News

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

The risk of myocarditis after immunization with mRNA-based vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 raised concerns when it came to light in early 2021. But as report after report showed such cases to be rare and usually mild and self-limited, focus has turned to the “how and why.”  

The mechanism linking the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and especially mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccines to the occurrence of myocarditis is unclear for now, but one potential driver may be tied to a peculiarity that became apparent early: It occurs overwhelmingly in younger males, from 16 to perhaps 40 or 50 years of age. Excess risk has not been consistently seen among women, girls, and older men.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

That observation has led to speculation that higher testosterone levels in adolescent boys and young men may somehow promote the adverse vaccine effect, whereas greater levels of estrogen among girls and women in the same age range may be cardioprotective.
 

Unlikely, brief, and ‘benign’

“Most of the myocarditis is benign, by which I mean that maybe the patients are admitted due to chest pain, but without reduction in ventricular function,” Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, a myocarditis expert at De Gasperis Cardio Center and Transplant Center, Niguarda Hospital, Milan, said in an interview.

In a Nov. 14 address on this topic at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association, Dror Mevorach, MD, described the typical case presentation as “mild” and one that clears in fairly short order based on resolution of “clinical symptoms, inflammatory markers and troponin decline, EKG normalization, echo normalization, and a relatively short length of hospital stay.”

Dr. Mevorach, of Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, subsequently published the findings in a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that described 136 confirmed myocarditis cases among more than 5 million people in Israel immunized with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Myocarditis was considered “mild” in 129 cases, or 95%.

And the risk is tiny, compared with myocarditis from infection by SARS-CoV-2, not to mention the possibility of nasty clinical COVID-19 complications such as pneumonia and pulmonary embolism, Dr. Mevorach observed.

Many other reports agree that the incidence is minimal, especially given the rewards of vaccination. In a separate NEJM publication in September 2021 – from Noam Barda, MD, Clalit (Israel) Research Institute, and colleagues on 1.7 million people in that country, about half unvaccinated and half given the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – there were an estimated 2.7 cases of  myocarditis per 100,000 vaccinated persons. There were also 11 cases of myocarditis per 100,000 persons who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

And in a recent case series of vaccinated people aged 16 or older, the myocarditis rate after a first or second Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna injection was estimated at 1 or fewer per 100,000. The corresponding estimate was 4 such cases per 100,000 after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test among the same population, notes a report published Dec.14, 2021, in Nature Medicine.

In general, “the risk of any kind of cardiac injury is vastly lower with a vaccine than it is with the actual viral infection,” Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, a myocarditis expert and clinical trialist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview. With the mRNA-based vaccines, “we do not have any conceivable danger signal that would outweigh the benefit of vaccination.”
 

Males of a certain age

Evidence that such myocarditis predominates in young adult men and adolescent boys, especially following a second vaccine dose, is remarkably consistent.

The risk was elevated only among mRNA-based vaccine recipients who were younger than 40 in the recent Nature Medicine analysis. Among that group, estimates after a second dose numbered fewer than 1 case per 100,000 for Pfizer-BioNTech and 1.5 per 100,000 for Moderna.

In a third analysis from Israel – also in NEJM, from Guy Witberg, MD, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, and colleagues, based on 2.5 million people aged 16 and older with at least one Pfizer-BioNTech injection – 2.1 cases per 100,000 were estimated overall, but the number rose to 10.7 per 100,000 among those aged 16-29 years.

In Dr. Mevorach’s NEJM report, estimates after a second Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine dose were 1 per 26,000 males versus 1 in 218,000 females, compared with 1 myocarditis case in 10,857 persons among “the general unvaccinated population.”

Most recipients of a first vaccine dose were younger than 50, and 16- to 29-year-olds accounted for most who completed two doses, noted Dr. Mevorach. Younger males bore the brunt of any myocarditis: the estimated prevalence after a second dose among males aged 16-19 was 1 per 6,637, compared with 1 per 99,853 females in the same age range, the group reported.

In the BMJ report, based on about 5 million people 12 years of age or older in Denmark, the estimated rates of myocarditis or pericarditis associated with Moderna immunization were 2 per 100,000 among women but 6.3 per 100,000 for men. The incidence and sex difference was much lower among those getting the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine: 1.3 per 100,000 and 1.5 per 100,000 in women and men, respectively.
 

Sex hormones may be key

The predominance of vaccine-associated myocarditis among adolescent and young adult males is probably more about the myocarditis itself than the vaccines, observed Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, who has been studying COVID-related myocarditis at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Male sex historically is associated in both epidemiologic studies and experimental models with a greater propensity for most any form of myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said in an interview. Given that males aged 16-19 or so appear to be at highest risk of myocarditis as a complication of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, the mechanism may well be related to sex hormones.  

“Therefore, testosterone is implicated as a player in their higher risk of inflammation and injury and lack of adaptive response in terms of healing, and in terms of prevention of injury,” Dr. Bozkurt said. For its part, estrogen inhibits proinflammatory processes and, in particular, “blunts cell-mediated immune responses.”

“We don’t know the mechanism, but a theory that attributes a protective role to estrogen, or a risk associated with testosterone, is reasonable. It makes sense, at least based on epidemiological data,” Dr. Ammirati agreed. Still, “we do not have any direct evidence in human beings.”

Sex-associated differences in experimental myocarditis have been reported in the journals for at least 70 years, but “the testosterone literature and the estrogen literature have not been evaluated in detail in vaccine-associated myocarditis,” Dr. Cooper said.

Most myocarditis in the laboratory is viral, Dr. Cooper observed, and “the links between testosterone, viruses, and inflammation have been pretty well worked out, I would say, if you’re a mouse. If you’re a human, I think it’s still a bit uncertain.”

