 upregulates fetal hemoglobin across all red blood cells, a pancellular distribution,” he explained, adding that if “some red blood cells did not express this, they could still sickle and cause disease symptoms.”
The premise behind the development of the drug evolved from the example of patients with sickle cell genes who also have a mutation that causes fetal hemoglobin production. The presence of fetal hemoglobin provides significant benefits to patients with sickle cell disease. At around 5%-10% levels of fetal hemoglobin expression, mortality is reduced. By 10%-25% levels of fetal hemoglobin, recurring events including vaso-occlusive crises, acute chest syndrome, and hospitalization are reduced. When fetal hemoglobin levels reaches around 25%-30%, enough red blood cell function is restored so that these patients become asymptomatic, Dr. Efremov said.
FTX-6058 was designed to mimic this effect.
FTX-6058 inhibits the action of the polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) via binding to the EED subunit. PRC2 acts as a histone methyltransferase to control gene expression. Inhibition of PRC2 leads to significant fetal hemoglobin protein expression in both cell and mouse models. Other such inhibitors are under study for the suppression of cancer progression.
Preclinical experiments comparing FTX-6058 with the fetal hemoglobin booster, hydroxyurea, approved in the 1990s, showed the new drug candidate outperforms the current treatment, Christopher Moxham, PhD, chief scientific officer of Fulcrum Therapeutics, said in a company press release. The company began a phase 1 safety trial in healthy adult volunteers last year after preclinical experiments with FTX-6058 in human-derived cell assay systems and mouse models also showed an increase in fetal hemoglobin to meet the 25%-30% asymptomatic symptom threshold level.
Ongoing studies
The researchers plan to launch phase 2 clinical trial enrolling patients with sickle cell disease by end of 2021. In addition, further characterization of the therapeutic molecule is continuing, using genomics and additional cell assay systems to expand details FTX-6058’s mode of action.
The company also is looking to explore the use of FTX-6058 in patients with beta-thalassemia to supplement their reduced hemoglobin production.
The pharmacologic profile of FTX-6058 indicates that the drug has the potential to be administered as a once-a-day oral formulation, Dr. Efremov stated. Both the preclinical PK [pharmacokinetic] data and “the emerging PK from the human clinical study supports once-a-day oral administration, which obviously offers significant convenience to patients,” he added.
Fulcrum Therapeutics is funding the studies.
Progress is being made in the quest for an oral treatment for sickle cell disease. In preclinical trials, a new drug has shown the ability to induce blood cells to produce fetal hemoglobin at levels predicted to prevent sickling. The new small-molecule drug could be formulated into a convenient daily oral dosage, according to researchers who presented their results at the spring meeting of the American Chemical Society, which was held virtually.
The new drug candidate, designated FTX-6058 by Fulcrum Therapeutics, was developed using a proprietary small-molecule probe and CRISPR guide RNA libraries to screen “a disease-relevant cell model that allowed us to pinpoint a treatment target,” said Ivan V. Efremov, PhD, senior director, head of medicinal chemistry at the company, who presented the research.
Even though sickle cell patients carry genes leading to defective adult hemoglobin, they still carry stem cells in their bone marrow with the potential to produce fetal hemoglobin. FTX-6058 attaches to a protein inside these bone marrow stem cells destined to become mature red blood cells and reinstates their fetal hemoglobin expression, according to Dr. Efremov.
“What is really key is FTX-6058 upregulates fetal hemoglobin across all red blood cells, a pancellular distribution,” he explained, adding that if “some red blood cells did not express this, they could still sickle and cause disease symptoms.”
The premise behind the development of the drug evolved from the example of patients with sickle cell genes who also have a mutation that causes fetal hemoglobin production. The presence of fetal hemoglobin provides significant benefits to patients with sickle cell disease. At around 5%-10% levels of fetal hemoglobin expression, mortality is reduced. By 10%-25% levels of fetal hemoglobin, recurring events including vaso-occlusive crises, acute chest syndrome, and hospitalization are reduced. When fetal hemoglobin levels reaches around 25%-30%, enough red blood cell function is restored so that these patients become asymptomatic, Dr. Efremov said.
FTX-6058 was designed to mimic this effect.
FTX-6058 inhibits the action of the polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) via binding to the EED subunit. PRC2 acts as a histone methyltransferase to control gene expression. Inhibition of PRC2 leads to significant fetal hemoglobin protein expression in both cell and mouse models. Other such inhibitors are under study for the suppression of cancer progression.
Preclinical experiments comparing FTX-6058 with the fetal hemoglobin booster, hydroxyurea, approved in the 1990s, showed the new drug candidate outperforms the current treatment, Christopher Moxham, PhD, chief scientific officer of Fulcrum Therapeutics, said in a company press release. The company began a phase 1 safety trial in healthy adult volunteers last year after preclinical experiments with FTX-6058 in human-derived cell assay systems and mouse models also showed an increase in fetal hemoglobin to meet the 25%-30% asymptomatic symptom threshold level.
Ongoing studies
The researchers plan to launch phase 2 clinical trial enrolling patients with sickle cell disease by end of 2021. In addition, further characterization of the therapeutic molecule is continuing, using genomics and additional cell assay systems to expand details FTX-6058’s mode of action.
The company also is looking to explore the use of FTX-6058 in patients with beta-thalassemia to supplement their reduced hemoglobin production.
The pharmacologic profile of FTX-6058 indicates that the drug has the potential to be administered as a once-a-day oral formulation, Dr. Efremov stated. Both the preclinical PK [pharmacokinetic] data and “the emerging PK from the human clinical study supports once-a-day oral administration, which obviously offers significant convenience to patients,” he added.
Fulcrum Therapeutics is funding the studies.
Milk is overtaking nuts as top food allergy threat
When Lesley Solomon’s son was 10 years old, he was standing in an unlucky spot on the playground when a schoolmate kicked over a cup of hot chocolate, sending droplets flying into the air. For the young boy with a severe milk allergy, the hot liquid splattering was less of a hazard for him than the dairy stirred into the drink.
Ms. Solomon’s son quickly washed the fluids off his clothes and skin, took some Benadryl, and called his parents. But on the car ride home, his throat began to close and his pulse raced. It was one of about a dozen times he has needed an epinephrine injection, which increases blood flow, reduces swelling, and reverses anaphylaxis.
