Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously supported an effort to simplify COVID-19 vaccinations, with the aim of developing a one-dose approach – perhaps annually – for the general population.

The FDA is looking to give clearer direction to vaccine makers about future development of COVID-19 vaccines. The plan is to narrow down the current complex landscape of options for vaccinations, and thus help increase use of these shots. 

COVID remains a serious threat, causing about 4,000 deaths a week recently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 21 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26 voted unanimously “yes” on a single question posed by the FDA: 

“Does the committee recommend harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster doses in the U.S. to a single composition, e.g., the composition for all vaccines administered currently would be a bivalent vaccine (Original plus Omicron BA.4/BA.5)?”

In other words, would it be better to have one vaccine potentially combining multiple strains of the virus, instead of multiple vaccines – such as a two-shot primary series then a booster containing different combinations of viral strains.

The FDA will consider the panel’s advice as it outlines new strategies for keeping ahead of the evolving virus.

In explaining their support for the FDA plan, panel members said they hoped that a simpler regime would aid in persuading more people to get COVID vaccines.

Pamela McInnes, DDS, MSc, noted that it’s difficult to explain to many people that the vaccine works to protect them from more severe illness if they contract COVID after getting vaccinated. 

“That is a real challenge,” said Dr. McInness, retired deputy director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

“The message that you would have gotten more sick and landed in the hospital resonates with me, but I’m not sure if it resonates with” many people who become infected, she said.
 

The plan

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA outlined a plan for transitioning from the current complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines to a single vaccine composition for the primary series and booster vaccination. 

This would require harmonizing the strain composition of all COVID-19 vaccines; simplifying the immunization schedule for future vaccination campaigns to administer a two-dose series in certain young children and in older adults and persons with compromised immunity, and only one dose in all other individuals; and establishing a process for vaccine strain selection recommendations, similar in many ways to that used for seasonal influenza vaccines, based on prevailing and predicted variants that would take place by June to allow for vaccine production by September.

During the discussion, though, questions arose about the June target date. Given the production schedule for some vaccines, that date might need to shift, said Jerry Weir, PhD, director of the division of viral products at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. 

“We’re all just going to have to maintain flexibility,” Dr. Weir said, adding that there is not yet a “good pattern” established for updating these vaccines. 
 

Increasing vaccination rates

There was broad consensus about the need to boost public support for COVID-19 vaccinations. While about 81% of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of this vaccine, only 15.3% have had an updated bivalent booster dose, according to the CDC.

“Anything that results in better public communication would be extremely valuable,” said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

But it’s unclear what expectations will be prioritized for the COVID vaccine program, he said. 

“Realistically, I don’t think we can have it all – less infection, less transmission, less severe disease, and less long COVID,” Dr. Bernstein said. “And that seems to be a major challenge for public messaging.” 
 

Panelists press for more data 

Other committee members also pressed for clearer targets in evaluating the goals for COVID vaccines, and for more robust data. 

Like his fellow VRBPAC members, Cody Meissner, MD, of Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H., supported a move toward harmonizing the strains used in different companies’ vaccines. But he added that it wasn’t clear yet how frequently they should be administered. 

“We need to see what happens with disease burden,” Dr. Meissner said. “We may or may not need annual vaccination. It’s just awfully early, it seems to me, in this process to answer that question.”

Among those serving on VRBPAC was one of the FDA’s more vocal critics on these points, Paul A. Offit, MD, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, for example, joined former FDA officials in writing a November opinion article for the Washington Post, arguing that the evidence for boosters for healthy younger adults was not strong.

At the Jan. 26 meeting, he supported the drive toward simplification of COVID vaccine schedules, while arguing for more data about how well these products are working.

“This virus is going to be with us for years, if not decades, and there will always be vulnerable groups who are going to be hospitalized and killed by the virus,” Dr. Offit said.

The CDC needs to provide more information about the characteristics of people being hospitalized with COVID infections, including their ages and comorbidities as well as details about their vaccine history, he said. In addition, academic researchers should provide a clearer picture of what immunological predictors are at play in increasing people’s risk from COVID.

“Then and only then can we really best make the decision about who gets vaccinated with what and when,” Dr. Offit said. 

VRBPAC member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, also urged the FDA to press for a collection of more robust and detailed information about the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations, such as a deeper look at what’s happening with antibodies.

“I hope FDA will continue to reflect on how to best take this information forward, and encourage – or require – sponsors to gather more information in a standardized way across these different arms of the human immune system,” Dr. Levy said. “So we keep learning and keep doing this better.”

In recapping the panel’s suggestions at the end of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed the requests made during the day’s meeting about better data on how the vaccines work. 

“We heard loud and clear that we need to use a data-driven approach to get to the simplest possible scheme that we can for vaccination,” Dr. Marks said. “And it should be as simple as possible but not oversimplified, a little bit like they say about Mozart’s music.”

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously supported an effort to simplify COVID-19 vaccinations, with the aim of developing a one-dose approach – perhaps annually – for the general population.

The FDA is looking to give clearer direction to vaccine makers about future development of COVID-19 vaccines. The plan is to narrow down the current complex landscape of options for vaccinations, and thus help increase use of these shots. 

COVID remains a serious threat, causing about 4,000 deaths a week recently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 21 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26 voted unanimously “yes” on a single question posed by the FDA: 

“Does the committee recommend harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster doses in the U.S. to a single composition, e.g., the composition for all vaccines administered currently would be a bivalent vaccine (Original plus Omicron BA.4/BA.5)?”

In other words, would it be better to have one vaccine potentially combining multiple strains of the virus, instead of multiple vaccines – such as a two-shot primary series then a booster containing different combinations of viral strains.

The FDA will consider the panel’s advice as it outlines new strategies for keeping ahead of the evolving virus.

In explaining their support for the FDA plan, panel members said they hoped that a simpler regime would aid in persuading more people to get COVID vaccines.

Pamela McInnes, DDS, MSc, noted that it’s difficult to explain to many people that the vaccine works to protect them from more severe illness if they contract COVID after getting vaccinated. 