Were it to apply in humans, greater testosterone levels might independently promote myocarditis, “and if estrogen is cardioprotective, it would be another mechanism,” Dr. Cooper said. “That would translate to slight male predominance in most kinds of myocarditis.”

In males, compared with females, “the heart can be more vulnerable to events such as arrhythmias or to immune-mediated phenomena. So, probably there is also higher vulnerability to myocarditis in men,” Dr. Ammirati noted.

Male predominance in vaccine-related myocarditis is provocative, so it’s worth considering whether testosterone is part of the mechanism as well as the possibility of estrogen cardioprotection, Dr. Ammirati said. But given limitations of the animal models, “we don’t really have robust data to support any part of that.”

Although myocarditis is in some way immune mediated, “and hormones can modulate the response,” the mechanism has to be more than just sex hormones, he said. “They probably cannot explain the specificity for the heart. It’s not a systemic response, it’s an organ-specific response.”
 

Modulation of immune responses

Details about the immune processes underlying mRNA-vaccine myocarditis, hormone modulated or not, have been elusive. The complication doesn’t resemble serum sickness, nor does it seem to be a reaction to infection by other cardiotropic viruses, such as coxsackie virus B, a cause of viral myocarditis, Dr. Bozkurt said. The latter had been a compelling possibility because such hypersensitivity to smallpox vaccination is well recognized.

“We don’t know the mechanism, that’s the short answer. But there are many hypotheses,” she said. One candidate widely proposed in the literature: autoantibodies driven by molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein targeted by the mRNA vaccines and a structurally similar myocardial protein, possibly alpha-myosin, noted Dr. Bozkurt and colleagues in a recent publication.

But elevations in specific “antiheart antibodies” have not been documented in recipients of the two mRNA-based vaccines, said Dr. Cooper. “So, I would say that – although molecular mimicry is a well-established mechanism of, for example, rheumatic carditis after a streptococcal A infection – that has not been demonstrated yet for COVID-19 mRNA vaccination–related myocarditis.”

“We probably won’t know, ever, with a huge level of certainty, the exact mechanisms,” Dr. Cooper added. There is no animal model for vaccine-induced myocarditis, and “We’re still talking very, very small numbers of patients. The vast majority of them recover,” and so don’t generally provide mechanistic clues.  
 

Prospects for younger children

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has now been authorized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for kids as young as 5-11 years, using the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Experience so far suggests the immunization is safe in that age group with negligible risk of myocarditis or other complications. But with prospects of possible authorization in children younger than 5, should myocarditis be a concern for them?

Probably not, if the complication is driven primarily by sex hormones, Dr. Cooper proposed. “One would predict that before puberty you would have a lower – much, much lower – rate of myocarditis in males than you would in the 16- to 19-year-old range, and that it would be roughly equal to females.” Dr. Ammirati and Dr. Bozkurt largely agreed.

It remains to be seen whether the vaccine-related myocarditis risk applies to children younger than 12, “but I doubt it. I think it’s going to be puberty-related,” Dr. Bozkurt said. Still, “I don’t want to hypothesize without data.”

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an increased risk for diabetes among youth, whereas other acute respiratory infections were not, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate.

The results from two large U.S. health claims databases were published in an early release in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report by Catherine E. Barrett, PhD, and colleagues of the CDC’s COVID-19 Emergency Response Team and Division of Diabetes Translation.

Clinicians should monitor individuals younger than 18 years in the months following a SARS-CoV-2 infection for new diabetes onset, they advise.

The findings, which are supported by independent studies in adults, “underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention among all age groups, including vaccination for all eligible children and adolescents, and chronic disease prevention and treatment,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

Diabetes type couldn’t be reliably distinguished from the databases, which is noted as an important study limitation.

“SARS-CoV-2 infection might lead to type 1 or type 2 diabetes through complex and differing mechanisms,” they say.

Emerging evidence began to suggest, in mid-2020, that COVID-19 may trigger the onset of diabetes in healthy people. A new global registry was subsequently established to collect data on patients with COVID-19–related diabetes, called the CoviDiab registry.
 

Not clear if diabetes after COVID-19 is transient or permanent

From one of the databases used in the new study, known as IQVIA, 80,893 individuals aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 2020 to February 26, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched people during that period who did not have COVID-19 and to prepandemic groups with and without a diagnosis of acute respiratory illness during March 1, 2017, to February 26, 2018.

From the second database, HealthVerity, 439,439 youth diagnosed with COVID-19 during March 1, 2020, to June 28, 2021, were compared with age- and sex-matched youth without COVID-19. Here, there was no prepandemic comparison group.

Diabetes diagnoses were coded in 0.08% with COVID-19 vs. 0.03% without COVID-19 in IQVIA and in 0.25% vs. 0.19% in HealthVerity.

Thus, new diabetes diagnoses were 166% and 31% more likely to occur in those with COVID-19 in IQVIA and HealthVerity, respectively. And in IQVIA, those with COVID-19 were 116% more likely to develop diabetes than were those with prepandemic acute respiratory illnesses. Those differences were all significant, whereas non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections were not associated with diabetes, Dr. Barrett and colleagues say.

In both databases, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) was more common at diabetes onset among those with, vs. without, COVID-19: 48.5% vs. 13.6% in IQVIA and 40.2% vs. 29.7% in HealthVerity. In IQVIA, 22.0% with prepandemic acute respiratory illness presented with DKA.

Dr. Barrett and colleagues offer several potential explanations for the observed association between COVID-19 and diabetes, including a direct attack on pancreatic beta cells expressing angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors, or via stress hyperglycemia resulting from cytokine storm and alterations in glucose metabolism.

Another possibility is the precipitation to diabetes from prediabetes; the latter is a condition present in one in five U.S. adolescents.