“Until you see a child going through that anaphylaxis and not being able to breathe, or throwing up so much that they can’t breathe, you don’t understand” how serious food allergies can be, said Ms. Solomon, who is senior vice president and chief innovation officer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and cofounder of the Food Allergy Science Initiative, an independent nonprofit that funds food allergy research.
The rate of children hospitalized for food-induced anaphylaxis rose by 25% from 2006 to 2012 – from 1.2 to 1.5 per 100,000 – according to a 2019 analysis of data from pediatric hospitals in the United States. And severe symptoms were more often linked to milk than to peanuts or tree nuts, the study showed.
Cow’s milk is the most common food allergy in children aged younger than 5 years, and accounts for about half of all food allergies in children younger than 1. Most children grow out of it, but when milk allergy persists into the teenage years and adulthood, it is more likely to cause severe reactions.
A dangerous allergy
“Cow’s milk allergy is the most distressing of the food allergies. Many people are unaware that it can cause anaphylaxis that is so severe,” said Carla Davis, MD, director of the food allergy program at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “People do not think about how much of this is in our food.”
And cow’s milk was shown to be the food allergy most likely to lead to death in school-aged children in the United Kingdom, according to an analysis of national data reported by this news organization.
Lack of awareness is what makes milk allergy so dangerous, said Paul Turner, BMBCh, PhD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist from Imperial College London, who was involved in the British analysis. “We need to get that information out to the public and businesses so they take the same level of care that they have with nuts, and when someone says they have milk allergy, they take it seriously.
In food allergy, the body treats certain proteins, such as the casein and whey in milk, as invaders, mounting an immune response. Antibodies known as IgE – which normally protect against bacteria, viruses, and parasites – trigger inflammation, the release of histamine, and can lead to symptoms, typically within minutes, ranging from rash and swelling to vomiting, difficulty swallowing, and difficulty breathing.
So, the very thing that makes milk a healthy choice for kids – its high protein content – can cause serious reactions in a small portion of children and adults. “You don’t need much milk to get a decent dose” of the allergen, Dr. Turner pointed out.
The mechanisms of milk allergy are complex, even compared with other food allergies. The IgE antibody can be detected with a skin-prick test or IgE blood test, but some people have positive results even though they are not allergic. To complicate things further, people can also have non–IgE-mediated milk allergy, which cannot be detected with testing and can lead to symptoms that emerge hours or even days after exposure.
More serious than lactose intolerance
Unfortunately, milk allergy is often confused with a milk-related digestive problem. Globally, about 70% of people lack the enzyme to break down the sugar in milk; the condition, known as lactose intolerance, can cause bloating, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea but is not life-threatening.
“Because lactose intolerance is so common, people don’t think of milk allergy as something that can be significant or severe,” said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at the Northwestern University, Chicago.
In babies, colic, the regurgitation of milk-based formula, and rash are sometimes misinterpreted as a milk allergy, leading parents to buy expensive, specialized formula unnecessarily.
Frustrated by a lack of data about food allergies, Dr. Gupta and colleagues launched a nationally representative survey of 38,408 American parents in 2009, which was updated in 2015 and 2016.
On average, children with milk allergy had their first reaction before the age of 2, most commonly vomiting, diarrhea, hives, and eczema; this is a younger age of onset than for other food allergies. And children with milk allergy were twice as likely as children with other allergies to grow out of it.
Yet about one-third of milk-allergic children in the updated study were 11 years and older. And in a similar survey of adults who self-reported symptoms, milk allergy was as common as peanut allergy (1.9% vs 1.8%). “We don’t know why milk allergy is becoming more persistent,” Dr. Gupta said. And, she warned, only one in four children with a milk allergy had a current prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector, compared with about 70% of children with peanut allergy.
Food allergy can’t be caused by genetics alone, said Christine Olsen, MD, cofounder and CEO of the Food Allergy Science Initiative at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “There may be a genetic predisposition, but there must be something environmental” that has influenced the development of food allergies.
One theory is that the body’s natural defense against noxious substances has been disrupted in the modern world by processed foods, chemical additives, and hygienic surroundings.
Dr. Olson’s own son vomited when he had his first small taste of hummus as a baby; he is severely allergic to sesame. The immediacy of his bodily reaction made Dr. Olsen think that the response involved neurons, not just a misguided immune system.
Researchers are currently looking for drug targets that could shut off the immune response as quickly as it starts. If you think of the fact that some kids outgrow their allergies and some adults get allergies, that suggests there’s some lever that you can turn on and off,” said Dr. Olsen, who is also a radiation oncologist.
Preventing allergy
The approach to food allergy prevention has already been transformed by the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study conducted in the United Kingdom. LEAP investigators randomly assigned 640 infants to ingest regular amounts of peanut snacks or peanut butter or to avoid peanut products until they reached 5 years of age. The babies who had regular exposure to peanut from an early age were much less likely to develop a peanut allergy than those who avoided peanuts.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases revised its guidelines and now recommends that all babies be exposed to peanut-containing food at around 6 months of age; for high-risk babies, that can start as early as 4 months.
Allergy experts are planning to study that concept again with other foods, including cow’s milk. The 5-year iREACH study, launched by the Center for Food Allergy & Asthma Research at Northwestern and Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, is currently enrolling 10,500 infants to test early exposure to peanuts, milk, egg, and cashew. A portion of the infants will have severe eczema, putting them at high risk for food allergies, and others will be low risk, said Dr. Gupta, who is the principal iREACH investigator.
“Hopefully in the next 5 years we will have data showing whether this prevention technique will work for other common food allergens, in addition to peanuts,” she said.
Introducing foods early “promotes tolerance rather than early sensitization,” explained Stephanie Leeds, MD, an allergist and immunologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. In the future, rather than just diagnosing and treating food allergies, allergists might work with pediatricians to help prevent them from ever happening.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Lesley Solomon’s son was 10 years old, he was standing in an unlucky spot on the playground when a schoolmate kicked over a cup of hot chocolate, sending droplets flying into the air. For the young boy with a severe milk allergy, the hot liquid splattering was less of a hazard for him than the dairy stirred into the drink.