“That is a real challenge,” said Dr. McInness, retired deputy director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

“The message that you would have gotten more sick and landed in the hospital resonates with me, but I’m not sure if it resonates with” many people who become infected, she said.
 

The plan

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA outlined a plan for transitioning from the current complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines to a single vaccine composition for the primary series and booster vaccination. 

This would require harmonizing the strain composition of all COVID-19 vaccines; simplifying the immunization schedule for future vaccination campaigns to administer a two-dose series in certain young children and in older adults and persons with compromised immunity, and only one dose in all other individuals; and establishing a process for vaccine strain selection recommendations, similar in many ways to that used for seasonal influenza vaccines, based on prevailing and predicted variants that would take place by June to allow for vaccine production by September.

During the discussion, though, questions arose about the June target date. Given the production schedule for some vaccines, that date might need to shift, said Jerry Weir, PhD, director of the division of viral products at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. 

“We’re all just going to have to maintain flexibility,” Dr. Weir said, adding that there is not yet a “good pattern” established for updating these vaccines. 
 

Increasing vaccination rates

There was broad consensus about the need to boost public support for COVID-19 vaccinations. While about 81% of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of this vaccine, only 15.3% have had an updated bivalent booster dose, according to the CDC.

“Anything that results in better public communication would be extremely valuable,” said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

But it’s unclear what expectations will be prioritized for the COVID vaccine program, he said. 

“Realistically, I don’t think we can have it all – less infection, less transmission, less severe disease, and less long COVID,” Dr. Bernstein said. “And that seems to be a major challenge for public messaging.” 
 

Panelists press for more data 

Other committee members also pressed for clearer targets in evaluating the goals for COVID vaccines, and for more robust data. 

Like his fellow VRBPAC members, Cody Meissner, MD, of Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H., supported a move toward harmonizing the strains used in different companies’ vaccines. But he added that it wasn’t clear yet how frequently they should be administered. 

“We need to see what happens with disease burden,” Dr. Meissner said. “We may or may not need annual vaccination. It’s just awfully early, it seems to me, in this process to answer that question.”

Among those serving on VRBPAC was one of the FDA’s more vocal critics on these points, Paul A. Offit, MD, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, for example, joined former FDA officials in writing a November opinion article for the Washington Post, arguing that the evidence for boosters for healthy younger adults was not strong.

At the Jan. 26 meeting, he supported the drive toward simplification of COVID vaccine schedules, while arguing for more data about how well these products are working.

“This virus is going to be with us for years, if not decades, and there will always be vulnerable groups who are going to be hospitalized and killed by the virus,” Dr. Offit said.

The CDC needs to provide more information about the characteristics of people being hospitalized with COVID infections, including their ages and comorbidities as well as details about their vaccine history, he said. In addition, academic researchers should provide a clearer picture of what immunological predictors are at play in increasing people’s risk from COVID.

“Then and only then can we really best make the decision about who gets vaccinated with what and when,” Dr. Offit said. 

VRBPAC member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, also urged the FDA to press for a collection of more robust and detailed information about the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations, such as a deeper look at what’s happening with antibodies.

“I hope FDA will continue to reflect on how to best take this information forward, and encourage – or require – sponsors to gather more information in a standardized way across these different arms of the human immune system,” Dr. Levy said. “So we keep learning and keep doing this better.”

In recapping the panel’s suggestions at the end of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed the requests made during the day’s meeting about better data on how the vaccines work. 

“We heard loud and clear that we need to use a data-driven approach to get to the simplest possible scheme that we can for vaccination,” Dr. Marks said. “And it should be as simple as possible but not oversimplified, a little bit like they say about Mozart’s music.”

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

A panel of advisers to the Food and Drug Administration unanimously supported an effort to simplify COVID-19 vaccinations, with the aim of developing a one-dose approach – perhaps annually – for the general population.

The FDA is looking to give clearer direction to vaccine makers about future development of COVID-19 vaccines. The plan is to narrow down the current complex landscape of options for vaccinations, and thus help increase use of these shots. 

COVID remains a serious threat, causing about 4,000 deaths a week recently, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The 21 members of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) on Jan. 26 voted unanimously “yes” on a single question posed by the FDA: 

“Does the committee recommend harmonizing the vaccine strain composition of primary series and booster doses in the U.S. to a single composition, e.g., the composition for all vaccines administered currently would be a bivalent vaccine (Original plus Omicron BA.4/BA.5)?”

In other words, would it be better to have one vaccine potentially combining multiple strains of the virus, instead of multiple vaccines – such as a two-shot primary series then a booster containing different combinations of viral strains.

The FDA will consider the panel’s advice as it outlines new strategies for keeping ahead of the evolving virus.

In explaining their support for the FDA plan, panel members said they hoped that a simpler regime would aid in persuading more people to get COVID vaccines.

Pamela McInnes, DDS, MSc, noted that it’s difficult to explain to many people that the vaccine works to protect them from more severe illness if they contract COVID after getting vaccinated. 

“That is a real challenge,” said Dr. McInness, retired deputy director of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

“The message that you would have gotten more sick and landed in the hospital resonates with me, but I’m not sure if it resonates with” many people who become infected, she said.
 

The plan

In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA outlined a plan for transitioning from the current complex landscape of COVID-19 vaccines to a single vaccine composition for the primary series and booster vaccination. 

This would require harmonizing the strain composition of all COVID-19 vaccines; simplifying the immunization schedule for future vaccination campaigns to administer a two-dose series in certain young children and in older adults and persons with compromised immunity, and only one dose in all other individuals; and establishing a process for vaccine strain selection recommendations, similar in many ways to that used for seasonal influenza vaccines, based on prevailing and predicted variants that would take place by June to allow for vaccine production by September.

During the discussion, though, questions arose about the June target date. Given the production schedule for some vaccines, that date might need to shift, said Jerry Weir, PhD, director of the division of viral products at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. 

“We’re all just going to have to maintain flexibility,” Dr. Weir said, adding that there is not yet a “good pattern” established for updating these vaccines. 
 