Steroid treatment during hospitalization might have led to transient hyperglycemia, but only 1.5% to 2.2% of diabetes codes were for drug- or chemical-induced diabetes. The majority were for type 1 or 2.

Alternatively, pandemic-associated weight gain might have also contributed to risks for both severe COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes.

“Although this study can provide information on the risk for diabetes following SARS-CoV-2 infection, additional data are needed to understand underlying pathogenic mechanisms, either those caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection itself or resulting from treatments, and whether a COVID-19–associated diabetes diagnosis is transient or leads to a chronic condition,” Dr. Barrett and colleagues conclude.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed at retail pharmacies in the United States dropped by 21% in recent years amid efforts to reduce unnecessary use of the painkillers, but the rate of decline varied greatly among types of patients and by type of clinician, a study found.

In a brief report published by Annals of Internal Medicine, researchers from the nonprofit RAND Corp reported an analysis of opioid prescriptions from two periods, 2008-2009 and 2017-2018.

The researchers sought to assess total opioid use rather than simply track the number of pills dispensed. So they used days’ supply and total daily dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions, write Bradley D. Stein, MD, PhD, MPH, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND Corp, and his coauthors in their paper.

For the study, the researchers used data from the consulting firm IQVIA, which they say covers about 90% of U.S. prescriptions. Total opioid volume per capita by prescriptions filled in retail pharmacies decreased from 951.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 749.3 MME in 2017-2018, Dr. Stein’s group found.

(In 2020, IQVIA separately said that prescription opioid use per adult in this country rose from an average of 16 pills, or 134 MMEs, in 1992 to a peak of about 55 pills a person, or 790 MMEs, in 2011. By 2019, opioid use per adult had declined to 29 pills and 366 MMEs per capita.)

The RAND report found substantial variation in opioid volume by type of insurance, including a 41.5% decline (636.5 MME to 372.6 MME) among people covered by commercial health plans. That exceeded the 27.7% drop seen for people enrolled in Medicaid (646.8 MME to 467.7 MME). The decline was smaller (17.5%; 2,780.2 MME to 2,294.2 MME) for those on Medicare, who as a group used the most opioids.

‘Almost functions as a Rorschach test’

The causes of the decline are easy to guess, although definitive conclusions are impossible, Dr. Stein told this news organization.

Significant work has been done in recent years to change attitudes about opioid prescriptions by physicians, researchers, and lawmakers. Aggressive promotion of prescription painkillers, particularly Purdue Pharma’s OxyContin, in the 1990s, is widely cited as the triggering event for the national opioid crisis.

In response, states created databases known as prescription drug monitoring programs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2016 issued guidelines intended to curb unnecessary use of opioids. The guidelines noted that other medicines could treat chronic pain without raising the risk of addiction. The Choosing Wisely campaign, run by a foundation of the American Board of Internal Medicine, also offered recommendations about limiting use of opioids. And insurers have restricted access to opioids through the prior authorization process. As a result, researchers will make their own guesses at the causes of the decline in opioid prescriptions, based on their own experiences and research interests, Dr. Stein said.

“It almost functions as a Rorschach test,” he said.

Dr. Stein’s group also looked at trends among medical specialties. They found the largest reduction between 2008-2009 and 2017-2018 among emergency physicians (70.5% drop from 99,254.5 MME to 29,234.3 MME), psychiatrists (67.2% drop from 50,464.3 MME to 16,533.0 MME) and oncologists (59.5% drop from 51,731.2 MME to 20,941.4).

Among surgeons, the RAND researchers found a drop of 49.3% from 220,764.6 to 111,904.4. Among dentists, they found a drop of 41.3% from 22,345.3 to 13,126.1.

Among pain specialists, they found a drop of 15.4% from 1,020,808.4 MME to 863,140.7 MME.

Among adult primary care clinicians, Dr. Stein and his colleagues found a drop of 40% from 651,489.4 MME in 2008-2009 to 390,841.0 MME in 2017-2018.

However, one of the groups tracked in the study increased the volume of opioid prescriptions written: advanced practice providers, among whom scripts for the drugs rose 22.7%, from 112,873.9 MME to 138,459.3 MME.

Dr. Stein said he suspects that this gain reflects a change in the nature of the practice of primary care, with nurse practitioners and physician assistants taking more active roles in treatment of patients. Some of the reduction seen among primary care clinicians who treat adults may reflect a shift in which medical personnel in a practice write the opioid prescriptions.

Still, the trends in general seen by Dr. Stein and coauthors are encouraging, even if further study of these patterns is needed, he said.

“This is one of those papers that I think potentially raises as many questions as it provides answers for,” he said.

What’s missing

Maya Hambright, MD, a family medicine physician in New York’s Hudson Valley, who has been working mainly in addiction in response to the opioid overdose crisis, observed that the drop in total prescribed volume of prescription painkillers does not necessarily translate into a reduction in use of opioids

“No one is taking fewer opioids,” Dr. Hambright told this news organization. “I can say that comfortably. They are just getting them from other sources.”

CDC data support Dr. Hambright’s view.

An estimated 100,306 people in the United States died of a drug overdose in the 12 months that ended in April 2021, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the CDC.

Dr. Hambright said more physicians need to be involved in prescribing medication-assisted treatment (MAT).

The federal government has in the past year loosened restrictions on a requirement, known as an X waiver. Certain clinicians have been exempted from training requirements, as explained in the frequently asked questions page on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website.

SAMHSA says legislation is required to eliminate the waiver. As of Dec. 30, 2021, more than half of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives were listed as sponsors of the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment (MAT) Act (HR 1384), which would end the need for X waivers. The bill has the backing of 187 Democrats and 43 Republicans.

At this time, too many physicians shy away from offering MAT, Dr. Hambright said.

