News

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Last summer, a team of US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care professionals deployed to Alabama’s Bill Nichols State Veterans Home to help during the COVID-19 crisis. They were there as part of the “Fourth Mission”—supporting national, state, and local emergency management, public health, safety and homeland security efforts. “It was a really humbling experience,” said Mary Holloway, an RN with the Birmingham VA Health Care System. “Seeing the dedication of the staff there, some coming back to work after recovering from COVID themselves, was inspiring.”

But that turned out to be only one battle in a sadly long and drawn-out war. Since March 2020, more than 5,000 military medical personnel have deployed to 14 states and the Navajo Nation, 51 cities, 71 hospitals, all struggling to keep their heads above a cresting tsunami of new COVID patients.

Last year, the crisis spots for deployments included major metropolitan areas in coastal states: New York, California, and New Jersey. The urgency now is in the Southern states. Those tend to be reporting the highest numbers of new cases and deaths. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi, for example, have all ranked among the highest rates of cases and hospitalizations per 100,000 people across the country in the last seven days.

This year, military teams have also deployed to support vaccination centers in 25 states and 42 cities. Nearly all—97%—of the new COVID patients in recent months are unvaccinated. And, again, they predominate in Southern states. In Alabama, for instance, only 37% of the population are fully vaccinated. In Louisiana, that number is 40%.

The at-risk states also tend to be the ones that are rapidly running out of space to put the patients in, ICU or otherwise. Where patients who might have been in the intensive care unit (ICU) are housed in the emergency department and in hallways, and where patients without COVID-19 who might have been hospitalized are being turned away. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

These states are at a breaking point. Take Alabama. On August 18, it was “negative 11.” It had 1,568 patients with COVID-19 who needed ICU beds. Only 1,557 beds were available. Patients “may even stay on the regular floor where you’re already stretched for capacity to take care of these people because so many of our staff are out with COVID,” Jeanne Marrazzo, director, Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, told a CNN reporter. “It’s really just a domino effect that then clogs up our ERs, clogs up everything else. … It’s a very very tenuous situation.”

The state reported more than 4,000 new cases of COVID-19—“a new high for us,” Marrazzo said. “If you project these numbers out, you can expect that we will at some point, probably around Sept. 1, have at least 5,000 people in our hospitals. If the ratio of people who have to go to the ICU remains stable. That means that probably a third of those people are going to require ICU beds,” she continued. “That is frankly untenable, given the infrastructure, the resources, and really importantly, the staff that we have. I think it is basically apocalyptic. I do not use that word lightly.”

Thus, the US Defense Department (DoD) must once again rise to a sad and desperate occasion. At the request of Federal Emergency Management Agency and the state of Louisiana, the first of five teams of Navy doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists were sent last week to Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The teams, consisting of approximately 20 members each, are coming from throughout the DoD’s universe, including the National Guard. US Army North, under US Northern Command’s oversight, is providing operational command of the active-duty military COVID-19 response. Lt. Gen. Laura J. Richardson, ARNORTH commander, noting that “[t]his is the second time Department of Defense medical assets have deployed to support Louisiana during the pandemic,” calls it a “whole-of-government fight against COVID-19.”

Why Louisiana and Mississippi, with so many states in dire need? “Our joint forces go where FEMA needs us,” Richardson says. “[R]ight now FEMA has determined the military’s unique surge capabilities are most needed in these two states.”

In a press briefing at the time, Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said, “We expect that there could be additional requests from other states for other teams, so that’s why we’re being prepared to stand up five teams.” He was right: An Air Force team has now headed to Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge. Mississippi also asked for assistance; an Air Force team will be supporting at University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, and an Army team at North Mississippi Medical Center-Tupelo. 

The support will likely include bolstering and extending the infrastructure. From July to December 2020, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Emergency Management Coordination Cell delivered Fold-Out Rigid Temporary Shelters (FORTS), C-FORTS (clinics), mobile ICUs and isolation units to locations across the US, such as North Chicago, El Paso, and Oklahoma City. In 2021, they’ll be needed in more hospitals unprepared to house the spiking numbers of patients. Some Louisiana hospitals, for instance, have been sending patients in ambulances to Texas for care.

The first go-round with COVID taught hard lessons that can help hone the Fourth Mission responses. One lesson, according to the VHA COVID-19 Response Report- Annex A, published this May, was the need to conduct due diligence, to be both efficient and effective. VHA, it says, now works to determine actual need before deploying resources. “For example, VHA might receive a request from a [State Veterans Home] for 50 RNs. But once VHA delved into the request and worked with the associated VISNs, it would find that 20 RNs or 10 LPNs could meet the needs of the request.”

Meeting the requests is, for the beleaguered hospitals, like answering letters to Santa. When the team of doctors, nurses, and respiratory therapists arrived at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center (OLGMC) last week the hospital staff greeted them with cheers and applause.

OLGMC CEO Al Patin said, "We're already in a nursing shortage, coupled with high numbers of this pandemic [which] creates a situation where we need additional support. We have patients boarding in our emergency rooms, patients in our ICU setting that can't transition out. That creates a bottleneck and does not allow us to continue to take in patients from our community."

That day, OLG posted on Twitter:

“Today, we received some much-needed assistance in the fight against COVID-19. Our team at Ochsner Lafayette General Medical Center is being expanded by four doctors, 14 nurses and two respiratory therapists – all highly trained personnel on loan from the U.S. Navy.

“These healthcare professionals are being onboarded in our facility today and are specially trained for the emergency department, ICU and Med Surg. Because of them, we’ll be able to staff an additional 16-18 beds – beds sorely needed as cases continue to rise in our area.

“We requested support from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and we were one of five U.S. cities to receive it.. We are most grateful and humbled.”

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

rfranki@mdedge.com

Weekly cases of COVID-19 in children jumped by nearly 50% in the United States, posting the highest count since hitting a pandemic high back in mid-January, a new report shows.

The 180,175 new cases reported during Aug. 13-19 represent the highest 1-week total since the peak of 211,466 during the week of Jan. 8-14. The latest weekly figure represents a 48% increase over the previous week and an increase of over 2,000% in the 8 weeks since the national count dropped to a low of 8,500 cases for the week of June 18-24, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their weekly COVID report.

Vaccinations, in the meantime, appear to be headed in the opposite direction. Vaccine initiations were down for the second consecutive week, falling by 18% among 12- to 15-year-olds and by 15% in those aged 16-17 years, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, about 47% of children aged 12-15 and 56% of those aged 16-17 have received at least one dose of COVID vaccine as of Aug. 23, with 34% and 44%, respectively, reaching full vaccination. The total number of children with at least one dose is 11.6 million, including a relatively small number (about 200,000) of children under age 12 years, the CDC said on its COVID Data Tracker.

At the state level, vaccination is a source of considerable disparity. In Vermont, 73% of children aged 12-17 had received at least one dose by Aug. 18, and 63% were fully vaccinated. In Wyoming, however, just 25% of children had received at least one dose (17% are fully vaccinated), while Alabama has a lowest-in-the-nation full vaccination rate of 14%, based on a separate AAP analysis of CDC data.

There are seven states in which over 60% of 12- to 17-year-olds have at least started the vaccine regimen and five states where less than 30% have received at least one dose, the AAP noted.

Back on the incidence side of the pandemic, Mississippi and Hawaii had the largest increases in new cases over the past 2 weeks, followed by Florida and West Virginia. Cumulative figures show that California has had the most cases overall in children (550,337), Vermont has the highest proportion of all cases in children (22.9%), and Rhode Island has the highest rate of cases per 100,000 (10,636), the AAP and CHA said in the joint report based on data from 49 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Add up all those jurisdictions, and it works out to 4.6 million children infected with SARS-CoV-2 as of Aug. 19, with children representing 14.6% of all cases since the start of the pandemic. There have been over 18,000 hospitalizations so far, which is just 2.3% of the total for all ages in the 23 states (and New York City) that are reporting such data on their health department websites, the AAP and CHA said.

The number of COVID-related deaths in children is now 402 after the largest 1-week increase (24) since late May of 2020, when the AAP/CHA coverage began. Mortality data by age are available from 44 states, New York City, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

rfranki@mdedge.com

A higher intake of flavonoid-rich foods such as berries, apples, tea, and red wine is associated with a clinically relevant reduction in blood pressure levels, an association that is partially explained by bacteria in an individual’s gut microbiome, new research suggests.