Ms. Solomon’s son quickly washed the fluids off his clothes and skin, took some Benadryl, and called his parents. But on the car ride home, his throat began to close and his pulse raced. It was one of about a dozen times he has needed an epinephrine injection, which increases blood flow, reduces swelling, and reverses anaphylaxis.
“Until you see a child going through that anaphylaxis and not being able to breathe, or throwing up so much that they can’t breathe, you don’t understand” how serious food allergies can be, said Ms. Solomon, who is senior vice president and chief innovation officer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and cofounder of the Food Allergy Science Initiative, an independent nonprofit that funds food allergy research.
The rate of children hospitalized for food-induced anaphylaxis rose by 25% from 2006 to 2012 – from 1.2 to 1.5 per 100,000 – according to a 2019 analysis of data from pediatric hospitals in the United States. And severe symptoms were more often linked to milk than to peanuts or tree nuts, the study showed.
Cow’s milk is the most common food allergy in children aged younger than 5 years, and accounts for about half of all food allergies in children younger than 1. Most children grow out of it, but when milk allergy persists into the teenage years and adulthood, it is more likely to cause severe reactions.
A dangerous allergy
“Cow’s milk allergy is the most distressing of the food allergies. Many people are unaware that it can cause anaphylaxis that is so severe,” said Carla Davis, MD, director of the food allergy program at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “People do not think about how much of this is in our food.”
And cow’s milk was shown to be the food allergy most likely to lead to death in school-aged children in the United Kingdom, according to an analysis of national data reported by this news organization.
Lack of awareness is what makes milk allergy so dangerous, said Paul Turner, BMBCh, PhD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist from Imperial College London, who was involved in the British analysis. “We need to get that information out to the public and businesses so they take the same level of care that they have with nuts, and when someone says they have milk allergy, they take it seriously.
In food allergy, the body treats certain proteins, such as the casein and whey in milk, as invaders, mounting an immune response. Antibodies known as IgE – which normally protect against bacteria, viruses, and parasites – trigger inflammation, the release of histamine, and can lead to symptoms, typically within minutes, ranging from rash and swelling to vomiting, difficulty swallowing, and difficulty breathing.
So, the very thing that makes milk a healthy choice for kids – its high protein content – can cause serious reactions in a small portion of children and adults. “You don’t need much milk to get a decent dose” of the allergen, Dr. Turner pointed out.
The mechanisms of milk allergy are complex, even compared with other food allergies. The IgE antibody can be detected with a skin-prick test or IgE blood test, but some people have positive results even though they are not allergic. To complicate things further, people can also have non–IgE-mediated milk allergy, which cannot be detected with testing and can lead to symptoms that emerge hours or even days after exposure.
More serious than lactose intolerance
Unfortunately, milk allergy is often confused with a milk-related digestive problem. Globally, about 70% of people lack the enzyme to break down the sugar in milk; the condition, known as lactose intolerance, can cause bloating, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea but is not life-threatening.
“Because lactose intolerance is so common, people don’t think of milk allergy as something that can be significant or severe,” said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at the Northwestern University, Chicago.
In babies, colic, the regurgitation of milk-based formula, and rash are sometimes misinterpreted as a milk allergy, leading parents to buy expensive, specialized formula unnecessarily.
Frustrated by a lack of data about food allergies, Dr. Gupta and colleagues launched a nationally representative survey of 38,408 American parents in 2009, which was updated in 2015 and 2016.
On average, children with milk allergy had their first reaction before the age of 2, most commonly vomiting, diarrhea, hives, and eczema; this is a younger age of onset than for other food allergies. And children with milk allergy were twice as likely as children with other allergies to grow out of it.
Yet about one-third of milk-allergic children in the updated study were 11 years and older. And in a similar survey of adults who self-reported symptoms, milk allergy was as common as peanut allergy (1.9% vs 1.8%). “We don’t know why milk allergy is becoming more persistent,” Dr. Gupta said. And, she warned, only one in four children with a milk allergy had a current prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector, compared with about 70% of children with peanut allergy.
Food allergy can’t be caused by genetics alone, said Christine Olsen, MD, cofounder and CEO of the Food Allergy Science Initiative at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “There may be a genetic predisposition, but there must be something environmental” that has influenced the development of food allergies.
One theory is that the body’s natural defense against noxious substances has been disrupted in the modern world by processed foods, chemical additives, and hygienic surroundings.
Dr. Olson’s own son vomited when he had his first small taste of hummus as a baby; he is severely allergic to sesame. The immediacy of his bodily reaction made Dr. Olsen think that the response involved neurons, not just a misguided immune system.
Researchers are currently looking for drug targets that could shut off the immune response as quickly as it starts. If you think of the fact that some kids outgrow their allergies and some adults get allergies, that suggests there’s some lever that you can turn on and off,” said Dr. Olsen, who is also a radiation oncologist.
Preventing allergy
The approach to food allergy prevention has already been transformed by the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study conducted in the United Kingdom. LEAP investigators randomly assigned 640 infants to ingest regular amounts of peanut snacks or peanut butter or to avoid peanut products until they reached 5 years of age. The babies who had regular exposure to peanut from an early age were much less likely to develop a peanut allergy than those who avoided peanuts.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases revised its guidelines and now recommends that all babies be exposed to peanut-containing food at around 6 months of age; for high-risk babies, that can start as early as 4 months.
Allergy experts are planning to study that concept again with other foods, including cow’s milk. The 5-year iREACH study, launched by the Center for Food Allergy & Asthma Research at Northwestern and Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, is currently enrolling 10,500 infants to test early exposure to peanuts, milk, egg, and cashew. A portion of the infants will have severe eczema, putting them at high risk for food allergies, and others will be low risk, said Dr. Gupta, who is the principal iREACH investigator.
“Hopefully in the next 5 years we will have data showing whether this prevention technique will work for other common food allergens, in addition to peanuts,” she said.
Introducing foods early “promotes tolerance rather than early sensitization,” explained Stephanie Leeds, MD, an allergist and immunologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. In the future, rather than just diagnosing and treating food allergies, allergists might work with pediatricians to help prevent them from ever happening.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When Lesley Solomon’s son was 10 years old, he was standing in an unlucky spot on the playground when a schoolmate kicked over a cup of hot chocolate, sending droplets flying into the air. For the young boy with a severe milk allergy, the hot liquid splattering was less of a hazard for him than the dairy stirred into the drink.