“People are still scared of it,” she said. “People don’t want to deal with addicts.”

But Dr. Hambright said it’s well worth the initial time invested in having the needed conversations with patients about MAT.

“Afterwards, it’s so straightforward. People feel better. They’re healthier. It’s amazing,” she said. “You’re changing lives.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Stein and coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Interrogating the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) after death can yield important information about critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, and the mechanism and timing of death, a new study suggests.

Postmortem CIED interrogation is “richly informative” in assisting both cardiac and forensic investigations and “should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy,” say Elizabeth Paratz, MBBS, department of cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Australia, and colleagues.

Their study results were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 

Cause of death revealed in half of cases

They reviewed CIED interrogations in 260 deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden death (162 patients) or unexplained death (98 patients) by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.

Roughly two-thirds were male (68.8%) and their median age was 72.8 years; 202 patients had pacemakers, 56 had defibrillators, and 2 had loop recorders. The cause of death was cardiac in 79.6% of cases.

Postmortem CIED interrogation was successful in 98.5% cases and directly informed cause of death in 131 cases (50.4%), with fatal ventricular arrhythmias identified in 121 patients.

CIED interrogation assisted in determining the cause of death in 63.6% of cases of sudden death and 28.6% of nonsudden death cases.

In 20 cases (7.7%), CIED interrogation uncovered potential device malfunction. Issues included failure to appropriately treat ventricular arrhythmias in 13 cases; lead issues in 3 cases, including 2 cases resulting in failure to treat ventricular arrhythmias; as well as battery depletion in 6 cases.

In 72 patients (27.7%), the device recorded abnormalities in the 30 days before death. These abnormalities included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 26 cases, rapid atrial fibrillation in 17, elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status in 22, intrathoracic impedance alarms or lead issues in 3 each, and therapy delivered in 1 instance.

“In several cases, the absence of an arrhythmia carried medicolegal implications: For example, in eight fatal motor vehicle accident cases, only one patient had a ventricular arrhythmia documented on their CIED,” Dr. Paratz and colleagues report.

And in six cases in which the patient was found dead after a prolonged period, CIED interrogation determined time of death. And in one case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of identifying the patient.

Still, postmortem CIED interrogation remains uncommon, the study team notes.

They point to a 2007 survey of Chicago morticians that found roughly 370 CIEDs were explanted per year prior to cremation, but only 4% of morticians had ever returned a CIED to the manufacturer for analysis.

“Encouraging postmortem interrogation of CIEDs may assist in postmarketing surveillance for critical faults, as well as in providing an electrophysiological appraisal of terminal rhythms and device responses in a variety of physiological scenarios,” the researchers say.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Paratz is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation cofunded Postgraduate Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians JJ Billings Scholarship, and PSA Insurance Cardiovascular Scholarship. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Interrogating the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) after death can yield important information about critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, and the mechanism and timing of death, a new study suggests.

Postmortem CIED interrogation is “richly informative” in assisting both cardiac and forensic investigations and “should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy,” say Elizabeth Paratz, MBBS, department of cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Australia, and colleagues.

Their study results were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 

Cause of death revealed in half of cases

They reviewed CIED interrogations in 260 deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden death (162 patients) or unexplained death (98 patients) by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.

Roughly two-thirds were male (68.8%) and their median age was 72.8 years; 202 patients had pacemakers, 56 had defibrillators, and 2 had loop recorders. The cause of death was cardiac in 79.6% of cases.

Postmortem CIED interrogation was successful in 98.5% cases and directly informed cause of death in 131 cases (50.4%), with fatal ventricular arrhythmias identified in 121 patients.

CIED interrogation assisted in determining the cause of death in 63.6% of cases of sudden death and 28.6% of nonsudden death cases.

In 20 cases (7.7%), CIED interrogation uncovered potential device malfunction. Issues included failure to appropriately treat ventricular arrhythmias in 13 cases; lead issues in 3 cases, including 2 cases resulting in failure to treat ventricular arrhythmias; as well as battery depletion in 6 cases.

In 72 patients (27.7%), the device recorded abnormalities in the 30 days before death. These abnormalities included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 26 cases, rapid atrial fibrillation in 17, elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status in 22, intrathoracic impedance alarms or lead issues in 3 each, and therapy delivered in 1 instance.

“In several cases, the absence of an arrhythmia carried medicolegal implications: For example, in eight fatal motor vehicle accident cases, only one patient had a ventricular arrhythmia documented on their CIED,” Dr. Paratz and colleagues report.

And in six cases in which the patient was found dead after a prolonged period, CIED interrogation determined time of death. And in one case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of identifying the patient.

Still, postmortem CIED interrogation remains uncommon, the study team notes.

They point to a 2007 survey of Chicago morticians that found roughly 370 CIEDs were explanted per year prior to cremation, but only 4% of morticians had ever returned a CIED to the manufacturer for analysis.

“Encouraging postmortem interrogation of CIEDs may assist in postmarketing surveillance for critical faults, as well as in providing an electrophysiological appraisal of terminal rhythms and device responses in a variety of physiological scenarios,” the researchers say.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Paratz is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation cofunded Postgraduate Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians JJ Billings Scholarship, and PSA Insurance Cardiovascular Scholarship. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Interrogating the cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) after death can yield important information about critical device malfunction, premortem abnormalities, and the mechanism and timing of death, a new study suggests.

Postmortem CIED interrogation is “richly informative” in assisting both cardiac and forensic investigations and “should be considered for select patients with CIEDs undergoing autopsy,” say Elizabeth Paratz, MBBS, department of cardiology, Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute, Prahran, Australia, and colleagues.

Their study results were published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology. 