In a population-based study of more than 900 individuals, those with the highest intake of flavonoid-containing foods had significantly lower systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, as well as greater gut microbial diversity, compared with those with the lowest intakes.

Up to 15% of this observed association was explained by the gut microbiome, suggesting that these microbes play a key role in metabolizing flavonoids to enhance their cardioprotective effects, according to the researchers.

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.

“We know what we eat plays a critical role in shaping our gut microbiome, but little is known about the relative importance of plant foods and specific constituents called flavonoids,” lead researcher Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair and professor of nutrition and medicine at the Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

“Unlike many other food constituents, flavonoids are predominantly metabolized in the gut, suggesting that the gut microbiome may be more important in enhancing their biological activity than for other things we eat,” Dr. Cassidy said.

“There is mounting evidence from population-based studies and clinical trials that a higher intake of flavonoids and flavonoid-rich foods can improve heart health, but for the first time, we provide data highlighting the key role of the gut microbiome in explaining the association between such foods and blood pressure,” she noted. “This is one of the first studies to address this.”

For this analysis, Dr. Cassidy and her group sought to assess to what extent the composition of the gut microbiome might explain the association of habitual flavonoid and flavonoid-rich food intake with systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a community-based sample of 904 individuals aged 25-82 years from Germany’s PopGen biobank.

The researchers evaluated participants’ food intake, gut microbiome, and blood pressure levels together with other clinical and molecular phenotyping at regular follow-up examinations.

Participants’ intake of flavonoid-rich foods during the previous year was calculated from a self-reported food questionnaire detailing the frequency and quantity eaten of 112 foods, and flavonoid values were assigned to foods according to United States Department of Agriculture data on flavonoid content in food.

Participants’ gut microbiome was assessed by fecal bacterial DNA extracted from stool samples.

After an overnight fast, participants’ blood pressure levels were measured three times in 3-minute intervals after an initial 5-minute rest period. Researchers also collected participants’ diet and lifestyle information.

Analysis of the data showed the following:

• Eating 1.5 servings of berries per day (about 1 cup) was associated with a 4.1–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP; 12% of this association was explained by gut microbiome factors.
• Drinking three glasses of red wine per week was associated with a 3.7–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP; 15% of this association was explained by the gut microbiome.

“These blood pressure–lowering effects are achievable with simple changes to the daily diet,” Dr. Cassidy said.

“Incorporating flavonoid-rich foods into the diet can have clinically relevant reductions in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, and a healthy gut microbiome is important to break down flavonoids to a more cardioprotective form,” she said.

“Our findings indicate future trials should look at participants according to metabolic profile in order to more accurately study the roles of metabolism and the gut microbiome in regulating the effects of flavonoids on blood pressure,” said Dr. Cassidy.

“A better understanding of the highly individual variability of flavonoid metabolism could very well explain why some people have greater cardiovascular protection benefits from flavonoid-rich foods than others.”
 

‘Interesting’ data

“The data are interesting,” David Jenkins, MD, PhD, DSc, professor of medicine and nutrition at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Berries and red wine appear to be associated with lower systolic blood pressures. Lower blood pressures have been found in general in people who consume more plant-based diets, especially those high in fruits and vegetables,” noted Dr. Jenkins, who was not involved with this study.

“Berries and grapes high in polyphenols may have many health benefits as antioxidants, and in a recent study have been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality. The change in chronic microflora is also of interest as this will change with increased fruit and vegetable consumption,” he said.

Perhaps one word of caveat, Dr. Jenkins added: “Alcohol has been found to increase blood pressure and the risk of stroke. Presumably the beneficial effects as seen here were when wine is consumed in moderation.”
 

Supports recommendations

The study by Cassidy and colleagues supports the dietary recommendations from the American Heart Association (AHA) for heart health, Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, RDN, professor of nutritional sciences, Penn State University, University Park, Pa., and chair, AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, said in an interview.

“The AHA recommends a healthy dietary pattern that emphasizes a variety of plant foods including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds and is low in sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars. Lean protein foods, including plant protein foods, are recommended, and red meat should be limited. If alcohol is consumed it should be done in moderation,” Dr. Kris-Etherton said.

“Based on these AHA dietary recommendations, a wide variety of plant foods will promote consumption of many flavonoids that have demonstrated CVD benefits, such as lowering systolic blood pressure as reported by the authors, as well as promoting healthy endothelial function and having antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects,” she said in email.

“This recommended dietary pattern will have other cardiovascular health benefits, such as decreasing LDL cholesterol, due to its very healthy nutrient profile. The exciting new finding reported by Cassidy et al. is that the effects of dietary flavonoids on lowering systolic blood pressure are modulated by the gut microbiome,” Dr. Kris-Etherton said.

“Further research needs to be done to confirm these findings and to identify how different foods affect specific gut bacteria that benefit cardiovascular health.”

The research was funded by grants from the German Research Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr. Cassidy and Dr. Jenkins have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kris-Etherton is a spokesperson for the AHA.

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

A higher intake of flavonoid-rich foods such as berries, apples, tea, and red wine is associated with a clinically relevant reduction in blood pressure levels, an association that is partially explained by bacteria in an individual’s gut microbiome, new research suggests.

In a population-based study of more than 900 individuals, those with the highest intake of flavonoid-containing foods had significantly lower systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, as well as greater gut microbial diversity, compared with those with the lowest intakes.

Up to 15% of this observed association was explained by the gut microbiome, suggesting that these microbes play a key role in metabolizing flavonoids to enhance their cardioprotective effects, according to the researchers.

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.

“We know what we eat plays a critical role in shaping our gut microbiome, but little is known about the relative importance of plant foods and specific constituents called flavonoids,” lead researcher Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair and professor of nutrition and medicine at the Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

“Unlike many other food constituents, flavonoids are predominantly metabolized in the gut, suggesting that the gut microbiome may be more important in enhancing their biological activity than for other things we eat,” Dr. Cassidy said.

“There is mounting evidence from population-based studies and clinical trials that a higher intake of flavonoids and flavonoid-rich foods can improve heart health, but for the first time, we provide data highlighting the key role of the gut microbiome in explaining the association between such foods and blood pressure,” she noted. “This is one of the first studies to address this.”

For this analysis, Dr. Cassidy and her group sought to assess to what extent the composition of the gut microbiome might explain the association of habitual flavonoid and flavonoid-rich food intake with systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a community-based sample of 904 individuals aged 25-82 years from Germany’s PopGen biobank.

The researchers evaluated participants’ food intake, gut microbiome, and blood pressure levels together with other clinical and molecular phenotyping at regular follow-up examinations.

Participants’ intake of flavonoid-rich foods during the previous year was calculated from a self-reported food questionnaire detailing the frequency and quantity eaten of 112 foods, and flavonoid values were assigned to foods according to United States Department of Agriculture data on flavonoid content in food.

Participants’ gut microbiome was assessed by fecal bacterial DNA extracted from stool samples.

After an overnight fast, participants’ blood pressure levels were measured three times in 3-minute intervals after an initial 5-minute rest period. Researchers also collected participants’ diet and lifestyle information.

Analysis of the data showed the following:

• Eating 1.5 servings of berries per day (about 1 cup) was associated with a 4.1–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP; 12% of this association was explained by gut microbiome factors.
• Drinking three glasses of red wine per week was associated with a 3.7–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP; 15% of this association was explained by the gut microbiome.

“These blood pressure–lowering effects are achievable with simple changes to the daily diet,” Dr. Cassidy said.

“Incorporating flavonoid-rich foods into the diet can have clinically relevant reductions in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, and a healthy gut microbiome is important to break down flavonoids to a more cardioprotective form,” she said.

“Our findings indicate future trials should look at participants according to metabolic profile in order to more accurately study the roles of metabolism and the gut microbiome in regulating the effects of flavonoids on blood pressure,” said Dr. Cassidy.

“A better understanding of the highly individual variability of flavonoid metabolism could very well explain why some people have greater cardiovascular protection benefits from flavonoid-rich foods than others.”
 

‘Interesting’ data

“The data are interesting,” David Jenkins, MD, PhD, DSc, professor of medicine and nutrition at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Berries and red wine appear to be associated with lower systolic blood pressures. Lower blood pressures have been found in general in people who consume more plant-based diets, especially those high in fruits and vegetables,” noted Dr. Jenkins, who was not involved with this study.

“Berries and grapes high in polyphenols may have many health benefits as antioxidants, and in a recent study have been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality. The change in chronic microflora is also of interest as this will change with increased fruit and vegetable consumption,” he said.