Ms. Solomon’s son quickly washed the fluids off his clothes and skin, took some Benadryl, and called his parents. But on the car ride home, his throat began to close and his pulse raced. It was one of about a dozen times he has needed an epinephrine injection, which increases blood flow, reduces swelling, and reverses anaphylaxis.
“Until you see a child going through that anaphylaxis and not being able to breathe, or throwing up so much that they can’t breathe, you don’t understand” how serious food allergies can be, said Ms. Solomon, who is senior vice president and chief innovation officer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and cofounder of the Food Allergy Science Initiative, an independent nonprofit that funds food allergy research.
The rate of children hospitalized for food-induced anaphylaxis rose by 25% from 2006 to 2012 – from 1.2 to 1.5 per 100,000 – according to a 2019 analysis of data from pediatric hospitals in the United States. And severe symptoms were more often linked to milk than to peanuts or tree nuts, the study showed.
Cow’s milk is the most common food allergy in children aged younger than 5 years, and accounts for about half of all food allergies in children younger than 1. Most children grow out of it, but when milk allergy persists into the teenage years and adulthood, it is more likely to cause severe reactions.
A dangerous allergy
“Cow’s milk allergy is the most distressing of the food allergies. Many people are unaware that it can cause anaphylaxis that is so severe,” said Carla Davis, MD, director of the food allergy program at the Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston. “People do not think about how much of this is in our food.”
And cow’s milk was shown to be the food allergy most likely to lead to death in school-aged children in the United Kingdom, according to an analysis of national data reported by this news organization.
Lack of awareness is what makes milk allergy so dangerous, said Paul Turner, BMBCh, PhD, a pediatric allergist and immunologist from Imperial College London, who was involved in the British analysis. “We need to get that information out to the public and businesses so they take the same level of care that they have with nuts, and when someone says they have milk allergy, they take it seriously.
In food allergy, the body treats certain proteins, such as the casein and whey in milk, as invaders, mounting an immune response. Antibodies known as IgE – which normally protect against bacteria, viruses, and parasites – trigger inflammation, the release of histamine, and can lead to symptoms, typically within minutes, ranging from rash and swelling to vomiting, difficulty swallowing, and difficulty breathing.
So, the very thing that makes milk a healthy choice for kids – its high protein content – can cause serious reactions in a small portion of children and adults. “You don’t need much milk to get a decent dose” of the allergen, Dr. Turner pointed out.
The mechanisms of milk allergy are complex, even compared with other food allergies. The IgE antibody can be detected with a skin-prick test or IgE blood test, but some people have positive results even though they are not allergic. To complicate things further, people can also have non–IgE-mediated milk allergy, which cannot be detected with testing and can lead to symptoms that emerge hours or even days after exposure.
More serious than lactose intolerance
Unfortunately, milk allergy is often confused with a milk-related digestive problem. Globally, about 70% of people lack the enzyme to break down the sugar in milk; the condition, known as lactose intolerance, can cause bloating, abdominal cramps, and diarrhea but is not life-threatening.
“Because lactose intolerance is so common, people don’t think of milk allergy as something that can be significant or severe,” said Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, director of the Center for Food Allergy and Asthma Research at the Northwestern University, Chicago.
In babies, colic, the regurgitation of milk-based formula, and rash are sometimes misinterpreted as a milk allergy, leading parents to buy expensive, specialized formula unnecessarily.
Frustrated by a lack of data about food allergies, Dr. Gupta and colleagues launched a nationally representative survey of 38,408 American parents in 2009, which was updated in 2015 and 2016.
On average, children with milk allergy had their first reaction before the age of 2, most commonly vomiting, diarrhea, hives, and eczema; this is a younger age of onset than for other food allergies. And children with milk allergy were twice as likely as children with other allergies to grow out of it.
Yet about one-third of milk-allergic children in the updated study were 11 years and older. And in a similar survey of adults who self-reported symptoms, milk allergy was as common as peanut allergy (1.9% vs 1.8%). “We don’t know why milk allergy is becoming more persistent,” Dr. Gupta said. And, she warned, only one in four children with a milk allergy had a current prescription for an epinephrine autoinjector, compared with about 70% of children with peanut allergy.
Food allergy can’t be caused by genetics alone, said Christine Olsen, MD, cofounder and CEO of the Food Allergy Science Initiative at the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Mass. “There may be a genetic predisposition, but there must be something environmental” that has influenced the development of food allergies.
One theory is that the body’s natural defense against noxious substances has been disrupted in the modern world by processed foods, chemical additives, and hygienic surroundings.
Dr. Olson’s own son vomited when he had his first small taste of hummus as a baby; he is severely allergic to sesame. The immediacy of his bodily reaction made Dr. Olsen think that the response involved neurons, not just a misguided immune system.
Researchers are currently looking for drug targets that could shut off the immune response as quickly as it starts. If you think of the fact that some kids outgrow their allergies and some adults get allergies, that suggests there’s some lever that you can turn on and off,” said Dr. Olsen, who is also a radiation oncologist.
Preventing allergy
The approach to food allergy prevention has already been transformed by the Learning Early About Peanut Allergy (LEAP) study conducted in the United Kingdom. LEAP investigators randomly assigned 640 infants to ingest regular amounts of peanut snacks or peanut butter or to avoid peanut products until they reached 5 years of age. The babies who had regular exposure to peanut from an early age were much less likely to develop a peanut allergy than those who avoided peanuts.
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases revised its guidelines and now recommends that all babies be exposed to peanut-containing food at around 6 months of age; for high-risk babies, that can start as early as 4 months.
Allergy experts are planning to study that concept again with other foods, including cow’s milk. The 5-year iREACH study, launched by the Center for Food Allergy & Asthma Research at Northwestern and Lurie Children’s Hospital in Chicago, is currently enrolling 10,500 infants to test early exposure to peanuts, milk, egg, and cashew. A portion of the infants will have severe eczema, putting them at high risk for food allergies, and others will be low risk, said Dr. Gupta, who is the principal iREACH investigator.
“Hopefully in the next 5 years we will have data showing whether this prevention technique will work for other common food allergens, in addition to peanuts,” she said.