Cause of death revealed in half of cases

They reviewed CIED interrogations in 260 deceased individuals undergoing medicolegal investigation of sudden death (162 patients) or unexplained death (98 patients) by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine between 2005 and 2020.

Roughly two-thirds were male (68.8%) and their median age was 72.8 years; 202 patients had pacemakers, 56 had defibrillators, and 2 had loop recorders. The cause of death was cardiac in 79.6% of cases.

Postmortem CIED interrogation was successful in 98.5% cases and directly informed cause of death in 131 cases (50.4%), with fatal ventricular arrhythmias identified in 121 patients.

CIED interrogation assisted in determining the cause of death in 63.6% of cases of sudden death and 28.6% of nonsudden death cases.

In 20 cases (7.7%), CIED interrogation uncovered potential device malfunction. Issues included failure to appropriately treat ventricular arrhythmias in 13 cases; lead issues in 3 cases, including 2 cases resulting in failure to treat ventricular arrhythmias; as well as battery depletion in 6 cases.

In 72 patients (27.7%), the device recorded abnormalities in the 30 days before death. These abnormalities included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 26 cases, rapid atrial fibrillation in 17, elective replacement indicator or end-of-life status in 22, intrathoracic impedance alarms or lead issues in 3 each, and therapy delivered in 1 instance.

“In several cases, the absence of an arrhythmia carried medicolegal implications: For example, in eight fatal motor vehicle accident cases, only one patient had a ventricular arrhythmia documented on their CIED,” Dr. Paratz and colleagues report.

And in six cases in which the patient was found dead after a prolonged period, CIED interrogation determined time of death. And in one case, CIED interrogation was the primary means of identifying the patient.

Still, postmortem CIED interrogation remains uncommon, the study team notes.

They point to a 2007 survey of Chicago morticians that found roughly 370 CIEDs were explanted per year prior to cremation, but only 4% of morticians had ever returned a CIED to the manufacturer for analysis.

“Encouraging postmortem interrogation of CIEDs may assist in postmarketing surveillance for critical faults, as well as in providing an electrophysiological appraisal of terminal rhythms and device responses in a variety of physiological scenarios,” the researchers say.

The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Paratz is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council/National Heart Foundation cofunded Postgraduate Scholarship, Royal Australasian College of Physicians JJ Billings Scholarship, and PSA Insurance Cardiovascular Scholarship. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Are you still wearing a cloth face mask?

Amid the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, experts stress that we all should swap cloth masks for N95 respirators or 3-ply surgical masks.

For background: N95 respirators are tightly fitting masks that cover your mouth and nose and help prevent contact with droplets and tiny particles in the air from people talking, coughing, sneezing, and spreading in other ways. Usually worn by health care workers and first responders, these masks can filter up to 95% of air droplets and particles, according to the CDC.

KN95 and KN94 masks are similar but are designed to meet international standards, unlike N95s that are approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Meanwhile, a 3-ply surgical mask is a looser-fitting mask that can help prevent contact with infected droplets in the air.

But recommendations to opt for N95 and 3-ply surgical masks over cloth masks are nothing new, says Leana Wen, MD, an emergency doctor and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington.

In fact, public health experts have been urging stronger mask protection for months.

“It’s not just with Omicron that we need better masks, it was with Delta, it was with Alpha before that,” Dr. Wen said. “We have known for many months that COVID-19 is airborne, and therefore, a simple cloth mask is not going to cut it.”

Here’s what to know about these protective masks.
 

They’re necessary

Omicron is spreading much faster than previous COVID-19 variants. As it’s up to three times as likely to spread as the Delta variant, mask-wearing is paramount right now, says Anita Gupta, DO, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The quality of a mask also matters a lot, said Dr. Wen.

“Double masking, including a well-fitting cloth mask on top of a surgical mask, adds additional protection,” she said. “Ideally, though, people should be wearing an N95, KN95, or KF94 when in indoor settings around other people with unknown vaccination status.”

If wearing an N95 mask causes extreme discomfort, wear it in high-risk settings where there are lots of people, like crowded restaurants and busy commuter trains, says Dr. Wen. “If you’re in a grocery store, there’s plenty of space and ventilation. You may not need an N95. I recommend that people obtain different masks and practice with them in low-risk settings before they go out in public in a high-risk setting.”

But people should wear a 3-ply surgical mask at the very least.
 

Three-ply surgical and N95 mask qualities

With 3-ply surgical masks, the fit of the mask is often more of an issue than its comfort, Dr. Wen said. But there are ways to adjust these masks, especially for those who have smaller heads.

“You can put a rubber band around the ear loops and make them a bit tighter,” said Dr. Wen. “Some people have found that using pins in their hair, that’s another way of keeping the loops in place.”

Another important tip on 3-ply surgical masks and N95s: These masks are reusable.

But how many times you should use them varies, Dr. Wen said. “As an example, if you are sweating a lot, and the mask is now really damp. Or putting it in your purse or backpack, and now it’s misshapen, and you cannot get it back to fit on your face, then it’s time to throw it away.”
 

Protection first

For some, cloth masks became somewhat of a statement, with people sporting logos of their favorite NFL team, or maybe even a fun animal print.

But you should always keep in mind the purpose of wearing a mask, Dr. Wen said. “Mask wearing is very functional and is about reducing your likelihood of contracting COVID. People should also use whatever methods inspire them, too, but for me, it’s purely a functional exercise.”

Mask wearing is not always enjoyable, but it remains critical in keeping people safe from COVID-19, especially the elderly and other high-risk people, Gupta says.

“There is lots of research and experts working hard to stop COVID-19,” she says. “It is important for all of us to remember that wearing a mask alone doesn’t make us safe.”

“We all need to keep washing our hands frequently and maintaining a distance from people, as well.”

For more information on where to find 3-ply surgical masks and N95s, check here or here to start.