Perhaps one word of caveat, Dr. Jenkins added: “Alcohol has been found to increase blood pressure and the risk of stroke. Presumably the beneficial effects as seen here were when wine is consumed in moderation.”
 

Supports recommendations

The study by Cassidy and colleagues supports the dietary recommendations from the American Heart Association (AHA) for heart health, Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, RDN, professor of nutritional sciences, Penn State University, University Park, Pa., and chair, AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, said in an interview.

“The AHA recommends a healthy dietary pattern that emphasizes a variety of plant foods including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds and is low in sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars. Lean protein foods, including plant protein foods, are recommended, and red meat should be limited. If alcohol is consumed it should be done in moderation,” Dr. Kris-Etherton said.

“Based on these AHA dietary recommendations, a wide variety of plant foods will promote consumption of many flavonoids that have demonstrated CVD benefits, such as lowering systolic blood pressure as reported by the authors, as well as promoting healthy endothelial function and having antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects,” she said in email.

“This recommended dietary pattern will have other cardiovascular health benefits, such as decreasing LDL cholesterol, due to its very healthy nutrient profile. The exciting new finding reported by Cassidy et al. is that the effects of dietary flavonoids on lowering systolic blood pressure are modulated by the gut microbiome,” Dr. Kris-Etherton said.

“Further research needs to be done to confirm these findings and to identify how different foods affect specific gut bacteria that benefit cardiovascular health.”

The research was funded by grants from the German Research Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr. Cassidy and Dr. Jenkins have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kris-Etherton is a spokesperson for the AHA.

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

A higher intake of flavonoid-rich foods such as berries, apples, tea, and red wine is associated with a clinically relevant reduction in blood pressure levels, an association that is partially explained by bacteria in an individual’s gut microbiome, new research suggests.

In a population-based study of more than 900 individuals, those with the highest intake of flavonoid-containing foods had significantly lower systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, as well as greater gut microbial diversity, compared with those with the lowest intakes.

Up to 15% of this observed association was explained by the gut microbiome, suggesting that these microbes play a key role in metabolizing flavonoids to enhance their cardioprotective effects, according to the researchers.

The study was published online in the journal Hypertension.

“We know what we eat plays a critical role in shaping our gut microbiome, but little is known about the relative importance of plant foods and specific constituents called flavonoids,” lead researcher Aedin Cassidy, PhD, chair and professor of nutrition and medicine at the Institute for Global Food Security, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

“Unlike many other food constituents, flavonoids are predominantly metabolized in the gut, suggesting that the gut microbiome may be more important in enhancing their biological activity than for other things we eat,” Dr. Cassidy said.

“There is mounting evidence from population-based studies and clinical trials that a higher intake of flavonoids and flavonoid-rich foods can improve heart health, but for the first time, we provide data highlighting the key role of the gut microbiome in explaining the association between such foods and blood pressure,” she noted. “This is one of the first studies to address this.”

For this analysis, Dr. Cassidy and her group sought to assess to what extent the composition of the gut microbiome might explain the association of habitual flavonoid and flavonoid-rich food intake with systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a community-based sample of 904 individuals aged 25-82 years from Germany’s PopGen biobank.

The researchers evaluated participants’ food intake, gut microbiome, and blood pressure levels together with other clinical and molecular phenotyping at regular follow-up examinations.

Participants’ intake of flavonoid-rich foods during the previous year was calculated from a self-reported food questionnaire detailing the frequency and quantity eaten of 112 foods, and flavonoid values were assigned to foods according to United States Department of Agriculture data on flavonoid content in food.

Participants’ gut microbiome was assessed by fecal bacterial DNA extracted from stool samples.

After an overnight fast, participants’ blood pressure levels were measured three times in 3-minute intervals after an initial 5-minute rest period. Researchers also collected participants’ diet and lifestyle information.

Analysis of the data showed the following:

• Eating 1.5 servings of berries per day (about 1 cup) was associated with a 4.1–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP; 12% of this association was explained by gut microbiome factors.
• Drinking three glasses of red wine per week was associated with a 3.7–mm Hg reduction in systolic BP; 15% of this association was explained by the gut microbiome.

“These blood pressure–lowering effects are achievable with simple changes to the daily diet,” Dr. Cassidy said.

“Incorporating flavonoid-rich foods into the diet can have clinically relevant reductions in systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure, and a healthy gut microbiome is important to break down flavonoids to a more cardioprotective form,” she said.

“Our findings indicate future trials should look at participants according to metabolic profile in order to more accurately study the roles of metabolism and the gut microbiome in regulating the effects of flavonoids on blood pressure,” said Dr. Cassidy.

“A better understanding of the highly individual variability of flavonoid metabolism could very well explain why some people have greater cardiovascular protection benefits from flavonoid-rich foods than others.”
 

‘Interesting’ data

“The data are interesting,” David Jenkins, MD, PhD, DSc, professor of medicine and nutrition at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

“Berries and red wine appear to be associated with lower systolic blood pressures. Lower blood pressures have been found in general in people who consume more plant-based diets, especially those high in fruits and vegetables,” noted Dr. Jenkins, who was not involved with this study.

“Berries and grapes high in polyphenols may have many health benefits as antioxidants, and in a recent study have been shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality. The change in chronic microflora is also of interest as this will change with increased fruit and vegetable consumption,” he said.

Perhaps one word of caveat, Dr. Jenkins added: “Alcohol has been found to increase blood pressure and the risk of stroke. Presumably the beneficial effects as seen here were when wine is consumed in moderation.”
 

Supports recommendations

The study by Cassidy and colleagues supports the dietary recommendations from the American Heart Association (AHA) for heart health, Penny M. Kris-Etherton, PhD, RDN, professor of nutritional sciences, Penn State University, University Park, Pa., and chair, AHA Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health, said in an interview.

“The AHA recommends a healthy dietary pattern that emphasizes a variety of plant foods including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds and is low in sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars. Lean protein foods, including plant protein foods, are recommended, and red meat should be limited. If alcohol is consumed it should be done in moderation,” Dr. Kris-Etherton said.

“Based on these AHA dietary recommendations, a wide variety of plant foods will promote consumption of many flavonoids that have demonstrated CVD benefits, such as lowering systolic blood pressure as reported by the authors, as well as promoting healthy endothelial function and having antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects,” she said in email.

“This recommended dietary pattern will have other cardiovascular health benefits, such as decreasing LDL cholesterol, due to its very healthy nutrient profile. The exciting new finding reported by Cassidy et al. is that the effects of dietary flavonoids on lowering systolic blood pressure are modulated by the gut microbiome,” Dr. Kris-Etherton said.

“Further research needs to be done to confirm these findings and to identify how different foods affect specific gut bacteria that benefit cardiovascular health.”

The research was funded by grants from the German Research Foundation and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr. Cassidy and Dr. Jenkins have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kris-Etherton is a spokesperson for the AHA.

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

The United States Preventive Services Task Force has updated its recommendation on the age of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting – lowering the age from 40 to 35 years for asymptomatic patients who are overweight or obese and encouraging greater interventions when patients do show a risk.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit,” the task force concludes in its recommendation, published Aug. 24 in JAMA.

“Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions,” they write.

Experts commenting on the issue strongly emphasize that it’s not just the screening, but the subsequent intervention that is needed to make a difference.

“If young adults newly identified with abnormal glucose metabolism do not receive the needed intensive behavioral change support, screening may provide no benefit,” write Richard W. Grant, MD, MPH, and colleagues in an editorial published with the recommendation.

“Given the role of our obesogenic and physically inactive society in the shift toward earlier onset of diabetes, efforts to increase screening and recognition of abnormal glucose metabolism must be coupled with robust public health measures to address the underlying contributors.”
 

BMI cutoff lower for at-risk ethnic populations

The recommendation, which updates the task force’s 2015 guideline, carries a “B” classification, meaning the USPSTF has high certainty that the net benefit is moderate. It now specifies screening from age 35to 70 for persons classified as overweight (body mass index at least 25) or obese (BMI at least 30) and recommends referral to preventive interventions when patients are found to have prediabetes.

In addition to recommendations of lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, the task force also endorses the diabetes drug metformin as a beneficial intervention in the prevention or delay of diabetes, while noting fewer overall health benefits from metformin than from the lifestyle changes.