Introducing foods early “promotes tolerance rather than early sensitization,” explained Stephanie Leeds, MD, an allergist and immunologist at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. In the future, rather than just diagnosing and treating food allergies, allergists might work with pediatricians to help prevent them from ever happening.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How some COVID-19 vaccines could cause rare blood clots
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
on April 14, 2021, after the CDC and Food and Drug Administration recommended that states hold off on using it pending a detailed review of six cases of the same kind of rare but serious event – a blood clot in the vessels that drain blood from the brain combined with a large drop in platelets, which increases the risk for bleeding.
This combination can lead to severe strokes that can lead to brain damage or death. Among the six cases reported, which came to light over the past 3 weeks, one person died, according to the CDC. All six were women and ranged in age from 18 to 48 years.
According to a report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which is maintained by the Department of Health & Human Services, the woman who died was 45. She developed a gradually worsening headache about a week after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.
On March 17, the day she came to the hospital, she was dry heaving. Her headache had suddenly gotten much worse, and the left side of her body was weak, which are signs of a stroke. A CT scan revealed both bleeding in her brain and a clot in her cortical vein. She died the following day.
In addition to VAERS, which accepts reports from anyone, the CDC and FDA are monitoring at least eight other safety systems maintained by hospitals, research centers, long-term care facilities, and insurance companies for signs of trouble with the vaccines. VAERS data is searchable and open to the public. Most of these systems are not publicly available to protect patient privacy. It’s unclear which systems detected the six cases cited by federal regulators.
“These are very serious and potentially fatal problems occurring in a healthy young adult. It’s serious and we need to get to the bottom of it,” said Ed Belongia, MD, director of the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health at the Marshfield (Wis.) Clinic Research Institute. Dr. Belongia leads a research team that helps the CDC monitor vaccine safety and effectiveness.
“Safety is always the highest priority, and I think what we’ve seen here in the past 24 hours is our vaccine safety monitoring system is working,” he said.
Others agree. “I think what CDC and FDA have detected is a rare, but likely real adverse event associated with this vaccine,” said Paul Offit, MD, director of vaccine education at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
Although much is still unknown about these events, they follow a similar pattern of blood clots reported with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. That vaccine is now sold under the brand name Vaxzevria.
This has experts questioning whether all vaccines of this type may cause these rare clots.
“I think it’s likely a class effect,” said Dr. Offit, who was a member of the FDA advisory committee that reviewed clinical trial data on the J&J vaccine before it was authorized for use.
Adenovirus vaccines scrutinized
Both the Johnson & Johnson and Vaxzevria vaccines use an adenovirus to ferry genetic instructions for making the coronaviruses spike protein into our cells.
Adenoviruses are common, relatively simple viruses that normally cause mild cold or flu symptoms. The ones used in the vaccine are disabled so they can’t make us sick. They’re more like Trojan horses.
Once inside our cells, they release the DNA instructions they carry to make the spike protein of the new coronavirus. Those cells then crank out copies of the spike protein, which then get displayed on the outer surface of the cell membrane where they are recognized by the immune system.
The immune system then makes antibodies and other defenses against the spike so that, when the real coronavirus comes along, our bodies are ready to fight the infection.
There’s no question the vaccine works. In clinical trials, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was 66% percent effective at preventing against moderate to severe COVID-19 infection, and none of the patients who got COVID-19 after vaccination had to be admitted to the hospital or died.
The idea behind using adenoviruses in vaccines isn’t a new one. In a kind of fight-fire-with-fire approach, the idea is to use a virus, which is good at infecting us, to fight a different kind of virus.
Researchers have been working on the concept for about 10 years, but the COVID-19 vaccines that use this technology are some of the first adenovirus-vector vaccines deployed in humans.
Only one other adenovirus vaccine, for Ebola, has been approved for use in humans. It was approved in Europe last year. Before the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, no other adenovirus vector has been available for use in humans in the United States.
There are six adenovirus-vector vaccines for COVID-19. In addition to AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, there’s the Russian-developed vaccine Sputnik V, along with CanSino from China, and the Covishield vaccine in India.
Adenovirus vaccines are more stable than the mRNA vaccines. That makes them easier to store and transport.
But they have a significant downside, too. Because adenoviruses infect humans out in the world, we already make antibodies against them. So there’s always a danger that our immune systems might recognize and react to the vaccine, rendering it ineffective. For that reason, scientists try to carefully select the adenovirus vectors, or carriers, they use.
The two vaccines under investigation for blood clots are slightly different. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses the vector AD26, because most of the population lacks preexisting immunity to it. Vaxzevria uses an adenovirus that infects chimpanzees, called ChAdOx1.
Vaxzevria has been widely used in Europe but has not yet been authorized in the United States.
On April 7, the European Medicines Agency, Europe’s counterpart to the FDA, ruled that unusual blood clots with low blood platelets should be listed as rare side effects on the Vaxzevria vaccine.
The decision came after reviewing 62 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to the vaccine and 25 cases of another rare type of clot, called a splanchnic vein thrombosis. Splanchnic veins drain blood from the major organs in the digestive system, including the stomach, liver, and intestines; 18 of those events were fatal.
The reports were culled from reporting in Europe and the United Kingdom, where around 25 million people have received the Vaxzevria vaccine, making these clots exceptionally rare, but serious.
So far, six cases of CVST have been reported in the United States, after more than 7 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccines have been administered.
A key question for U.S. regulators will be the background rate for these types of rare combinations of clots and deplenished platelets. The background rate is the number of events that would be expected to occur naturally in a population of unvaccinated people. On a press call on April 13, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, was asked about the frequency of this dangerous combination. He said the combination of low platelets and clots was so rare that it was hard to pinpoint, but might be somewhere between 2 and 14 cases per million people over the course of a year.
The first Johnson & Johnson doses were given in early March. That means the six cases came to light within the first few weeks of use of the vaccine in the United States, a very short amount of time.
“These were six cases per million people for 2 weeks, which is the same thing as 25 million per year, so it’s clearly above the background rate,” Dr. Offit said.
Studies suggest possible mechanism
On April 9, the New England Journal of Medicine published a detailed evaluation of the 11 patients in Germany and Austria who developed the rare clots after their Vaxzevria vaccines.