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

Are you still wearing a cloth face mask?

Amid the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, experts stress that we all should swap cloth masks for N95 respirators or 3-ply surgical masks.

For background: N95 respirators are tightly fitting masks that cover your mouth and nose and help prevent contact with droplets and tiny particles in the air from people talking, coughing, sneezing, and spreading in other ways. Usually worn by health care workers and first responders, these masks can filter up to 95% of air droplets and particles, according to the CDC.

KN95 and KN94 masks are similar but are designed to meet international standards, unlike N95s that are approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Meanwhile, a 3-ply surgical mask is a looser-fitting mask that can help prevent contact with infected droplets in the air.

But recommendations to opt for N95 and 3-ply surgical masks over cloth masks are nothing new, says Leana Wen, MD, an emergency doctor and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington.

In fact, public health experts have been urging stronger mask protection for months.

“It’s not just with Omicron that we need better masks, it was with Delta, it was with Alpha before that,” Dr. Wen said. “We have known for many months that COVID-19 is airborne, and therefore, a simple cloth mask is not going to cut it.”

Here’s what to know about these protective masks.
 

They’re necessary

Omicron is spreading much faster than previous COVID-19 variants. As it’s up to three times as likely to spread as the Delta variant, mask-wearing is paramount right now, says Anita Gupta, DO, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The quality of a mask also matters a lot, said Dr. Wen.

“Double masking, including a well-fitting cloth mask on top of a surgical mask, adds additional protection,” she said. “Ideally, though, people should be wearing an N95, KN95, or KF94 when in indoor settings around other people with unknown vaccination status.”

If wearing an N95 mask causes extreme discomfort, wear it in high-risk settings where there are lots of people, like crowded restaurants and busy commuter trains, says Dr. Wen. “If you’re in a grocery store, there’s plenty of space and ventilation. You may not need an N95. I recommend that people obtain different masks and practice with them in low-risk settings before they go out in public in a high-risk setting.”

But people should wear a 3-ply surgical mask at the very least.
 

Three-ply surgical and N95 mask qualities

With 3-ply surgical masks, the fit of the mask is often more of an issue than its comfort, Dr. Wen said. But there are ways to adjust these masks, especially for those who have smaller heads.

“You can put a rubber band around the ear loops and make them a bit tighter,” said Dr. Wen. “Some people have found that using pins in their hair, that’s another way of keeping the loops in place.”

Another important tip on 3-ply surgical masks and N95s: These masks are reusable.

But how many times you should use them varies, Dr. Wen said. “As an example, if you are sweating a lot, and the mask is now really damp. Or putting it in your purse or backpack, and now it’s misshapen, and you cannot get it back to fit on your face, then it’s time to throw it away.”
 

Protection first

For some, cloth masks became somewhat of a statement, with people sporting logos of their favorite NFL team, or maybe even a fun animal print.

But you should always keep in mind the purpose of wearing a mask, Dr. Wen said. “Mask wearing is very functional and is about reducing your likelihood of contracting COVID. People should also use whatever methods inspire them, too, but for me, it’s purely a functional exercise.”

Mask wearing is not always enjoyable, but it remains critical in keeping people safe from COVID-19, especially the elderly and other high-risk people, Gupta says.

“There is lots of research and experts working hard to stop COVID-19,” she says. “It is important for all of us to remember that wearing a mask alone doesn’t make us safe.”

“We all need to keep washing our hands frequently and maintaining a distance from people, as well.”

For more information on where to find 3-ply surgical masks and N95s, check here or here to start.

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

Are you still wearing a cloth face mask?

Amid the rapidly spreading Omicron variant, experts stress that we all should swap cloth masks for N95 respirators or 3-ply surgical masks.

For background: N95 respirators are tightly fitting masks that cover your mouth and nose and help prevent contact with droplets and tiny particles in the air from people talking, coughing, sneezing, and spreading in other ways. Usually worn by health care workers and first responders, these masks can filter up to 95% of air droplets and particles, according to the CDC.

KN95 and KN94 masks are similar but are designed to meet international standards, unlike N95s that are approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Meanwhile, a 3-ply surgical mask is a looser-fitting mask that can help prevent contact with infected droplets in the air.

But recommendations to opt for N95 and 3-ply surgical masks over cloth masks are nothing new, says Leana Wen, MD, an emergency doctor and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington.

In fact, public health experts have been urging stronger mask protection for months.

“It’s not just with Omicron that we need better masks, it was with Delta, it was with Alpha before that,” Dr. Wen said. “We have known for many months that COVID-19 is airborne, and therefore, a simple cloth mask is not going to cut it.”

Here’s what to know about these protective masks.
 

They’re necessary

Omicron is spreading much faster than previous COVID-19 variants. As it’s up to three times as likely to spread as the Delta variant, mask-wearing is paramount right now, says Anita Gupta, DO, an adjunct assistant professor of anesthesiology and critical care medicine and pain medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

The quality of a mask also matters a lot, said Dr. Wen.

“Double masking, including a well-fitting cloth mask on top of a surgical mask, adds additional protection,” she said. “Ideally, though, people should be wearing an N95, KN95, or KF94 when in indoor settings around other people with unknown vaccination status.”

If wearing an N95 mask causes extreme discomfort, wear it in high-risk settings where there are lots of people, like crowded restaurants and busy commuter trains, says Dr. Wen. “If you’re in a grocery store, there’s plenty of space and ventilation. You may not need an N95. I recommend that people obtain different masks and practice with them in low-risk settings before they go out in public in a high-risk setting.”

But people should wear a 3-ply surgical mask at the very least.
 

Three-ply surgical and N95 mask qualities

With 3-ply surgical masks, the fit of the mask is often more of an issue than its comfort, Dr. Wen said. But there are ways to adjust these masks, especially for those who have smaller heads.