A lower BMI cutoff of at least 23 is recommended for diabetes screening of Asian Americans, and, importantly, screening for prediabetes and diabetes should be considered at an even earlier age if the patient is from a population with a disproportionately high prevalence of diabetes, including American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, the task force recommends.

Screening tests should include fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or an oral glucose tolerance test. Although screening every 3 years “may be a reasonable approach for adults with normal blood glucose levels,” the task force adds that “the optimal screening interval for adults with an initial normal glucose test result is uncertain.”
 

Data review: Few with prediabetes know they have it

The need for the update was prompted by troubling data showing increasing diabetes rates despite early signs that can and should be identified and acted upon in the primary care setting to prevent disease progression.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, show that while 13% of all U.S. adults 18 years or older have diabetes and 35% meet criteria for prediabetes, as many as 21% of those with diabetes were not aware of or did not report having the disease. Furthermore, only a small fraction – 15% of those with prediabetes – said they had been told by a health professional that they had this condition, the task force notes.

The task force’s final recommendation was based on a systematic review of evidence regarding the screening of asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and the harms and benefits of interventions, such as physical activity, behavioral counseling, or pharmacotherapy.

Among key evidence supporting the lower age was a 2014 study showing that the number of people necessary to obtain one positive test for diabetes with screening sharply drops from 80 among those aged 30-34 years to just 31 among those aged 36-39.

Opportunistic universal screening of eligible people aged 35 and older would yield a ratio of 1 out of just 15 to spot a positive test, the authors of that study reported.

In addition, a large cohort study in more than 77,000 people with prediabetes strongly links the risk of developing diabetes with increases in A1c level and with increasing BMI.
 

ADA recommendations differ

The new recommendations differ from American Diabetes Association guidelines, which call for diabetes screening at all ages for people who are overweight or obese and who have one or more risk factors, such as physical inactivity or a first-degree relative with diabetes. If results are normal, repeat screening at least every 3 years is recommended.

The ADA further recommends universal screening for all adults 45 years and older, regardless of their risk factors.

For the screening of adults over 45, the ADA recommends using a fasting plasma glucose level, 2-hour plasma glucose level during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, or A1c level, regardless of risk factors.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology also recommends universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes for all adults 45 years or older, regardless of risk factors, and also advises screening those who have risk factors for diabetes regardless of age.
 

Screening of little benefit without behavior change support

In an interview, Dr. Grant added that broad efforts are essential as those at the practice level have clearly not succeeded.

“The medical model of individual counseling and referral has not really been effective, and so we really need to think in terms of large-scale public health action,” said Dr. Grant, of the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

His editorial details the sweeping, multifactorial efforts that are needed.

“To turn this recommendation into action – that is, to translate screening activities into improved clinical outcomes – change is needed at the patient-clinician level (recognizing and encouraging eligible individuals to be screened), health care system level (reducing screening barriers and ensuring access to robust lifestyle programs), and societal level (applying effective public health interventions to reduce obesity and increase exercise),” they write.

A top priority has to be a focus on individuals of diverse backgrounds and issues such as access to healthy programs in minority communities, Dr. Grant noted.

“Newly diagnosed adults are more likely to be African-American and Latinx,” he said.

“We really need to invest in healthier communities for low-income, non-White communities to reverse the persistent health care disparities in these communities.”

While the challenges may appear daunting, history shows they are not necessarily insurmountable – as evidenced in the campaign to discourage tobacco smoking.

“National smoking cessation efforts are one example of a mostly successful public health campaign that has made a difference in health behaviors,” Grant noted.

The recommendation is also posted on the USPSTF web site .

Dr. Grant reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force has updated its recommendation on the age of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting – lowering the age from 40 to 35 years for asymptomatic patients who are overweight or obese and encouraging greater interventions when patients do show a risk.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit,” the task force concludes in its recommendation, published Aug. 24 in JAMA.

“Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions,” they write.

Experts commenting on the issue strongly emphasize that it’s not just the screening, but the subsequent intervention that is needed to make a difference.

“If young adults newly identified with abnormal glucose metabolism do not receive the needed intensive behavioral change support, screening may provide no benefit,” write Richard W. Grant, MD, MPH, and colleagues in an editorial published with the recommendation.

“Given the role of our obesogenic and physically inactive society in the shift toward earlier onset of diabetes, efforts to increase screening and recognition of abnormal glucose metabolism must be coupled with robust public health measures to address the underlying contributors.”
 

BMI cutoff lower for at-risk ethnic populations

The recommendation, which updates the task force’s 2015 guideline, carries a “B” classification, meaning the USPSTF has high certainty that the net benefit is moderate. It now specifies screening from age 35to 70 for persons classified as overweight (body mass index at least 25) or obese (BMI at least 30) and recommends referral to preventive interventions when patients are found to have prediabetes.

In addition to recommendations of lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, the task force also endorses the diabetes drug metformin as a beneficial intervention in the prevention or delay of diabetes, while noting fewer overall health benefits from metformin than from the lifestyle changes.

A lower BMI cutoff of at least 23 is recommended for diabetes screening of Asian Americans, and, importantly, screening for prediabetes and diabetes should be considered at an even earlier age if the patient is from a population with a disproportionately high prevalence of diabetes, including American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, the task force recommends.

Screening tests should include fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or an oral glucose tolerance test. Although screening every 3 years “may be a reasonable approach for adults with normal blood glucose levels,” the task force adds that “the optimal screening interval for adults with an initial normal glucose test result is uncertain.”
 

Data review: Few with prediabetes know they have it

The need for the update was prompted by troubling data showing increasing diabetes rates despite early signs that can and should be identified and acted upon in the primary care setting to prevent disease progression.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, show that while 13% of all U.S. adults 18 years or older have diabetes and 35% meet criteria for prediabetes, as many as 21% of those with diabetes were not aware of or did not report having the disease. Furthermore, only a small fraction – 15% of those with prediabetes – said they had been told by a health professional that they had this condition, the task force notes.

The task force’s final recommendation was based on a systematic review of evidence regarding the screening of asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and the harms and benefits of interventions, such as physical activity, behavioral counseling, or pharmacotherapy.

Among key evidence supporting the lower age was a 2014 study showing that the number of people necessary to obtain one positive test for diabetes with screening sharply drops from 80 among those aged 30-34 years to just 31 among those aged 36-39.

Opportunistic universal screening of eligible people aged 35 and older would yield a ratio of 1 out of just 15 to spot a positive test, the authors of that study reported.

In addition, a large cohort study in more than 77,000 people with prediabetes strongly links the risk of developing diabetes with increases in A1c level and with increasing BMI.
 

ADA recommendations differ

The new recommendations differ from American Diabetes Association guidelines, which call for diabetes screening at all ages for people who are overweight or obese and who have one or more risk factors, such as physical inactivity or a first-degree relative with diabetes. If results are normal, repeat screening at least every 3 years is recommended.

The ADA further recommends universal screening for all adults 45 years and older, regardless of their risk factors.

For the screening of adults over 45, the ADA recommends using a fasting plasma glucose level, 2-hour plasma glucose level during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, or A1c level, regardless of risk factors.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology also recommends universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes for all adults 45 years or older, regardless of risk factors, and also advises screening those who have risk factors for diabetes regardless of age.
 

Screening of little benefit without behavior change support

In an interview, Dr. Grant added that broad efforts are essential as those at the practice level have clearly not succeeded.

“The medical model of individual counseling and referral has not really been effective, and so we really need to think in terms of large-scale public health action,” said Dr. Grant, of the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

His editorial details the sweeping, multifactorial efforts that are needed.

“To turn this recommendation into action – that is, to translate screening activities into improved clinical outcomes – change is needed at the patient-clinician level (recognizing and encouraging eligible individuals to be screened), health care system level (reducing screening barriers and ensuring access to robust lifestyle programs), and societal level (applying effective public health interventions to reduce obesity and increase exercise),” they write.

A top priority has to be a focus on individuals of diverse backgrounds and issues such as access to healthy programs in minority communities, Dr. Grant noted.

“Newly diagnosed adults are more likely to be African-American and Latinx,” he said.

“We really need to invest in healthier communities for low-income, non-White communities to reverse the persistent health care disparities in these communities.”

While the challenges may appear daunting, history shows they are not necessarily insurmountable – as evidenced in the campaign to discourage tobacco smoking.

“National smoking cessation efforts are one example of a mostly successful public health campaign that has made a difference in health behaviors,” Grant noted.