Increasing vaccination rates

There was broad consensus about the need to boost public support for COVID-19 vaccinations. While about 81% of the U.S. population has had at least one dose of this vaccine, only 15.3% have had an updated bivalent booster dose, according to the CDC.

“Anything that results in better public communication would be extremely valuable,” said committee member Henry H. Bernstein, DO, MHCM, of the Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell Health in Hempstead, N.Y.

But it’s unclear what expectations will be prioritized for the COVID vaccine program, he said. 

“Realistically, I don’t think we can have it all – less infection, less transmission, less severe disease, and less long COVID,” Dr. Bernstein said. “And that seems to be a major challenge for public messaging.” 
 

Panelists press for more data 

Other committee members also pressed for clearer targets in evaluating the goals for COVID vaccines, and for more robust data. 

Like his fellow VRBPAC members, Cody Meissner, MD, of Dartmouth’s Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, N.H., supported a move toward harmonizing the strains used in different companies’ vaccines. But he added that it wasn’t clear yet how frequently they should be administered. 

“We need to see what happens with disease burden,” Dr. Meissner said. “We may or may not need annual vaccination. It’s just awfully early, it seems to me, in this process to answer that question.”

Among those serving on VRBPAC was one of the FDA’s more vocal critics on these points, Paul A. Offit, MD, a vaccine expert from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Dr. Offit, for example, joined former FDA officials in writing a November opinion article for the Washington Post, arguing that the evidence for boosters for healthy younger adults was not strong.

At the Jan. 26 meeting, he supported the drive toward simplification of COVID vaccine schedules, while arguing for more data about how well these products are working.

“This virus is going to be with us for years, if not decades, and there will always be vulnerable groups who are going to be hospitalized and killed by the virus,” Dr. Offit said.

The CDC needs to provide more information about the characteristics of people being hospitalized with COVID infections, including their ages and comorbidities as well as details about their vaccine history, he said. In addition, academic researchers should provide a clearer picture of what immunological predictors are at play in increasing people’s risk from COVID.

“Then and only then can we really best make the decision about who gets vaccinated with what and when,” Dr. Offit said. 

VRBPAC member Ofer Levy, MD, PhD, also urged the FDA to press for a collection of more robust and detailed information about the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations, such as a deeper look at what’s happening with antibodies.

“I hope FDA will continue to reflect on how to best take this information forward, and encourage – or require – sponsors to gather more information in a standardized way across these different arms of the human immune system,” Dr. Levy said. “So we keep learning and keep doing this better.”

In recapping the panel’s suggestions at the end of the meeting, Peter Marks, MD, PhD, the director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, addressed the requests made during the day’s meeting about better data on how the vaccines work. 

“We heard loud and clear that we need to use a data-driven approach to get to the simplest possible scheme that we can for vaccination,” Dr. Marks said. “And it should be as simple as possible but not oversimplified, a little bit like they say about Mozart’s music.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

For Julia Moore Vogel, PhD, a cup of peppermint tea marked the moment her life would change forever.

One morning in early July 2020, she took a sip of her favorite strongly flavored pick-me-up and couldn’t taste it. She knew loss of taste and smell were symptoms of COVID-19, and she suspected she had contracted the virus. A doctor’s visit confirmed her fears.

“I remember trying the tea and just being so shocked and thinking: How can this be happening to me?” said Dr. Moore Vogel, a COVID-19 researcher with the Scripps Research Translational Institute in San Diego. “I’d been so incredibly careful.”

Her physician assured her that as a healthy woman in her mid-30s, she’d be “back to normal” in 2 weeks’ time and that her loss of taste and smell “very likely will be your only symptom,” she recalled.

But within a week, Dr. Moore Vogel started having trouble breathing. She couldn’t work, and she experienced crushing fatigue, brain fog, and migraines. Now, 2½ years later, Dr. Moore Vogel is among the tens of millions of Americans with long COVID.

As a COVID-19 patient-researcher who still struggles with fatigue and migraines, she has learned to cope with her condition. She directs the Participant Center for the All of Us Research Program, a National Institutes of Health collaboration to build the largest, most diverse health database in history. She relies on a practice called pacing, which helps conserve physical, mental, and emotional energy, to avoid making her symptoms worse.

And she is a coauthor of a landmark 200-study review of long COVID published Jan. 13 in the journal Nature, with Scripps Executive Vice President and Medscape Editor-in-Chief Eric Topol, MD. Two other institute long COVID researchers and patient advocates who have the condition coauthored the review – Lisa McCorkell and Hannah E. Davis, cofounders of the Patient-Led Research Collaborative , a group of long COVID patients who study the virus.

Dr. Moore Vogel discussed the key findings of the new review and her personal experiences with this news organization.
 

Q: When you contracted COVID, no treatments or vaccines existed. Can you talk about what the experience was like for you?

A: “It was July 2020. The loss of taste and smell was the first symptom, and what was interesting was that was my only symptom for a little bit. Being the goal-oriented, work-oriented person that I am, I just worked the rest of the week and hoped that it wasn’t real.

“But that was a Wednesday, and by Friday, I was just getting really tired, and it was really hard to finish my workday. I ended up taking 3 weeks off to recover from the acute phase. At the time, I had read early discussions about long COVID, and it was always on my [mind] – how long was it going to take to recover?”
 

Q: You went to see a doctor that first week?

A: “I called them when I had the loss of taste and smell, and they said, ‘It’s very likely this will be your only symptom.’ And when I first talked to a physician, they were saying, ‘Oh, you’re young and healthy, in 2 weeks you’ll be back to normal.’ But of course that turned out not to be true.

“It’s hard to remember what it was like at that time. There were so few treatments, it was all about rationing ventilators, and it was absolutely terrifying at the time to just not know what was going to happen.”
 

Q: How are you managing your condition today?

A: “I have myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), one of the really common diagnoses that come out of long COVID. So, that’s the biggest thing for me to manage now, and the main management is pacing.

“I also have medications for migraine management. I’ve always had some degree of migraines, like 2 a month, but now it’s like 15 a month, so it’s a totally different scale of management.”
 