“You can put a rubber band around the ear loops and make them a bit tighter,” said Dr. Wen. “Some people have found that using pins in their hair, that’s another way of keeping the loops in place.”

Another important tip on 3-ply surgical masks and N95s: These masks are reusable.

But how many times you should use them varies, Dr. Wen said. “As an example, if you are sweating a lot, and the mask is now really damp. Or putting it in your purse or backpack, and now it’s misshapen, and you cannot get it back to fit on your face, then it’s time to throw it away.”
 

Protection first

For some, cloth masks became somewhat of a statement, with people sporting logos of their favorite NFL team, or maybe even a fun animal print.

But you should always keep in mind the purpose of wearing a mask, Dr. Wen said. “Mask wearing is very functional and is about reducing your likelihood of contracting COVID. People should also use whatever methods inspire them, too, but for me, it’s purely a functional exercise.”

Mask wearing is not always enjoyable, but it remains critical in keeping people safe from COVID-19, especially the elderly and other high-risk people, Gupta says.

“There is lots of research and experts working hard to stop COVID-19,” she says. “It is important for all of us to remember that wearing a mask alone doesn’t make us safe.”

“We all need to keep washing our hands frequently and maintaining a distance from people, as well.”

For more information on where to find 3-ply surgical masks and N95s, check here or here to start.

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

With new cases of COVID-19 skyrocketing to more than 240,000 a day recently in the U.S., many people are facing the same situation: A family member or friend tests positive or was exposed to someone who did, and the holiday gathering, visit, or return to work is just days or hours away. Now what?

New guidance issued Dec. 27 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortens the recommended isolation and quarantine period for the general population, coming after the agency shortened the isolation period for health care workers.

This news organization reached out to two infectious disease specialists to get answers to questions that are frequently asked in these situations.
 

If you have tested positive for COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If you have tested positive, you are infected. At the moment, you are [either] symptomatically affected or presymptomatically infected,’’ said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At that point, you need to isolate for 5 days, according to the new CDC guidance. (That period has been shortened from 10 days.)

Isolation means separating the infected person from others. Quarantine refers to things you should do if you’re exposed to the virus or you have a close contact infected with COVID-19.

Under the new CDC guidelines, after the 5-day isolation, if the infected person then has no symptoms, he or she can leave isolation and then wear a mask for 5  days.

Those who test positive also need to tell their close contacts they are positive, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

According to the CDC, the change to a shortened quarantine time is motivated by science ‘’demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of the illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”
 

If you have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If they are vaccinated and boosted, the guidance says there is no need to quarantine,” Dr. Adalja said. But the CDC guidance does recommend these people wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure.

For everyone else, including the unvaccinated and those who are more than 6 months out from their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccine dose, or more than 2 months from their J&J dose, the CDC recommends a quarantine for 5 days – and wearing a mask for the 5 days after that.

On a practical level, Dr. Adalja said he thinks those who are vaccinated but not boosted could also skip the quarantine and wear a mask for 10 days. Dr. Offit agrees. Because many people exposed have trouble quarantining, Dr. Offit advises those exposed who can’t follow that guidance to be sure to wear a mask for 10 days when indoors. The CDC guidance also offers that as another strategy – that if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, the exposed person should wear a mask for 10 days when around others.

But if  someone who was exposed gets symptoms, that person then enters the infected category and follows that guidance, Dr. Offit said.
 

When should the person who has been exposed get tested?

After the exposure, ‘’you should probably wait 2-3 days,” Dr. Offit said. “The virus has to reproduce itself.”

Testing should be done by those exposed at least once, Dr. Adalja said.

“But there’s data to support daily testing to guide their activities, but this is not CDC guidance. Home tests are sufficient for this purpose.”
 

At what point can the infected person mingle safely with others?

“Technically, if asymptomatic, 10 days without a mask, 5 days with a mask,” said Dr. Adalja. “I think this could also be guided with home test negativity being a gauge [as to whether to mingle].”

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

With new cases of COVID-19 skyrocketing to more than 240,000 a day recently in the U.S., many people are facing the same situation: A family member or friend tests positive or was exposed to someone who did, and the holiday gathering, visit, or return to work is just days or hours away. Now what?

New guidance issued Dec. 27 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortens the recommended isolation and quarantine period for the general population, coming after the agency shortened the isolation period for health care workers.

This news organization reached out to two infectious disease specialists to get answers to questions that are frequently asked in these situations.
 

If you have tested positive for COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If you have tested positive, you are infected. At the moment, you are [either] symptomatically affected or presymptomatically infected,’’ said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At that point, you need to isolate for 5 days, according to the new CDC guidance. (That period has been shortened from 10 days.)

Isolation means separating the infected person from others. Quarantine refers to things you should do if you’re exposed to the virus or you have a close contact infected with COVID-19.

Under the new CDC guidelines, after the 5-day isolation, if the infected person then has no symptoms, he or she can leave isolation and then wear a mask for 5  days.

Those who test positive also need to tell their close contacts they are positive, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

According to the CDC, the change to a shortened quarantine time is motivated by science ‘’demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of the illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”
 

If you have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If they are vaccinated and boosted, the guidance says there is no need to quarantine,” Dr. Adalja said. But the CDC guidance does recommend these people wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure.

For everyone else, including the unvaccinated and those who are more than 6 months out from their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccine dose, or more than 2 months from their J&J dose, the CDC recommends a quarantine for 5 days – and wearing a mask for the 5 days after that.