The recommendation is also posted on the USPSTF web site .

Dr. Grant reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force has updated its recommendation on the age of screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting – lowering the age from 40 to 35 years for asymptomatic patients who are overweight or obese and encouraging greater interventions when patients do show a risk.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

“The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for prediabetes and type 2 diabetes and offering or referring patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions has a moderate net benefit,” the task force concludes in its recommendation, published Aug. 24 in JAMA.

“Clinicians should offer or refer patients with prediabetes to effective preventive interventions,” they write.

Experts commenting on the issue strongly emphasize that it’s not just the screening, but the subsequent intervention that is needed to make a difference.

“If young adults newly identified with abnormal glucose metabolism do not receive the needed intensive behavioral change support, screening may provide no benefit,” write Richard W. Grant, MD, MPH, and colleagues in an editorial published with the recommendation.

“Given the role of our obesogenic and physically inactive society in the shift toward earlier onset of diabetes, efforts to increase screening and recognition of abnormal glucose metabolism must be coupled with robust public health measures to address the underlying contributors.”
 

BMI cutoff lower for at-risk ethnic populations

The recommendation, which updates the task force’s 2015 guideline, carries a “B” classification, meaning the USPSTF has high certainty that the net benefit is moderate. It now specifies screening from age 35to 70 for persons classified as overweight (body mass index at least 25) or obese (BMI at least 30) and recommends referral to preventive interventions when patients are found to have prediabetes.

In addition to recommendations of lifestyle changes, such as diet and physical activity, the task force also endorses the diabetes drug metformin as a beneficial intervention in the prevention or delay of diabetes, while noting fewer overall health benefits from metformin than from the lifestyle changes.

A lower BMI cutoff of at least 23 is recommended for diabetes screening of Asian Americans, and, importantly, screening for prediabetes and diabetes should be considered at an even earlier age if the patient is from a population with a disproportionately high prevalence of diabetes, including American Indian/Alaska Native, Black, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, the task force recommends.

Screening tests should include fasting plasma glucose, hemoglobin A1c, or an oral glucose tolerance test. Although screening every 3 years “may be a reasonable approach for adults with normal blood glucose levels,” the task force adds that “the optimal screening interval for adults with an initial normal glucose test result is uncertain.”
 

Data review: Few with prediabetes know they have it

The need for the update was prompted by troubling data showing increasing diabetes rates despite early signs that can and should be identified and acted upon in the primary care setting to prevent disease progression.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for instance, show that while 13% of all U.S. adults 18 years or older have diabetes and 35% meet criteria for prediabetes, as many as 21% of those with diabetes were not aware of or did not report having the disease. Furthermore, only a small fraction – 15% of those with prediabetes – said they had been told by a health professional that they had this condition, the task force notes.

The task force’s final recommendation was based on a systematic review of evidence regarding the screening of asymptomatic, nonpregnant adults and the harms and benefits of interventions, such as physical activity, behavioral counseling, or pharmacotherapy.

Among key evidence supporting the lower age was a 2014 study showing that the number of people necessary to obtain one positive test for diabetes with screening sharply drops from 80 among those aged 30-34 years to just 31 among those aged 36-39.

Opportunistic universal screening of eligible people aged 35 and older would yield a ratio of 1 out of just 15 to spot a positive test, the authors of that study reported.

In addition, a large cohort study in more than 77,000 people with prediabetes strongly links the risk of developing diabetes with increases in A1c level and with increasing BMI.
 

ADA recommendations differ

The new recommendations differ from American Diabetes Association guidelines, which call for diabetes screening at all ages for people who are overweight or obese and who have one or more risk factors, such as physical inactivity or a first-degree relative with diabetes. If results are normal, repeat screening at least every 3 years is recommended.

The ADA further recommends universal screening for all adults 45 years and older, regardless of their risk factors.

For the screening of adults over 45, the ADA recommends using a fasting plasma glucose level, 2-hour plasma glucose level during a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, or A1c level, regardless of risk factors.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinology also recommends universal screening for prediabetes and diabetes for all adults 45 years or older, regardless of risk factors, and also advises screening those who have risk factors for diabetes regardless of age.
 

Screening of little benefit without behavior change support

In an interview, Dr. Grant added that broad efforts are essential as those at the practice level have clearly not succeeded.

“The medical model of individual counseling and referral has not really been effective, and so we really need to think in terms of large-scale public health action,” said Dr. Grant, of the division of research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.

His editorial details the sweeping, multifactorial efforts that are needed.

“To turn this recommendation into action – that is, to translate screening activities into improved clinical outcomes – change is needed at the patient-clinician level (recognizing and encouraging eligible individuals to be screened), health care system level (reducing screening barriers and ensuring access to robust lifestyle programs), and societal level (applying effective public health interventions to reduce obesity and increase exercise),” they write.

A top priority has to be a focus on individuals of diverse backgrounds and issues such as access to healthy programs in minority communities, Dr. Grant noted.

“Newly diagnosed adults are more likely to be African-American and Latinx,” he said.

“We really need to invest in healthier communities for low-income, non-White communities to reverse the persistent health care disparities in these communities.”

While the challenges may appear daunting, history shows they are not necessarily insurmountable – as evidenced in the campaign to discourage tobacco smoking.

“National smoking cessation efforts are one example of a mostly successful public health campaign that has made a difference in health behaviors,” Grant noted.

The recommendation is also posted on the USPSTF web site .

Dr. Grant reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

The potential of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to become key components in the assessment of individual risk for disease in the clinical setting is inching closer to fruition; however, the technology is plagued by one glaring omission of most existing PRSs – the lack of applicability to those of non-European ancestry.

Polygenic risk scores predict an individual’s risk of disease based on common genetic variants identified in large genomewide association studies (GWASs). They have gained ground in research, as well as in the unregulated realm of the direct-to-consumer market where they are sold as add-ons to DNA ancestry kits such as 23andMe and MyHeritage.com.

While the risk scores show strong validation in estimating risk among people of European descent, their striking caveat is the lack of applicability to other ancestries, particularly African, and their use in practice outside of clinical trials is discouraged in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

Study underscores need for ethnically diverse datasets

In a recent study published in JAMA Network Open, researchers evaluated the use of polygenic risk scores’ models in a clinical setting. Researchers tested 7 PRSs models for breast cancer risk against the medical records data of 39,591 women of European, African, and Latinx ancestry.

The PRSs models – all used only for research purposes – included three models involving European ancestry cohorts, two from Latinx cohorts, and two from women African descent.

After adjusting for factors including age, breast cancer family history, and ancestry, the PRSs from women with European ancestry highly corresponded to breast cancer risk, with a mean odds ratio of 1.46 per standard deviation increase in the score.

PRSs were also generalized relatively well among women of Latinx ancestry with a mean OR of 1.31. The authors noted that association is likely caused by Latinx individuals in the United States having a greater proportion of European ancestry than individuals with African ancestry. Importantly, however, the effect size was lower for women of African ancestry with a highest OR of 1.19 per standard deviation.

In the highest percentiles of breast cancer risk, women of European descent had odds ratio as high as 2.19-2.48, suggesting a statistically significant association with overall breast cancer risk. No statistically significant associations were found among women of Latinx and African-ancestry.

The PRSs models were smaller for women of non-European ancestry and included fewer genetic variants for women of non-European ancestry were notably smaller and hence reflected fewer genetic variants. Of the two risk scores involving African ancestry, the Women’s Health Initiative for Women with African ancestry risk score had just 75 variants, while the African diaspora study (ROOT) had 34 variants, compared with 3,820 and 5,218 in the two largest European ancestry PRSs, the Breast Cancer Association Consortium and the UK Biobank, respectively.

“These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts,” the authors wrote.

First author, Cong Liu, PhD, of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said that efforts are underway to improve the inclusivity in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics network data set used in this study.

“Until well-developed and validated PRSs for women with non-European ancestry become available, the current PRSs based on cohorts with European ancestry could be adapted for Latinx women, but not women with African ancestry until additional data sets become available in this important and high-risk group,” Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary published with the study, Payal D. Shah, MD, of the Basser Center for BRCA at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said that PRSs are “disproportionately applicable to patients with European ancestry and are insufficiently vetted and developed in other populations. If an instrument exists that has clinical utility in informing effective cancer risk mitigation strategies, then we must strive to ensure that it is available and applicable to all.”