Q: It must be frustrating, personally and professionally, that long COVID treatments remain elusive.

A: “I’m disappointed at the pace of testing things in clinical trials. There was so much progress made, so much innovation in the early stages of the pandemic to treat the acute phase, and it led to amazing things. We have all these monoclonal antibodies, the steroids are really effective, not to mention the antivirals and the vaccines, of course, on the prevention side. It’s been amazing.

“But for some reason, long COVID treatment is really lagging. What I hypothesize as part of the reason for that is that it doesn’t feel as dramatic. When you see someone on a ventilator or hear about death, it feels very dramatic, and people really worry about that.”
 

Q: So, let’s talk about the research. How did your personal experiences – and those of the two other coauthors with long COVID – help inform this review?

A: “I work with Eric Topol on a regular basis, and it was amazing that he invited patients to work with him on this review ... I have to say of my other long COVID patient coauthors, Hannah Davis and Lisa McCorkell, it was amazing to work with them.

“It was my first time working with people who have long COVID on a big project. The understanding that we had of each other [where] one of us might say, Oh, I’m crashing today, I can’t work on this. Can you help get us across the finish line for this deadline? That was really amazing to me in terms of how a workplace can be with real disability accommodations.

“It’s really changed my personal outlook on how important it is to have patients involved in the process.”
 

Q: What was the most surprising or significant finding of the review, in your view?

A: “I would say the most impactful thing to me in the process of writing this review is how much research has been done in such a short time. We started with over 250 studies that we wanted to reference in the review, and we actually had to cut out 50 in the editorial process, which was really hard!

“There’s just been so much progress that’s been made in the past couple of years. And then thinking about the progress on long COVID in general, the other things that’s important to acknowledge is all the work that’s been done on other postviral illnesses that present very similarly to long COVID in many patients, ME/CFS, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).”
 

Q: One thing that stood out is the review’s finding that long COVID is potentially lifelong COVID and, in some ways, is closer to HIV-AIDS than, say, influenza. Is that right?

A: “Yes. I’m really glad you took that point away from the review because that was one of the things that I felt the most strongly about incorporating. For many people, based on the treatments that we have today, this is likely to lead to lifelong disability. And that’s something, from my personal experience, for sure. I’m seeing no improvement on the horizon.

“That’s part of why I’m so passionate about there being clinical trials because I know there are millions and millions of us. So for me, that wasn’t so surprising, because I’m living it, but I can see how for the general public that was a really surprising finding.”
 

Q: The review breaks down long COVID’s effects on various organs/systems, and it includes the most comprehensive look to date at the effects on pregnant women. Anything you’d care to stress about that?

A: “It really underlies the importance of vaccination, given that it can affect both the pregnant person and child. There is early evidence of development delays if there’s infection while the child is still gestating. So, I think it underscores the need for vaccination to reduce that risk.

“You know, pregnancy is a stressful and terrifying time anyway. So, if there’s anything you can do to reduce the risk to yourself and your unborn child, I think it’s really worthwhile.”
 

Q: Why do you think this exhaustive review was needed?

A: “Because of the massive amount of literature that’s out there, it’s so hard for anybody to sift through. Eric Topol and Hannah Davis, two of the coauthors, are two people who have done it, and they keep up with all the literature, and they are always tweeting about it.

“But most people don’t have the time to be able to sift through it, so what we did was take all of that literature, organize it into sections, and summarize the key findings. Then the other thing that I think is really important for the field right now is the recommendations piece.”
 

Q: What impact do you think the new long COVID review in Nature will have?

A: “The response to our review is way beyond what I expected, and I think that’s in part a sign that there is growing awareness of the issue of long COVID.

“I hope that helps spiral toward more treatment trials. Because there are a lot of great candidates out there. We have a whole table in the review about the different potential treatments that should be tested.”
 

Q: What’s the take-home message for physicians?

A: “One of the key recommendations is about physician education. We know that it is so hard for physicians to keep up with this massive amount of literature, and we really need more physician education that’s meant for busy physicians who really don’t have time to read all of the primary literature themselves.

“So many folks are not getting the care that they need. Because these types of conditions haven’t been seen as much by primary care providers, physical therapists, etc., there’s so much more education that’s needed.

“I think the basic tenets probably could be taught in a weekend course, [including] listening to the patients, believing patients. There are so many times patient symptoms are [dismissed and not] really being taken seriously by their physicians.

“I think part of the challenge behind that is the conflating of mental health issues with these other physiological symptoms. There’s a tendency to say, ‘Oh, all this is this caused by mental health issues’ and that mental health is the root cause, when actually it’s the illness that’s the root cause.”
 

Q: What’s the big picture: How significant is the public health crisis that long COVID represents?

A: “I believe it’s a massive crisis, a massive emergency. A lot of people in the long COVID community are calling it a mass-disabling event. There is concern that if we let the pandemic run unmitigated for long enough – given that we expect about 10% of folks that get COVID will end up with long COVID – we could end up eventually with a majority-disabled society.

“That would be devasting – to individuals, to the economy, the medical system. So, it’s absolutely a public health emergency in my view, and that’s part of why I’ve been so surprised by the lack of trials, the lack of awareness in the public. There hasn’t been as much public education about long COVID as there has about acute COVID. I think we can do more from a public health perspective.”
 

Q: What are the main challenges in combating long COVID?

A: “I think the lack of treatments is the most devastating part because it’s such a hard disease to contract, and there’s no end in sight, and so that time horizon can be really difficult. That’s part of why I’m pushing the treatments so much, because I want to offer hope to the community, you know, I want there to be hope around the corner.

“My hope is that within 5 years we’ll have treatments that can really improve quality of life for the community. And I know that that may seem like a long time for those who are suffering, and I hope that there will be some clinical trials of treatments that improve symptom management within 1-2 years. But I think for really more novel things, it’s really going to take at least 5.”
 

Q: Any advice you’d give to someone with long COVID today?

A: “Connecting with others that are going through the experience is extremely valuable and can really help with that mental component which can be really draining.