The study detected rare antibodies to a signaling protein called platelet factor 4, which helps to coordinate clot formation.
These same type of antibodies form in some people given the blood thinning drug heparin. In those reactions, which are also exceptionally rare, the same type of syndrome develops, leading to large, devastating clots that consume circulating platelets.
It’s not yet clear whether people who develop reactions to the vaccines already have some platelet factor 4 antibodies before they are vaccinated, or whether the vaccines somehow spur the body to make these antibodies, which then launch a kind of autoimmune attack.
The researchers on the paper gave the syndrome a name, vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT).
It’s also not clear why more cases seem to be in women than in men. Andrew Eisenberger, MD, an associate professor of hematology and oncology at Columbia University, New York, said the most common causes of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis have to do with conditions that raise estrogen levels, like pregnancy and hormonal contraception.
“Estrogen naturally leads to changes in several clotting proteins in the blood that may predispose to abnormal blood clotting in a few different sites in the body,” he said. “The clotting changes we are encountering with some of COVID-19 vaccines are likely to be synergistic with the effects of estrogen on the blood.”
No matter the cause, the CDC on April 13 alerted doctors to keep a high index of suspicion for VITT in patients who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccination within the last 2 weeks. In those patients, the usual course of treatment with blood thinning drugs like heparin may be harmful.
Symptoms to watch for include severe headache or backache, new neurologic symptoms, severe abdominal pain, shortness of breath, leg swelling, tiny red spots on the skin, or easy bruising.
Grappling with evidence
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will meet today in an emergency session to review the cases and see if any changes are needed to use of the J&J vaccine in the United States.
Last week, for example, the United Kingdom restricted the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine in people aged younger than 30 years, saying the risks and benefits of vaccination are “more finely balanced” for this age group.
With cases of COVID-19 rising again in the United States, and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine currently the most convenient form of protection against the virus, the committee will have to weigh the risks of that infection against the risk of rare clots caused by vaccination.
They will also likely have to rule out whether any of the cases had COVID. At least one study has reported CVST clots in three patients with confirmed COVID infections. In Europe, COVID infection did not seem to play a role in the formation of the clots with low platelets.
Hilda Bastian, PhD, a clinical trials expert who cofounded the Cochrane Collaboration, said it won’t be an easy task. Much will depend on how certain the committee members feel they know about all the events linked to the vaccine.
“That’s the really, really hard issue from my point of view for them right this moment. Have we missed any? Or how many are we likely to have missed?” asked Dr. Bastian, who lives in Australia.
“In a country that size with that fragmented [of] a health care system, how sure can you be that you know them all? That’s going to be a really difficult situation for them to grapple with, the quality of information that they’ve got,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How to counsel worried patients about the J&J vaccine news
On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.
The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.
Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.
Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.
Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.
Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.
While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.
Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.
The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.
Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.
Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.
Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.
Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.
While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.
Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
On April 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration issued a joint statement recommending a pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccine administration, pending review of six reported U.S. cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot occurring after receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. To date, more than 6.8 million doses of that vaccine have been given in the United States, so at this point the rate of detected cases of this problem is less than one in a million.
The six cases occurred in women aged 18-48 years, and symptoms occurred 6-13 days after vaccination. In these cases, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis was seen in addition to thrombocytopenia.
Physicians may receive calls from concerned patients who have received a COVID vaccine. However, more than 95% of the vaccine administrations in the United States to date have been the Pfizer and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines. No association between these vaccines and blood clots has been detected. Also, these six cases occurred within 2 weeks of Johnson & Johnson vaccination, so even among those receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, those who are more than 3 weeks out from their vaccination have no need for concern regarding this rare complication.
Physicians should counsel those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine less than 3 weeks ago to watch for easy bruising, gum bleeding, nose bleeds, leg or arm pain or swelling, severe headache or abdominal pain, shortness of breath, or chest pain. If they notice one or more of those symptoms, they should seek medical attention.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on April 14 to review the six U.S. cases of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and determine their significance.
Several cases of unusual thromboses and thrombocytopenia have been detected after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine, which uses the same adenovirus vector technology as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, but which is not authorized for use in the United States. The Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine uses a recombinant deficient chimpanzee adenovirus to deliver the message to cells to produce antibody against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses a recombinant deficient human adenovirus to deliver this same message.
Two recent reports in the New England Journal of Medicine have reported on thrombosis and thrombocytopenia after the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine in Europe. Both of these reports identified high levels of IgG antibodies to platelet factor 4–polyanion complexes, similar to the mechanism of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The term vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia was proposed for this phenomenon. Treatment of this condition involves administration of intravenous immunoglobulin and nonheparin anticoagulants. Recent updates from the World Health Organization report that 169 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis and 53 of splanchnic venous thrombosis occurred after 34 million doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine was administered in the European Union and United Kingdom.
While this pause in Johnson & Johnson vaccination is disappointing news amid increased cases in parts of the country, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines make up less than 5% of the U.S. vaccine doses administered to date. According to the CDC, more than 122 million Americans have received at least one dose and more than 75 million are fully vaccinated.
Dr. Patterson has received an honorarium from Pfizer for an antifungal symposium and is a subinvestigator for the Novavax vaccine. Her spouse served as a consultant for SCYNEXIS, as a speaker for Gilead Sciences and Basilea, and has received a research grant from the National Institutes of Health for the ACTT remdesivir trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Microbiota-directed therapy may improve growth rate in malnourished children
according to new research.
Moderate acute malnutrition affects more than 30 million children worldwide, according to the Food and Nutrition Bulletin. The World Health Organization defines the condition by a weight-for-height measurement that is 2 or 3 standard deviations below the international standard.
A 2014 study published in Nature has shown that malnourishment is associated with defects in children’s gut microbiota, including having microbial communities that are immature and younger than those of their healthy counterparts. Microbiota immaturity also correlates with stunted growth.
The authors of new study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 7, 2021, wrote that nutritional interventions and treatments, such as therapeutic calorie-dense foods, have limited effectiveness because they don’t restore growth or fully address repairing the gut microbiome.