Higher morality among African American women

While American Cancer Society data shows women with African ancestry generally have incidence rates of breast cancer similar to White women, they have significantly higher mortality from the disease in part because of later-stage diagnosis and health care barriers.

Anne Marie McCarthy, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that African American women “have 42% higher breast cancer mortality than white women, despite having lower disease incidence, and are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, which has poorer prognosis than other molecular subtypes.”

Dr. McCarthy and Dr. Armstrong wrote that African American women are chronically underrepresented in breast cancer studies. And as such, it is impossible to know the extent of the prevalence of mutations and risk.

Failing to address the lack of diversity in genomic studies may worsen health disparities for women with African ancestry, Dr. Liu and colleagues wrote. The higher mortality “underscores the urgent need to increase diversity in genomic studies so that future clinical applications of the PRS do not exacerbate existing health disparities. These results highlight the need to improve representation of diverse population groups, particularly women with African ancestry, in genomic research cohorts.”
 

Potential PRS benefits underscore need to eliminate bias

The potentially important benefits of PRSs as risk prediction tools used in combination with family history, reproductive history and other factors, should provide strong incentive to push for improvement, Dr. Shah wrote.

For instance, if an individual is estrogen receptor positive and shows elevations in breast cancer risk on a reliable PRS, “this may inform antiestrogen chemoprevention strategies,” she wrote.

A risk score could furthermore influence the age at which breast cancer screening should begin or factor into whether a patient should also receive surveillance breast MRI.

Importantly, PRSs could also add to other risk factors to provide more precise risk estimates and inform management of women with a pathogenic variant in a breast cancer risk predisposition gene, Dr. Shah wrote.

Confluence project

Among the most promising developments in research is the National Cancer Institute’s Confluence Project, a large research resource aiming to include approximately 300,000 breast cancer cases and 300,000 controls of different races/ethnicities, utilizing the confluence of existing GWAS and new genomewide genotyping data.

Having started enrollment in 2018, the project is approaching implementation, said Montserrat García-Closas, MD, MPH, DrPH, deputy director of cancer epidemiology and genetics with the National Cancer Institute.

“We expect genotyping to be completed by the end of 2022 and for the data to be made available to the research community soon after that,” she said.

Among the project’s key objectives are the development of PRSs to be integrated with known risk factors to provide a personalized risk assessment for breast cancer, overall and by ancestral subtype.

“We plan to apply novel methods to derive multiancestry PRS that will account for differences and similarities in genetic architecture across ethnic/racial groups to develop breast cancer PRSs that can be applied in multiethnic/racial populations,” she said.

NCI is working with investigators in Africa, Central and South America, and Asia, and reaching out to non-European organizations such as AORTIC for studies of African populations.

Direct-to-consumer global PRS

In the commercial PRS market, efforts to address diversity shortcomings are also gaining momentum, with Myriad Genetics touting a first-of-its kind “global PRS.”

The PRS, a recalibrated version the company’s riskScore PRS, sold as part of its Myriad myRisk Hereditary Cancer test, will reportedly apply to all ethnicities in estimating an individual’s 5-year and lifetime risk of breast cancer.

A study presented in June at the American Society of Clinical Oncology meeting, describes the development of the model with the use of three large ancestry-specific PRSs based on African American, Asian, and European cohorts, with the system including a total of 149 single-nucleotide polymorphisms, including 93 well established for breast cancer and 56 that are ancestry specific.

In validation of the data in an independent cohort of 62,707 individuals, the global PRS was strongly associated with breast cancer in the full combined validation cohort as well as in all three of the ancestry subcohorts.

However, the effect size among women with African ancestry was still the lowest of all of the groups, with a mean OR of 1.24 per standard deviation, versus the highest rate of mixed ancestry (OR, 1.59).

According to senior author Holly Pederson, MD, director of medical breast services at the Cleveland Clinic, the applicability of the PRS to women with African ancestry is expected to further improve as additional data become available.

“The discriminatory power in women of African descent was significantly improved but still suboptimal,” she said. “The need for more data, particularly in Black women, is challenging not only because there is likely more diversity in the genomic landscape of women of African descent, but also because the barriers created by historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal dynamics result in the paucity of this data.”

“We must be committed to ending bias resulting in health care disparities,” Dr. Pederson said. She noted that the global PRS is nevertheless “still clinically useful in Black women,” and recommended that clinicians be up front with patients on the status of the research challenges.

“As with any clinical shared decision-making conversation between a patient and her provider, it is important for Black women to know that data is limited in the African American population, particularly given the vast genomic diversity of the African continent,” she said. “This model, as models that have gone before it, will improve with additional data, particularly in this population.”

Commercial PRSs may benefit research

While the commercial marketing of PRSs in a direct-to-consumer fashion have raised some concerns, such as how individuals respond to their risk scores, there could be important benefits as well, commented Megan C. Roberts, PhD.

“There may be an opportunity to learn from these companies about how to engage diverse communities in genomic testing,” said Dr. Roberts, an assistant professor and director of implementation science in precision health and society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Moreover, the data they collect from their customers often can be used for research purposes as well.”

In a recent perspective, Dr. Roberts and colleagues addressed the role of health disparities in PRSs. She’ll be joining international precision public health researchers in October in hosting a free virtual conference at UNC on the topic.

“There is a huge need to improve racial and ethnic diversity in our genomic datasets,” Dr. Roberts said. “Without this, we will not be able to return on the promise of precision medicine and prevention for improving the health of our whole population.”

Dr. Pederson disclosed that she is a consultant for Myriad Genetics.

Oral delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (delta-9-THC) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in a proprietary combination known as THX-110, is promising for reducing tic symptoms in adults with Tourette syndrome (TS), new research suggests.

In a small phase 2 trial, investigators administered THX-110 to 16 adults with treatment-resistant TS for 12 weeks. Results showed a reduction of more than 20% in tic symptoms after the first week of treatment compared with baseline.

“We conducted an uncontrolled study in adults with severe TS and found that their tics improved over time while they took THX-110,” lead author Michael Bloch, MD, associate professor and co-director of the Tic and OCD Program at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Dr. Bloch added that the next step in this line of research will be to conduct a placebo-controlled trial of the compound in order to assess whether tic improvement observed over time in this study “was due to the effects of the medication and not related to the natural waxing-and-waning course of tic symptoms or treatment expectancy.”

The findings were published online August 2 in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 
 

‘Entourage effect’

“Several lines of evidence from clinical observation and even randomized controlled trials” suggest that cannabis (cannabis sativa) and delta-9-THC may be effective in treatment of tic disorders, Dr. Bloch said.

“Cannabinoid receptors are present in the motor regions important for tics, and thus, there is a potential mechanism of action to lead to improvement of tics,” he added.

However, “the major limitations of both cannabis and dronabinol [a synthetic form of delta-9-THC] use are the adverse psychoactive effects they induce in higher doses,” he said.

Dr. Bloch noted that PEA is a lipid messenger “known to mimic several endocannabinoid-driven activities.”

For this reason, combining delta-9-THC with PEA is hypothesized to reduce the dose of delta-9-THC needed to improve tics and also potentially lessen its side effects.

This initial open-label trial examined safety and tolerability of THX-110, as well as its effect on tic symptoms in adults with TS. The researchers hoped to “use the entourage effect to deliver the therapeutic benefits of delta-9-THC in reducing tics with decrease psychoactive effects by combining with PEA.”

The “entourage effect” refers to “endocannabinoid regulation by which multiple endogenous cannabinoid chemical species display a cooperative effect in eliciting a cellular response,” they write.

The investigators conducted a 12-week uncontrolled trial of THX-110, used at its maximum daily dose of delta-9-THC (10 mg) and a constant 800-mg dose of PEA in 16 adults with TS (mean age, 35 years; mean TS illness duration, 26.6 years).

Participants had a mean baseline Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score of 38.1 and a mean worst-ever total tic score of 45.4.

All participants were experiencing persistent tics, despite having tried an array of previous evidence-based treatments for TS, including antipsychotics, alpha-2 agonists, VMAT2 inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and topiramate (Topamax).
 

Significant improvement

Results showed significant improvement in tic symptoms with TXH-110 treatment over time (general linear model time factor: F = 3.06, df = 7.91, P = .006).

These improvements were statistically significant as early as within the first week of starting treatment. At first assessment point, mean YGTSS improvement was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.9; P = .047). The improvement not only remained significant but continued to increase throughout the 12-week trial period.