“The other thing, in terms of what’s important for the lives of people who are living with long COVID, I would say to everyone who doesn’t have long COVID but knows someone who does, being able to offer support is crucial and can make such a difference in quality of life.

“It is really crucial, for those who don’t have long COVID, to take it into account when you’re making your risk calculations. When you’re thinking: Am I going to wear a mask here? or Am I going to go to that bar?

“Really consider the possibility that if you get COVID, you have a 10% chance of getting long COVID. And if you get long COVID, you have a 25% chance of not being able to work anymore or being so ill that you can’t work anymore and you may lose your health insurance.

“The compounding effects are absolutely devastating, and I think that’s under-factored-in to the general risk calculations of the public.”

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

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

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

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

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

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Tidepool Loop, a mobile application for use with compatible continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and insulin pumps to enable automated insulin delivery.

Indicated for people with type 1 diabetes ages 6 years and up, the app algorithm was developed by the diabetes startup Tidepool, which already hosts a cloud-based platform for users to download and review data from different glucose meters, insulin pumps, and CGM systems. The Tidepool Loop project arose from patient-led, open-source initiatives to enable interoperability between the devices.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

“The [FDA] authorization of the Tidepool Loop is a huge win for the type 1 diabetes (T1D) community and is a vital step towards a world where people with T1D can choose the pump, CGM, and algorithm that are best for them – and have all three work together seamlessly,” Aaron Kowalski, PhD, CEO of the advocacy organization JDRF, said in a statement.

JDRF helped support preclinical and clinical research in the development of the Loop algorithm, along with The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, the Tullman Foundation, and partnerships with device makers and donations from the T1D community.

Available by prescription only, the Tidepool app is for single patient use. It works with designated “integrated CGMs” and “alternate controller enabled pumps” to automatically increase, decrease, or suspend insulin delivery, based on the glucose readings and predicted values. The app can also recommend correction doses, which the user can confirm.

According to an FDA statement:“Tidepool Loop’s algorithm technology is designed to be compatible with other individual interoperable devices that meet prespecified acceptance criteria set forth in a validation and integration plan provided by the sponsor and cleared by the FDA as part of the premarket submission.”

Tidepool is finalizing agreements with the various device manufacturers “to create a seamless experience for both physicians prescribing Tidepool Loop and the patients using it,” according to a company statement.

Tidepool’s initial launch device partners have not yet been announced, but the company “has a development partnership with Dexcom and other yet-to-be-named medical device companies for future inclusion of their components with the Tidepool Loop platform,” the statement says.

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

People of color with epilepsy, including Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander patients, are significantly less likely to be prescribed the latest antiseizure medications (ASMs), compared with their White counterparts, new research shows.

Even after controlling for epilepsy severity, comorbid conditions, and other factors that might affect medication choice, researchers found that newer medication use was 29% less likely in Black patients, 23% less likely in Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander patients, and 7% less likely in Hispanic patients, compared with White individuals.

“I hope that clinicians will see from our findings that minoritized patients with epilepsy face a myriad of barriers in receiving the highest quality of care, including ASM use,” said lead investigator Wyatt P. Bensken, PhD, adjunct assistant professor of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Considering your patients’ barriers, and how that influences their care – including ASM selection – will be critical to helping reduce these population-level inequities.”

A prompt for practice change

For the study, researchers used Medicaid claims for more than 78,000 people who had filled at least two prescriptions for an ASM between 2010 and 2014.

Most patients were White (53.4%); 22.6% were Black; 11.9% were Hispanic; 1.6% were Asian; 1.5% were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native; and 8.3% were classified as “other.”

One-quarter of participants were taking an older ASM, such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate. About 65% were taking second-generation ASMs, including gabapentin, levetiracetam, and zonisamide. A little less than 10% were taking lacosamide, perampenel, or another third-generation ASM.

Compared with White patients, newer medication prescriptions were significantly less likely in Black individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.75), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88), and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99).

Third-generation ASMs were used by 10.7% of White patients versus 6% of Black individuals and 5.1% of American Indian or Alaskan Native patients.

Researchers also found that taking a second-generation ASM was associated with better treatment adherence (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23) and that patients on newer ASMs were more than three times as likely to be under the care of a neurologist (aOR, 3.26; 95% CI, 3.13-3.41).

The findings draw attention to racial inequities surrounding access to medication and specialists and subspecialists, Dr. Bensken said. Identifying specific barriers and developing solutions is the long-range goal, he added.

“In the interim, increasing the attention to these inequities will, we hope, prompt changes across practices,” Dr. Bensken said.
 

A ‘wake-up call’

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said the results were “striking” because newer ASMs are generally the go-to for most physicians who treat epilepsy. 

“Use of first-generation ASMs is typically reserved [for] if one runs out of options,” Dr. Sirven said.

This study and others like it should serve as a “wake-up call” for clinicians, Dr. Sirven added.

“This study is important because it shows that whether we realize it or not, race and ethnicities are playing a role in ASM, and this is related to financial access to newer-generation drugs,” he said. “Similar findings are seen in impoverished countries where first-generation ASM drugs are routinely used because of drug pricing.”
 

More to explore

Also commenting on the study, Scott Mintzer, MD, a professor and director of the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said using first-generation ASMs as a proxy for quality of care is “a very innovative concept.”

“From that perspective, the finding that racial minority patients are more likely to be on a first-generation drug is not surprising. But after that it gets far more complicated to interpret,” he added.  

Neither adherence nor care by a neurologist was different in a consistent direction within the various minority populations, Dr. Mintzer noted. In addition, Black patients were as likely to see a neurologist as White patients but still more likely to be on a first-generation drug.

There are also a few caveats to the findings that should be considered, Dr. Mintzer added. First, the sample included only Medicaid recipients, nearly 35% of whom had a comorbid psychosis. Those and other characteristics of the study pool suggest participants aren’t representative of the United States population as a whole. Second, significant shifts in ASM use have occurred since the study data cutoff in 2014, none of which are reflected in these findings.

“So, I don’t think we can really say how to address this yet,” Dr. Mintzer said. “There’s a lot to explore about whether this is still occurring, how generalizable these findings are, and what they might be due to, as there are a host of potential explanations, which the authors themselves acknowledge.”