“This work supports the notion that healthy growth of children is linked to healthy development of their gut microbiota,” study author Jeffrey Gordon, MD, director of the Edison Family Center for Genome Sciences & Systems Biology at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview. “This, in turn, indicates that we need to have a more encompassing view of human developmental biology – one that considers both our ‘human’ and ‘microbial’ parts.”
The study establishes the impact of microbiota repair on a child’s growth rate, which may have implications on policies related to complementary feeding practices, Dr. Gorden noted.
Better outcomes seen with microbiota-directed complementary food prototype
For the research, 123 children with moderate acute malnutrition aged between 12 and 18 months were randomly assigned to receive a microbiota-directed complementary food prototype (MDCF-2) or ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). The supplementation was given to the kids twice daily for 3 months, followed by 1 month of monitoring. They looked at the weekly rate of change in the weight-for-length z score, weight-for-age z score, mid-upper-arm circumference, length-for-age z score, medical complication, gut microbiota, and blood samples in the group to determine the effectiveness of each food intervention therapy.
They found that, of the 118 children who completed the study, those in the MDCF-2 group had better outcomes than those in the RUSF group based on greater weekly growth in z scores, indicating faster growth rates. For those in the MDCF-2 group, the mean weekly change in weight-for-length z score was 0.021, compared to the RUSF group’s 0.010. When it came to weight-for-age z score, the mean weekly change was 0.017 in the MDCF-2 group and 0.010 in the RUSF group. The mean weekly changes in the mid-upper-arm circumference and length-for-age z scores were similar in both groups.
When examining blood samples of the cohort, researchers noted that 714 proteins were significantly altered after 3-month MDCF-2 supplementation, compared with 82 proteins having shown significant alterations in the RUSF group.
Overall, the findings show that repairing gut microbiota was accompanied by improved weight gain and marked changes in circulating levels of protein biomarkers and mediators of numerous aspects of healthy growth.
Results need to be verified on a larger scale
Tim Joos, MD, who was not part of the study, said it is surprising that MDCF-2 was better at promoting growth than existing nutritional supplements.
“The study suggests that remedying malnutrition requires more than just ensuring adequate calorie and nutrient intake,” Dr. Joos, a pediatrician at NeighborCare Health in Seattle, noted in an interview. “It is a small study and needs to be verified on a larger scale and in more diverse locations and pediatric ages (outside of the 12- to 18-month-old cohort studied).”
Wendy S. Garrett, MD, PhD, who also didn’t participate in the study, wrote in an accompanying editorial that overarching questions remain concerning the long-lasting effects of the intervention on children’s growth trajectory and cognitive development. She also said that the study “provides an abundance of fascinating microbiome profile data, plasma protein correlates, and metadata to sift through.”
Dr. Gordon and colleagues said the findings underscore the broad effects gut microbiota has on human biology and they hope this will open the door to better definitions of wellness for infants/children.
Dr. Garrett is the Irene Heinz Given Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases in the departments of immunology and infectious diseases and of molecular metabolism at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and she has no disclosures. Dr. Gordon is the recipient of a Thought Leader award from Agilent Technologies. Dr. Joos disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
according to new research.
Moderate acute malnutrition affects more than 30 million children worldwide, according to the Food and Nutrition Bulletin. The World Health Organization defines the condition by a weight-for-height measurement that is 2 or 3 standard deviations below the international standard.
A 2014 study published in Nature has shown that malnourishment is associated with defects in children’s gut microbiota, including having microbial communities that are immature and younger than those of their healthy counterparts. Microbiota immaturity also correlates with stunted growth.
The authors of new study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 7, 2021, wrote that nutritional interventions and treatments, such as therapeutic calorie-dense foods, have limited effectiveness because they don’t restore growth or fully address repairing the gut microbiome.
“This work supports the notion that healthy growth of children is linked to healthy development of their gut microbiota,” study author Jeffrey Gordon, MD, director of the Edison Family Center for Genome Sciences & Systems Biology at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview. “This, in turn, indicates that we need to have a more encompassing view of human developmental biology – one that considers both our ‘human’ and ‘microbial’ parts.”
The study establishes the impact of microbiota repair on a child’s growth rate, which may have implications on policies related to complementary feeding practices, Dr. Gorden noted.
Better outcomes seen with microbiota-directed complementary food prototype
For the research, 123 children with moderate acute malnutrition aged between 12 and 18 months were randomly assigned to receive a microbiota-directed complementary food prototype (MDCF-2) or ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). The supplementation was given to the kids twice daily for 3 months, followed by 1 month of monitoring. They looked at the weekly rate of change in the weight-for-length z score, weight-for-age z score, mid-upper-arm circumference, length-for-age z score, medical complication, gut microbiota, and blood samples in the group to determine the effectiveness of each food intervention therapy.
They found that, of the 118 children who completed the study, those in the MDCF-2 group had better outcomes than those in the RUSF group based on greater weekly growth in z scores, indicating faster growth rates. For those in the MDCF-2 group, the mean weekly change in weight-for-length z score was 0.021, compared to the RUSF group’s 0.010. When it came to weight-for-age z score, the mean weekly change was 0.017 in the MDCF-2 group and 0.010 in the RUSF group. The mean weekly changes in the mid-upper-arm circumference and length-for-age z scores were similar in both groups.
When examining blood samples of the cohort, researchers noted that 714 proteins were significantly altered after 3-month MDCF-2 supplementation, compared with 82 proteins having shown significant alterations in the RUSF group.
Overall, the findings show that repairing gut microbiota was accompanied by improved weight gain and marked changes in circulating levels of protein biomarkers and mediators of numerous aspects of healthy growth.
Results need to be verified on a larger scale
Tim Joos, MD, who was not part of the study, said it is surprising that MDCF-2 was better at promoting growth than existing nutritional supplements.
“The study suggests that remedying malnutrition requires more than just ensuring adequate calorie and nutrient intake,” Dr. Joos, a pediatrician at NeighborCare Health in Seattle, noted in an interview. “It is a small study and needs to be verified on a larger scale and in more diverse locations and pediatric ages (outside of the 12- to 18-month-old cohort studied).”
Wendy S. Garrett, MD, PhD, who also didn’t participate in the study, wrote in an accompanying editorial that overarching questions remain concerning the long-lasting effects of the intervention on children’s growth trajectory and cognitive development. She also said that the study “provides an abundance of fascinating microbiome profile data, plasma protein correlates, and metadata to sift through.”