At 12 weeks, the maximal improvement in tic symptoms was observed, with a mean YGTSS improvement at endpoint of 7.6 (95% CI, 2.5-12.8; P = .007).

Four patients experienced a greater than 35% improvement in tic symptoms during the trial, whereas 6 experienced a 25% or greater improvement. The mean improvement in tic symptoms over the course of the trial was 20.6%.

There was also a significant improvement between baseline and endpoint on other measures of tic symptoms – but not on premonitory urges.

The patients experienced “modest” but not significant improvement in comorbid symptoms, including attentional, anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
 

Adverse events

All participants experienced some mild side effects for “a couple hours” after taking the medication, particularly during the course of dose escalation and maintenance. However, these were not serious enough to warrant stopping the medication.

These effects typically included fatigue/drowsiness, feeling “high,” dry mouth, dizziness/lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating.

Side effects of moderate or greater severity necessitating changes in medication dosing were “less common,” the investigators report. No participants experienced significant laboratory abnormalities.

One patient discontinued the trial early because he felt that the study medication was not helpful, and a second discontinued because of drowsiness and fatigue related to the study medication.

Twelve participants elected to continue treatment with THX-110 during an open extension phase and 7 of these completed the additional 24 weeks.

“THX-110 treatment led to an average improvement in tic symptoms of roughly 20%, or a 7-point decrease in the YGTSS total tic score. This improvement translates to a large effect size (d = 0.92) of improvement over time,” the investigators write.
 

More data needed

Commenting on the findings, Yolanda Holler-Managan, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics (neurology), Northwestern University, Chicago, cautioned that this was not a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group placebo-controlled study.

Instead, it was a clinical study to prove safety, tolerability, and dosing of the combination medication in adult patients with TS and “does not provide as much weight, since we do not have many studies on the efficacy of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Holler-Managan, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline recommendations for treatment of tics in individuals with TS and tic disorders reported “limited evidence” that delta-9-THC is “possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tic severity in adults with TS, therefore we need more data.”

The current investigators agree. “Although these initial data are promising, future randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of TXH-110 treatment,” they write.

They add that the psychoactive properties of cannabis-derived compounds make it challenging to design a properly blinded trial.

“Incorporation of physiologic biomarkers and objective measures of symptoms (e.g., videotaped tic counts by blinded raters) may be particularly important when examining these medications with psychoactive properties that may be prone to reporting bias,” the authors write.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant to Dr. Bloch from Therapix Biosciences. The state of Connecticut also provided resource support via the Abraham Ribicoff Research Facilities at the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Dr. Bloch serves on the scientific advisory boards of Therapix Biosciences, and he receives research support from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NARSAD, Neurocrine Biosciences, NIH, and the Patterson Foundation. The other investigators and Dr. Holler-Managan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (delta-9-THC) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in a proprietary combination known as THX-110, is promising for reducing tic symptoms in adults with Tourette syndrome (TS), new research suggests.

In a small phase 2 trial, investigators administered THX-110 to 16 adults with treatment-resistant TS for 12 weeks. Results showed a reduction of more than 20% in tic symptoms after the first week of treatment compared with baseline.

“We conducted an uncontrolled study in adults with severe TS and found that their tics improved over time while they took THX-110,” lead author Michael Bloch, MD, associate professor and co-director of the Tic and OCD Program at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Dr. Bloch added that the next step in this line of research will be to conduct a placebo-controlled trial of the compound in order to assess whether tic improvement observed over time in this study “was due to the effects of the medication and not related to the natural waxing-and-waning course of tic symptoms or treatment expectancy.”

The findings were published online August 2 in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 
 

‘Entourage effect’

“Several lines of evidence from clinical observation and even randomized controlled trials” suggest that cannabis (cannabis sativa) and delta-9-THC may be effective in treatment of tic disorders, Dr. Bloch said.

“Cannabinoid receptors are present in the motor regions important for tics, and thus, there is a potential mechanism of action to lead to improvement of tics,” he added.

However, “the major limitations of both cannabis and dronabinol [a synthetic form of delta-9-THC] use are the adverse psychoactive effects they induce in higher doses,” he said.

Dr. Bloch noted that PEA is a lipid messenger “known to mimic several endocannabinoid-driven activities.”

For this reason, combining delta-9-THC with PEA is hypothesized to reduce the dose of delta-9-THC needed to improve tics and also potentially lessen its side effects.

This initial open-label trial examined safety and tolerability of THX-110, as well as its effect on tic symptoms in adults with TS. The researchers hoped to “use the entourage effect to deliver the therapeutic benefits of delta-9-THC in reducing tics with decrease psychoactive effects by combining with PEA.”

The “entourage effect” refers to “endocannabinoid regulation by which multiple endogenous cannabinoid chemical species display a cooperative effect in eliciting a cellular response,” they write.

The investigators conducted a 12-week uncontrolled trial of THX-110, used at its maximum daily dose of delta-9-THC (10 mg) and a constant 800-mg dose of PEA in 16 adults with TS (mean age, 35 years; mean TS illness duration, 26.6 years).

Participants had a mean baseline Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score of 38.1 and a mean worst-ever total tic score of 45.4.

All participants were experiencing persistent tics, despite having tried an array of previous evidence-based treatments for TS, including antipsychotics, alpha-2 agonists, VMAT2 inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and topiramate (Topamax).
 

Significant improvement

Results showed significant improvement in tic symptoms with TXH-110 treatment over time (general linear model time factor: F = 3.06, df = 7.91, P = .006).

These improvements were statistically significant as early as within the first week of starting treatment. At first assessment point, mean YGTSS improvement was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.9; P = .047). The improvement not only remained significant but continued to increase throughout the 12-week trial period.

At 12 weeks, the maximal improvement in tic symptoms was observed, with a mean YGTSS improvement at endpoint of 7.6 (95% CI, 2.5-12.8; P = .007).

Four patients experienced a greater than 35% improvement in tic symptoms during the trial, whereas 6 experienced a 25% or greater improvement. The mean improvement in tic symptoms over the course of the trial was 20.6%.

There was also a significant improvement between baseline and endpoint on other measures of tic symptoms – but not on premonitory urges.

The patients experienced “modest” but not significant improvement in comorbid symptoms, including attentional, anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
 

Adverse events

All participants experienced some mild side effects for “a couple hours” after taking the medication, particularly during the course of dose escalation and maintenance. However, these were not serious enough to warrant stopping the medication.

These effects typically included fatigue/drowsiness, feeling “high,” dry mouth, dizziness/lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating.

Side effects of moderate or greater severity necessitating changes in medication dosing were “less common,” the investigators report. No participants experienced significant laboratory abnormalities.

One patient discontinued the trial early because he felt that the study medication was not helpful, and a second discontinued because of drowsiness and fatigue related to the study medication.

Twelve participants elected to continue treatment with THX-110 during an open extension phase and 7 of these completed the additional 24 weeks.

“THX-110 treatment led to an average improvement in tic symptoms of roughly 20%, or a 7-point decrease in the YGTSS total tic score. This improvement translates to a large effect size (d = 0.92) of improvement over time,” the investigators write.
 

More data needed

Commenting on the findings, Yolanda Holler-Managan, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics (neurology), Northwestern University, Chicago, cautioned that this was not a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group placebo-controlled study.

Instead, it was a clinical study to prove safety, tolerability, and dosing of the combination medication in adult patients with TS and “does not provide as much weight, since we do not have many studies on the efficacy of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Holler-Managan, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline recommendations for treatment of tics in individuals with TS and tic disorders reported “limited evidence” that delta-9-THC is “possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tic severity in adults with TS, therefore we need more data.”

The current investigators agree. “Although these initial data are promising, future randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of TXH-110 treatment,” they write.

They add that the psychoactive properties of cannabis-derived compounds make it challenging to design a properly blinded trial.

“Incorporation of physiologic biomarkers and objective measures of symptoms (e.g., videotaped tic counts by blinded raters) may be particularly important when examining these medications with psychoactive properties that may be prone to reporting bias,” the authors write.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant to Dr. Bloch from Therapix Biosciences. The state of Connecticut also provided resource support via the Abraham Ribicoff Research Facilities at the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Dr. Bloch serves on the scientific advisory boards of Therapix Biosciences, and he receives research support from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NARSAD, Neurocrine Biosciences, NIH, and the Patterson Foundation. The other investigators and Dr. Holler-Managan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral delta-9-tetrahydracannabinol (delta-9-THC) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA), in a proprietary combination known as THX-110, is promising for reducing tic symptoms in adults with Tourette syndrome (TS), new research suggests.