The study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Bensken has received support for this work from NIMHD and serves on the Editorial Board of the journal Neurology. Dr. Sirven and Mintzer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People of color with epilepsy, including Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander patients, are significantly less likely to be prescribed the latest antiseizure medications (ASMs), compared with their White counterparts, new research shows.

Even after controlling for epilepsy severity, comorbid conditions, and other factors that might affect medication choice, researchers found that newer medication use was 29% less likely in Black patients, 23% less likely in Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander patients, and 7% less likely in Hispanic patients, compared with White individuals.

“I hope that clinicians will see from our findings that minoritized patients with epilepsy face a myriad of barriers in receiving the highest quality of care, including ASM use,” said lead investigator Wyatt P. Bensken, PhD, adjunct assistant professor of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Considering your patients’ barriers, and how that influences their care – including ASM selection – will be critical to helping reduce these population-level inequities.”

A prompt for practice change

For the study, researchers used Medicaid claims for more than 78,000 people who had filled at least two prescriptions for an ASM between 2010 and 2014.

Most patients were White (53.4%); 22.6% were Black; 11.9% were Hispanic; 1.6% were Asian; 1.5% were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native; and 8.3% were classified as “other.”

One-quarter of participants were taking an older ASM, such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate. About 65% were taking second-generation ASMs, including gabapentin, levetiracetam, and zonisamide. A little less than 10% were taking lacosamide, perampenel, or another third-generation ASM.

Compared with White patients, newer medication prescriptions were significantly less likely in Black individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.75), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88), and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99).

Third-generation ASMs were used by 10.7% of White patients versus 6% of Black individuals and 5.1% of American Indian or Alaskan Native patients.

Researchers also found that taking a second-generation ASM was associated with better treatment adherence (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23) and that patients on newer ASMs were more than three times as likely to be under the care of a neurologist (aOR, 3.26; 95% CI, 3.13-3.41).

The findings draw attention to racial inequities surrounding access to medication and specialists and subspecialists, Dr. Bensken said. Identifying specific barriers and developing solutions is the long-range goal, he added.

“In the interim, increasing the attention to these inequities will, we hope, prompt changes across practices,” Dr. Bensken said.
 

A ‘wake-up call’

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said the results were “striking” because newer ASMs are generally the go-to for most physicians who treat epilepsy. 

“Use of first-generation ASMs is typically reserved [for] if one runs out of options,” Dr. Sirven said.

This study and others like it should serve as a “wake-up call” for clinicians, Dr. Sirven added.

“This study is important because it shows that whether we realize it or not, race and ethnicities are playing a role in ASM, and this is related to financial access to newer-generation drugs,” he said. “Similar findings are seen in impoverished countries where first-generation ASM drugs are routinely used because of drug pricing.”
 

More to explore

Also commenting on the study, Scott Mintzer, MD, a professor and director of the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said using first-generation ASMs as a proxy for quality of care is “a very innovative concept.”

“From that perspective, the finding that racial minority patients are more likely to be on a first-generation drug is not surprising. But after that it gets far more complicated to interpret,” he added.  

Neither adherence nor care by a neurologist was different in a consistent direction within the various minority populations, Dr. Mintzer noted. In addition, Black patients were as likely to see a neurologist as White patients but still more likely to be on a first-generation drug.

There are also a few caveats to the findings that should be considered, Dr. Mintzer added. First, the sample included only Medicaid recipients, nearly 35% of whom had a comorbid psychosis. Those and other characteristics of the study pool suggest participants aren’t representative of the United States population as a whole. Second, significant shifts in ASM use have occurred since the study data cutoff in 2014, none of which are reflected in these findings.

“So, I don’t think we can really say how to address this yet,” Dr. Mintzer said. “There’s a lot to explore about whether this is still occurring, how generalizable these findings are, and what they might be due to, as there are a host of potential explanations, which the authors themselves acknowledge.”

The study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Bensken has received support for this work from NIMHD and serves on the Editorial Board of the journal Neurology. Dr. Sirven and Mintzer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

People of color with epilepsy, including Black, Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander patients, are significantly less likely to be prescribed the latest antiseizure medications (ASMs), compared with their White counterparts, new research shows.

Even after controlling for epilepsy severity, comorbid conditions, and other factors that might affect medication choice, researchers found that newer medication use was 29% less likely in Black patients, 23% less likely in Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander patients, and 7% less likely in Hispanic patients, compared with White individuals.

“I hope that clinicians will see from our findings that minoritized patients with epilepsy face a myriad of barriers in receiving the highest quality of care, including ASM use,” said lead investigator Wyatt P. Bensken, PhD, adjunct assistant professor of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland. “Considering your patients’ barriers, and how that influences their care – including ASM selection – will be critical to helping reduce these population-level inequities.”

A prompt for practice change

For the study, researchers used Medicaid claims for more than 78,000 people who had filled at least two prescriptions for an ASM between 2010 and 2014.

Most patients were White (53.4%); 22.6% were Black; 11.9% were Hispanic; 1.6% were Asian; 1.5% were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; 0.6% American Indian or Alaskan Native; and 8.3% were classified as “other.”

One-quarter of participants were taking an older ASM, such as carbamazepine, phenytoin, and valproate. About 65% were taking second-generation ASMs, including gabapentin, levetiracetam, and zonisamide. A little less than 10% were taking lacosamide, perampenel, or another third-generation ASM.

Compared with White patients, newer medication prescriptions were significantly less likely in Black individuals (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.75), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders (aOR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88), and Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99).

Third-generation ASMs were used by 10.7% of White patients versus 6% of Black individuals and 5.1% of American Indian or Alaskan Native patients.

Researchers also found that taking a second-generation ASM was associated with better treatment adherence (aOR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.11-1.23) and that patients on newer ASMs were more than three times as likely to be under the care of a neurologist (aOR, 3.26; 95% CI, 3.13-3.41).

The findings draw attention to racial inequities surrounding access to medication and specialists and subspecialists, Dr. Bensken said. Identifying specific barriers and developing solutions is the long-range goal, he added.