Dr. Gordon and colleagues said the findings underscore the broad effects gut microbiota has on human biology and they hope this will open the door to better definitions of wellness for infants/children.
Dr. Garrett is the Irene Heinz Given Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases in the departments of immunology and infectious diseases and of molecular metabolism at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and she has no disclosures. Dr. Gordon is the recipient of a Thought Leader award from Agilent Technologies. Dr. Joos disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
according to new research.
Moderate acute malnutrition affects more than 30 million children worldwide, according to the Food and Nutrition Bulletin. The World Health Organization defines the condition by a weight-for-height measurement that is 2 or 3 standard deviations below the international standard.
A 2014 study published in Nature has shown that malnourishment is associated with defects in children’s gut microbiota, including having microbial communities that are immature and younger than those of their healthy counterparts. Microbiota immaturity also correlates with stunted growth.
The authors of new study, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 7, 2021, wrote that nutritional interventions and treatments, such as therapeutic calorie-dense foods, have limited effectiveness because they don’t restore growth or fully address repairing the gut microbiome.
“This work supports the notion that healthy growth of children is linked to healthy development of their gut microbiota,” study author Jeffrey Gordon, MD, director of the Edison Family Center for Genome Sciences & Systems Biology at Washington University, St. Louis, said in an interview. “This, in turn, indicates that we need to have a more encompassing view of human developmental biology – one that considers both our ‘human’ and ‘microbial’ parts.”
The study establishes the impact of microbiota repair on a child’s growth rate, which may have implications on policies related to complementary feeding practices, Dr. Gorden noted.
Better outcomes seen with microbiota-directed complementary food prototype
For the research, 123 children with moderate acute malnutrition aged between 12 and 18 months were randomly assigned to receive a microbiota-directed complementary food prototype (MDCF-2) or ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). The supplementation was given to the kids twice daily for 3 months, followed by 1 month of monitoring. They looked at the weekly rate of change in the weight-for-length z score, weight-for-age z score, mid-upper-arm circumference, length-for-age z score, medical complication, gut microbiota, and blood samples in the group to determine the effectiveness of each food intervention therapy.
They found that, of the 118 children who completed the study, those in the MDCF-2 group had better outcomes than those in the RUSF group based on greater weekly growth in z scores, indicating faster growth rates. For those in the MDCF-2 group, the mean weekly change in weight-for-length z score was 0.021, compared to the RUSF group’s 0.010. When it came to weight-for-age z score, the mean weekly change was 0.017 in the MDCF-2 group and 0.010 in the RUSF group. The mean weekly changes in the mid-upper-arm circumference and length-for-age z scores were similar in both groups.
When examining blood samples of the cohort, researchers noted that 714 proteins were significantly altered after 3-month MDCF-2 supplementation, compared with 82 proteins having shown significant alterations in the RUSF group.
Overall, the findings show that repairing gut microbiota was accompanied by improved weight gain and marked changes in circulating levels of protein biomarkers and mediators of numerous aspects of healthy growth.
Results need to be verified on a larger scale
Tim Joos, MD, who was not part of the study, said it is surprising that MDCF-2 was better at promoting growth than existing nutritional supplements.
“The study suggests that remedying malnutrition requires more than just ensuring adequate calorie and nutrient intake,” Dr. Joos, a pediatrician at NeighborCare Health in Seattle, noted in an interview. “It is a small study and needs to be verified on a larger scale and in more diverse locations and pediatric ages (outside of the 12- to 18-month-old cohort studied).”
Wendy S. Garrett, MD, PhD, who also didn’t participate in the study, wrote in an accompanying editorial that overarching questions remain concerning the long-lasting effects of the intervention on children’s growth trajectory and cognitive development. She also said that the study “provides an abundance of fascinating microbiome profile data, plasma protein correlates, and metadata to sift through.”
Dr. Gordon and colleagues said the findings underscore the broad effects gut microbiota has on human biology and they hope this will open the door to better definitions of wellness for infants/children.
Dr. Garrett is the Irene Heinz Given Professor of Immunology and Infectious Diseases in the departments of immunology and infectious diseases and of molecular metabolism at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and she has no disclosures. Dr. Gordon is the recipient of a Thought Leader award from Agilent Technologies. Dr. Joos disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
U.S. finally hits its stride with COVID-19 vaccination rollouts
Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.
The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.
On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.
While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.
After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.
In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.
Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases.
Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.
Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
A positive development
It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.
The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.
“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.
Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19.
Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.
But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.
“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”
Others agree.
“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.
On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.
“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.
He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
‘We view it as a war’
The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.
“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”
Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.
The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots.
The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population.
In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”
He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”
He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.
Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.
“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.
“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.
The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.
On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.
While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.
After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.
In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.
Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases.
Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.
Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
A positive development
It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.
The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.
“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.
Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19.
Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.
But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.
“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”
Others agree.
“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.
On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.
“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.
He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
‘We view it as a war’
The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.
“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”
Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.
The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots.
The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population.
In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”
He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”
He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.
Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.
“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.
“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.
The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.
On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.
While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.
After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.
In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.
Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases.
Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.
Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
A positive development
It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.
The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.
“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.
Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19.
Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.
But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.
“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”
Others agree.
“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.
“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.
On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.
“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.
He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
‘We view it as a war’
The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.
“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”
Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.
The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots.
The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population.
In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”
He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”
He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.
Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.
“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.
“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Everyday chemicals are linked to declines in human fertility
Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.
“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.
Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.
The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.
These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
Health risks beyond reproduction
While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”
But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.
“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”
Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.
For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).
The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
Limits in the data
Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)
He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.
“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.
Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.
“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.
Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
A call to action
Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.
Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.
Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.
“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”
Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”
No disclosures were reported.
Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.
“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.
Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.
The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.
These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
Health risks beyond reproduction
While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”
But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.
“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”
Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.
For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).
The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
Limits in the data
Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)
He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.
“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.
Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.
“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.
Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
A call to action
Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.
Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.
Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.
“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”
Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”
No disclosures were reported.
Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.
“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.
Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.
The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.
These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
Health risks beyond reproduction
While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”
But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.
“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”
Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.
For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).
The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
Limits in the data
Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)
He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.
“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.
Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.
“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.
Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
A call to action
Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.
Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.
Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.
“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”
Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”
No disclosures were reported.