In a small phase 2 trial, investigators administered THX-110 to 16 adults with treatment-resistant TS for 12 weeks. Results showed a reduction of more than 20% in tic symptoms after the first week of treatment compared with baseline.

“We conducted an uncontrolled study in adults with severe TS and found that their tics improved over time while they took THX-110,” lead author Michael Bloch, MD, associate professor and co-director of the Tic and OCD Program at the Child Study Center, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., told this news organization.

Dr. Bloch added that the next step in this line of research will be to conduct a placebo-controlled trial of the compound in order to assess whether tic improvement observed over time in this study “was due to the effects of the medication and not related to the natural waxing-and-waning course of tic symptoms or treatment expectancy.”

The findings were published online August 2 in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 
 

‘Entourage effect’

“Several lines of evidence from clinical observation and even randomized controlled trials” suggest that cannabis (cannabis sativa) and delta-9-THC may be effective in treatment of tic disorders, Dr. Bloch said.

“Cannabinoid receptors are present in the motor regions important for tics, and thus, there is a potential mechanism of action to lead to improvement of tics,” he added.

However, “the major limitations of both cannabis and dronabinol [a synthetic form of delta-9-THC] use are the adverse psychoactive effects they induce in higher doses,” he said.

Dr. Bloch noted that PEA is a lipid messenger “known to mimic several endocannabinoid-driven activities.”

For this reason, combining delta-9-THC with PEA is hypothesized to reduce the dose of delta-9-THC needed to improve tics and also potentially lessen its side effects.

This initial open-label trial examined safety and tolerability of THX-110, as well as its effect on tic symptoms in adults with TS. The researchers hoped to “use the entourage effect to deliver the therapeutic benefits of delta-9-THC in reducing tics with decrease psychoactive effects by combining with PEA.”

The “entourage effect” refers to “endocannabinoid regulation by which multiple endogenous cannabinoid chemical species display a cooperative effect in eliciting a cellular response,” they write.

The investigators conducted a 12-week uncontrolled trial of THX-110, used at its maximum daily dose of delta-9-THC (10 mg) and a constant 800-mg dose of PEA in 16 adults with TS (mean age, 35 years; mean TS illness duration, 26.6 years).

Participants had a mean baseline Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) score of 38.1 and a mean worst-ever total tic score of 45.4.

All participants were experiencing persistent tics, despite having tried an array of previous evidence-based treatments for TS, including antipsychotics, alpha-2 agonists, VMAT2 inhibitors, benzodiazepines, and topiramate (Topamax).
 

Significant improvement

Results showed significant improvement in tic symptoms with TXH-110 treatment over time (general linear model time factor: F = 3.06, df = 7.91, P = .006).

These improvements were statistically significant as early as within the first week of starting treatment. At first assessment point, mean YGTSS improvement was 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 0.1-6.9; P = .047). The improvement not only remained significant but continued to increase throughout the 12-week trial period.

At 12 weeks, the maximal improvement in tic symptoms was observed, with a mean YGTSS improvement at endpoint of 7.6 (95% CI, 2.5-12.8; P = .007).

Four patients experienced a greater than 35% improvement in tic symptoms during the trial, whereas 6 experienced a 25% or greater improvement. The mean improvement in tic symptoms over the course of the trial was 20.6%.

There was also a significant improvement between baseline and endpoint on other measures of tic symptoms – but not on premonitory urges.

The patients experienced “modest” but not significant improvement in comorbid symptoms, including attentional, anxiety, depressive, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
 

Adverse events

All participants experienced some mild side effects for “a couple hours” after taking the medication, particularly during the course of dose escalation and maintenance. However, these were not serious enough to warrant stopping the medication.

These effects typically included fatigue/drowsiness, feeling “high,” dry mouth, dizziness/lightheadedness, and difficulty concentrating.

Side effects of moderate or greater severity necessitating changes in medication dosing were “less common,” the investigators report. No participants experienced significant laboratory abnormalities.

One patient discontinued the trial early because he felt that the study medication was not helpful, and a second discontinued because of drowsiness and fatigue related to the study medication.

Twelve participants elected to continue treatment with THX-110 during an open extension phase and 7 of these completed the additional 24 weeks.

“THX-110 treatment led to an average improvement in tic symptoms of roughly 20%, or a 7-point decrease in the YGTSS total tic score. This improvement translates to a large effect size (d = 0.92) of improvement over time,” the investigators write.
 

More data needed

Commenting on the findings, Yolanda Holler-Managan, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics (neurology), Northwestern University, Chicago, cautioned that this was not a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group placebo-controlled study.

Instead, it was a clinical study to prove safety, tolerability, and dosing of the combination medication in adult patients with TS and “does not provide as much weight, since we do not have many studies on the efficacy of cannabinoids,” said Dr. Holler-Managan, who was not involved with the research.

She noted that the American Academy of Neurology’s 2019 practice guideline recommendations for treatment of tics in individuals with TS and tic disorders reported “limited evidence” that delta-9-THC is “possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tic severity in adults with TS, therefore we need more data.”

The current investigators agree. “Although these initial data are promising, future randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials are necessary to demonstrate efficacy of TXH-110 treatment,” they write.

They add that the psychoactive properties of cannabis-derived compounds make it challenging to design a properly blinded trial.

“Incorporation of physiologic biomarkers and objective measures of symptoms (e.g., videotaped tic counts by blinded raters) may be particularly important when examining these medications with psychoactive properties that may be prone to reporting bias,” the authors write.

The study was supported by an investigator-initiated grant to Dr. Bloch from Therapix Biosciences. The state of Connecticut also provided resource support via the Abraham Ribicoff Research Facilities at the Connecticut Mental Health Center. Dr. Bloch serves on the scientific advisory boards of Therapix Biosciences, and he receives research support from Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, NARSAD, Neurocrine Biosciences, NIH, and the Patterson Foundation. The other investigators and Dr. Holler-Managan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Patients aged 12 years and older with multiple sclerosis (MS) who are fully immunized against COVID-19 with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna mRNA vaccine may be eligible to receive an additional dose now, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has announced.

New guidance, which is “based on available data from studies and expert consensus opinion” by a panel of MS neurologists and experts, was published Aug. 19 on the organization’s website.

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized an additional dose of the coronavirus vaccine for patients who are expected to not have a normal or adequate immune response to the first two doses. Patients with MS who use certain treatments have a reduced or absent antibody response to the vaccine, according to recent data.

“We want people living with MS to be aware of this additional dose and discuss when they need an additional dose or booster dose with their health care provider,” Julie Fiol, RN, MSW, associate vice president of health care access, National MS Society, said in an interview.

Those who may benefit from an additional dose include patients with MS who use sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, or alemtuzumab (Lemtrada), the National MS Society noted. These particular disease modifying therapies (DMTs) have a stronger effect on the immune system than do other treatments.
 

Protecting ‘the most vulnerable’

Sphingosine 1-phosphate receptor modulators include fingolimod (Gilenya), siponimod (Mayzent), ozanimod (Zeposia), and ponesimod (Ponvory).

Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies include ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), ofatumumab (Kesimpta), rituximab (Rituxan), and corresponding biosimilars.

Current data do not support an additional dose for immunocompromised patients who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are developing recommendations for these patients, and the National MS Society will update its guidance as needed, the organization noted in its statement.

“Like other medical decisions, the decision to get an additional dose is best made in partnership with your health care provider,” said Ms. Fiol. “Talk to your MS health care provider to determine what is best for you.”

MS itself does not compromise the immune system, but some MS therapies alter the immune system and reduce the body’s response to vaccination. Patients with MS who use B cell-depleting therapies have a better antibody response when they receive the vaccine 3 months or more after the last dose of MS therapy, according to the National MS Society.  

Data suggest that patients with MS are not more susceptible to COVID-19 infection, severe illness, or death than are patients without MS. However, certain groups of patients with MS, such as those who receive B cell-depleting treatments, are more susceptible to having a severe case of COVID-19.

That said, “everyone will need a booster at some point. Those who take DMTs that have greater impact on the immune system are the most urgent need now,” the organization noted.

“Vaccination against COVID-19 is critical for public safety and, especially, the safety of the most vulnerable among us,” said Ms. Fiol. “We encourage everyone with MS get vaccinated.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

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

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

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

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

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

This article was updated on 8/24/21.