“In the interim, increasing the attention to these inequities will, we hope, prompt changes across practices,” Dr. Bensken said.
 

A ‘wake-up call’

Commenting on the findings, Joseph Sirven, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, said the results were “striking” because newer ASMs are generally the go-to for most physicians who treat epilepsy. 

“Use of first-generation ASMs is typically reserved [for] if one runs out of options,” Dr. Sirven said.

This study and others like it should serve as a “wake-up call” for clinicians, Dr. Sirven added.

“This study is important because it shows that whether we realize it or not, race and ethnicities are playing a role in ASM, and this is related to financial access to newer-generation drugs,” he said. “Similar findings are seen in impoverished countries where first-generation ASM drugs are routinely used because of drug pricing.”
 

More to explore

Also commenting on the study, Scott Mintzer, MD, a professor and director of the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said using first-generation ASMs as a proxy for quality of care is “a very innovative concept.”

“From that perspective, the finding that racial minority patients are more likely to be on a first-generation drug is not surprising. But after that it gets far more complicated to interpret,” he added.  

Neither adherence nor care by a neurologist was different in a consistent direction within the various minority populations, Dr. Mintzer noted. In addition, Black patients were as likely to see a neurologist as White patients but still more likely to be on a first-generation drug.

There are also a few caveats to the findings that should be considered, Dr. Mintzer added. First, the sample included only Medicaid recipients, nearly 35% of whom had a comorbid psychosis. Those and other characteristics of the study pool suggest participants aren’t representative of the United States population as a whole. Second, significant shifts in ASM use have occurred since the study data cutoff in 2014, none of which are reflected in these findings.

“So, I don’t think we can really say how to address this yet,” Dr. Mintzer said. “There’s a lot to explore about whether this is still occurring, how generalizable these findings are, and what they might be due to, as there are a host of potential explanations, which the authors themselves acknowledge.”

The study was funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Dr. Bensken has received support for this work from NIMHD and serves on the Editorial Board of the journal Neurology. Dr. Sirven and Mintzer report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A diabetes screening program built into an electronic medical records system identified diabetes or prediabetes in 52% of individuals flagged for abnormal hemoglobin A1c, based on data from more than 2,000 adults.

“Despite the best efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators, the number of patients living with undiagnosed diabetes is still rising and is currently at approximately 8.5 million, and the number of people unaware of their prediabetes is approximately 77 million,” lead investigator Kristie K. Danielson, PhD, said in an interview. Screening for diabetes is critical to start treatment early, to potentially reverse prediabetes, and to prevent the long-term complications of diabetes and reduced life expectancy.

sittithat tangwitthayaphum/Getty Images

In a pilot study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Danielson and colleagues reviewed data from 8,441 adults who visited a single emergency department in Chicago during February–April 2021.

The EMR at the hospital contained a built-in best practice alert (BPA) that flagged patients as being at risk for type 2 diabetes based the American Diabetes Association recommendations; the identification algorithm included age 45 years and older, or those aged 18-44 years with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher, no previous history of diabetes, and no A1c measure in the last 3 years, according to the EMR.

A total of 8,441 adult patients visited the ED during the study period; 2,576 triggered BPA tests, and 2,074 had A1c results for review. Among the patients with A1c results, 52% had elevated values of 5.7% or higher. Of these, a total of 758 individuals were identified with prediabetes (A1c, 5.7%-6.4%), 265 with diabetes (A1c, 6.5%-9.9%), and 62 with severe diabetes (A1c, 10% or higher).

After testing, 352 patients with elevated A1c were contacted by the researchers. The mean age of this group was 52.2 years, 54.5% were women, and nearly two-thirds (64.8%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median income of those contacted was in the 44th percentile, and 50% had public insurance.

Most of those contacted (264 patients) were not aware of a previous diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes; the remaining 88 had a previous diagnosis, but only 51 self-reported receiving treatment, the researchers noted.

Although the screening program successfully identified a significant number of previously undiagnosed individuals with diabetes, prediabetes, or poorly controlled diabetes, its feasibility in routine practice requires further study, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the identification of patients previously diagnosed with diabetes but who were not being treated, and the potential bias toward individuals of higher socioeconomic status, the researchers noted. However, the results support further exploration of the program as a way to identify undiagnosed diabetes, especially in underserved populations.
 

Diabetes in underserved groups goes undetected

“We were surprised by the sheer number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes,” which was far greater than expected, commented Dr. Danielson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Clearly, we tapped into a new population that has not often been seen by primary care providers or endocrinologists, as is often the case for underserved and vulnerable individuals who visit the emergency department as a first line for health care.”

The screening alert system is straightforward to build into an existing EMR, with technical support, Dr. Danielson said. “In theory, it should be able to be incorporated into other clinical centers and emergency departments. One of the current limitations that we are seeing is that the EMR is still flagging some people already diagnosed with diabetes to be screened for diabetes.” However, “because of this, we also see this as an opportunity to identify and reach out to those with diabetes who are still underserved and not receiving the appropriate diabetes care they need.”

The study results have broader public health implications, Dr. Danielson added. “We have identified a new, large population of people with diabetes who need medical care and diabetes education. This will further add to the burden of health care and costs, and it raises the ethical question of screening and not having full resources readily available to help.

“In my opinion, the study sheds light on a significant issue that will hopefully help drive change at both a health systems and public health level locally and nationally,” she added.

“One of the significant research gaps that has emerged now is how to link these new patients to health care and diabetes education at our institution after they leave the emergency department,” said Dr. Danielson. Diabetes screening in the ED setting is “a very novel area for health system scientists, social workers, and others to now come to the table and collaborate on next steps to help our patients.”

The study was initiated by the investigators, but was supported by a grant from Novo Nordisk to two coauthors. Dr. Danielson also disclosed grant funding from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study.

A diabetes screening program built into an electronic medical records system identified diabetes or prediabetes in 52% of individuals flagged for abnormal hemoglobin A1c, based on data from more than 2,000 adults.