On a practical level, Dr. Adalja said he thinks those who are vaccinated but not boosted could also skip the quarantine and wear a mask for 10 days. Dr. Offit agrees. Because many people exposed have trouble quarantining, Dr. Offit advises those exposed who can’t follow that guidance to be sure to wear a mask for 10 days when indoors. The CDC guidance also offers that as another strategy – that if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, the exposed person should wear a mask for 10 days when around others.

But if  someone who was exposed gets symptoms, that person then enters the infected category and follows that guidance, Dr. Offit said.
 

When should the person who has been exposed get tested?

After the exposure, ‘’you should probably wait 2-3 days,” Dr. Offit said. “The virus has to reproduce itself.”

Testing should be done by those exposed at least once, Dr. Adalja said.

“But there’s data to support daily testing to guide their activities, but this is not CDC guidance. Home tests are sufficient for this purpose.”
 

At what point can the infected person mingle safely with others?

“Technically, if asymptomatic, 10 days without a mask, 5 days with a mask,” said Dr. Adalja. “I think this could also be guided with home test negativity being a gauge [as to whether to mingle].”

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

With new cases of COVID-19 skyrocketing to more than 240,000 a day recently in the U.S., many people are facing the same situation: A family member or friend tests positive or was exposed to someone who did, and the holiday gathering, visit, or return to work is just days or hours away. Now what?

New guidance issued Dec. 27 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shortens the recommended isolation and quarantine period for the general population, coming after the agency shortened the isolation period for health care workers.

This news organization reached out to two infectious disease specialists to get answers to questions that are frequently asked in these situations.
 

If you have tested positive for COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If you have tested positive, you are infected. At the moment, you are [either] symptomatically affected or presymptomatically infected,’’ said Paul A. Offit, MD, director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. At that point, you need to isolate for 5 days, according to the new CDC guidance. (That period has been shortened from 10 days.)

Isolation means separating the infected person from others. Quarantine refers to things you should do if you’re exposed to the virus or you have a close contact infected with COVID-19.

Under the new CDC guidelines, after the 5-day isolation, if the infected person then has no symptoms, he or she can leave isolation and then wear a mask for 5  days.

Those who test positive also need to tell their close contacts they are positive, said Amesh Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.  

According to the CDC, the change to a shortened quarantine time is motivated by science ‘’demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of the illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after.”
 

If you have been exposed to someone with COVID-19, what do you do next?

“If they are vaccinated and boosted, the guidance says there is no need to quarantine,” Dr. Adalja said. But the CDC guidance does recommend these people wear a well-fitting mask at all times when around others for 10 days after exposure.

For everyone else, including the unvaccinated and those who are more than 6 months out from their second Pfizer or Moderna vaccine dose, or more than 2 months from their J&J dose, the CDC recommends a quarantine for 5 days – and wearing a mask for the 5 days after that.

On a practical level, Dr. Adalja said he thinks those who are vaccinated but not boosted could also skip the quarantine and wear a mask for 10 days. Dr. Offit agrees. Because many people exposed have trouble quarantining, Dr. Offit advises those exposed who can’t follow that guidance to be sure to wear a mask for 10 days when indoors. The CDC guidance also offers that as another strategy – that if a 5-day quarantine is not feasible, the exposed person should wear a mask for 10 days when around others.

But if  someone who was exposed gets symptoms, that person then enters the infected category and follows that guidance, Dr. Offit said.
 

When should the person who has been exposed get tested?

After the exposure, ‘’you should probably wait 2-3 days,” Dr. Offit said. “The virus has to reproduce itself.”

Testing should be done by those exposed at least once, Dr. Adalja said.

“But there’s data to support daily testing to guide their activities, but this is not CDC guidance. Home tests are sufficient for this purpose.”
 

At what point can the infected person mingle safely with others?

“Technically, if asymptomatic, 10 days without a mask, 5 days with a mask,” said Dr. Adalja. “I think this could also be guided with home test negativity being a gauge [as to whether to mingle].”

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 can spread to the heart and brain within days of infection and can survive for months in organs, according to a new study by the National Institutes of Health.

The virus can spread to almost every organ system in the body, which could contribute to the ongoing symptoms seen in “long COVID” patients, the study authors wrote. The study is considered one of the most comprehensive reviews of how the virus replicates in human cells and persists in the human body. It is under review for publication in the journal Nature.

“This is remarkably important work,” Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, director of the Clinical Epidemiology Center at the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, told Bloomberg News. Dr. Al-Aly wasn’t involved with the NIH study but has researched the long-term effects of COVID-19.

“For a long time now, we have been scratching our heads and asking why long COVID seems to affect so many organ systems,” he said. “This paper sheds some light and may help explain why long COVID can occur even in people who had mild or asymptomatic acute disease.”

The NIH researchers sampled and analyzed tissues from autopsies on 44 patients who died after contracting the coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic. They found persistent virus particles in multiple parts of the body, including the heart and brain, for as long as 230 days after symptoms began. This could represent infection with defective virus particles, they said, which has also been seen in persistent infections among measles patients.

“We don’t yet know what burden of chronic illness will result in years to come,” Raina MacIntyre, PhD, a professor of global biosecurity at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, told Bloomberg News.

“Will we see young-onset cardiac failure in survivors or early-onset dementia?” she asked. “These are unanswered questions which call for a precautionary public health approach to mitigation of the spread of this virus.”

Unlike other COVID-19 autopsy research, the NIH team had a more comprehensive postmortem tissue collection process, which typically occurred within a day of the patient’s death, Bloomberg News reported. The researchers also used a variety of ways to preserve tissue to figure out viral levels. They were able to grow the virus collected from several tissues, including the heart, lungs, small intestine, and adrenal glands.

“Our results collectively show that, while the highest burden of SARS-CoV-2 is in the airways and lung, the virus can disseminate early during infection and infect cells throughout the entire body, including widely throughout the brain,” the study authors wrote.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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