“Despite the best efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators, the number of patients living with undiagnosed diabetes is still rising and is currently at approximately 8.5 million, and the number of people unaware of their prediabetes is approximately 77 million,” lead investigator Kristie K. Danielson, PhD, said in an interview. Screening for diabetes is critical to start treatment early, to potentially reverse prediabetes, and to prevent the long-term complications of diabetes and reduced life expectancy.

sittithat tangwitthayaphum/Getty Images

In a pilot study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Danielson and colleagues reviewed data from 8,441 adults who visited a single emergency department in Chicago during February–April 2021.

The EMR at the hospital contained a built-in best practice alert (BPA) that flagged patients as being at risk for type 2 diabetes based the American Diabetes Association recommendations; the identification algorithm included age 45 years and older, or those aged 18-44 years with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher, no previous history of diabetes, and no A1c measure in the last 3 years, according to the EMR.

A total of 8,441 adult patients visited the ED during the study period; 2,576 triggered BPA tests, and 2,074 had A1c results for review. Among the patients with A1c results, 52% had elevated values of 5.7% or higher. Of these, a total of 758 individuals were identified with prediabetes (A1c, 5.7%-6.4%), 265 with diabetes (A1c, 6.5%-9.9%), and 62 with severe diabetes (A1c, 10% or higher).

After testing, 352 patients with elevated A1c were contacted by the researchers. The mean age of this group was 52.2 years, 54.5% were women, and nearly two-thirds (64.8%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median income of those contacted was in the 44th percentile, and 50% had public insurance.

Most of those contacted (264 patients) were not aware of a previous diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes; the remaining 88 had a previous diagnosis, but only 51 self-reported receiving treatment, the researchers noted.

Although the screening program successfully identified a significant number of previously undiagnosed individuals with diabetes, prediabetes, or poorly controlled diabetes, its feasibility in routine practice requires further study, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the identification of patients previously diagnosed with diabetes but who were not being treated, and the potential bias toward individuals of higher socioeconomic status, the researchers noted. However, the results support further exploration of the program as a way to identify undiagnosed diabetes, especially in underserved populations.
 

Diabetes in underserved groups goes undetected

“We were surprised by the sheer number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes,” which was far greater than expected, commented Dr. Danielson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Clearly, we tapped into a new population that has not often been seen by primary care providers or endocrinologists, as is often the case for underserved and vulnerable individuals who visit the emergency department as a first line for health care.”

The screening alert system is straightforward to build into an existing EMR, with technical support, Dr. Danielson said. “In theory, it should be able to be incorporated into other clinical centers and emergency departments. One of the current limitations that we are seeing is that the EMR is still flagging some people already diagnosed with diabetes to be screened for diabetes.” However, “because of this, we also see this as an opportunity to identify and reach out to those with diabetes who are still underserved and not receiving the appropriate diabetes care they need.”

The study results have broader public health implications, Dr. Danielson added. “We have identified a new, large population of people with diabetes who need medical care and diabetes education. This will further add to the burden of health care and costs, and it raises the ethical question of screening and not having full resources readily available to help.

“In my opinion, the study sheds light on a significant issue that will hopefully help drive change at both a health systems and public health level locally and nationally,” she added.

“One of the significant research gaps that has emerged now is how to link these new patients to health care and diabetes education at our institution after they leave the emergency department,” said Dr. Danielson. Diabetes screening in the ED setting is “a very novel area for health system scientists, social workers, and others to now come to the table and collaborate on next steps to help our patients.”

The study was initiated by the investigators, but was supported by a grant from Novo Nordisk to two coauthors. Dr. Danielson also disclosed grant funding from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study.

A diabetes screening program built into an electronic medical records system identified diabetes or prediabetes in 52% of individuals flagged for abnormal hemoglobin A1c, based on data from more than 2,000 adults.

“Despite the best efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators, the number of patients living with undiagnosed diabetes is still rising and is currently at approximately 8.5 million, and the number of people unaware of their prediabetes is approximately 77 million,” lead investigator Kristie K. Danielson, PhD, said in an interview. Screening for diabetes is critical to start treatment early, to potentially reverse prediabetes, and to prevent the long-term complications of diabetes and reduced life expectancy.

sittithat tangwitthayaphum/Getty Images

In a pilot study published in JAMA Network Open, Dr. Danielson and colleagues reviewed data from 8,441 adults who visited a single emergency department in Chicago during February–April 2021.

The EMR at the hospital contained a built-in best practice alert (BPA) that flagged patients as being at risk for type 2 diabetes based the American Diabetes Association recommendations; the identification algorithm included age 45 years and older, or those aged 18-44 years with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or higher, no previous history of diabetes, and no A1c measure in the last 3 years, according to the EMR.

A total of 8,441 adult patients visited the ED during the study period; 2,576 triggered BPA tests, and 2,074 had A1c results for review. Among the patients with A1c results, 52% had elevated values of 5.7% or higher. Of these, a total of 758 individuals were identified with prediabetes (A1c, 5.7%-6.4%), 265 with diabetes (A1c, 6.5%-9.9%), and 62 with severe diabetes (A1c, 10% or higher).

After testing, 352 patients with elevated A1c were contacted by the researchers. The mean age of this group was 52.2 years, 54.5% were women, and nearly two-thirds (64.8%) were non-Hispanic Black. The median income of those contacted was in the 44th percentile, and 50% had public insurance.

Most of those contacted (264 patients) were not aware of a previous diagnosis of prediabetes or diabetes; the remaining 88 had a previous diagnosis, but only 51 self-reported receiving treatment, the researchers noted.

Although the screening program successfully identified a significant number of previously undiagnosed individuals with diabetes, prediabetes, or poorly controlled diabetes, its feasibility in routine practice requires further study, the researchers wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors including the identification of patients previously diagnosed with diabetes but who were not being treated, and the potential bias toward individuals of higher socioeconomic status, the researchers noted. However, the results support further exploration of the program as a way to identify undiagnosed diabetes, especially in underserved populations.
 

Diabetes in underserved groups goes undetected

“We were surprised by the sheer number of people newly diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes,” which was far greater than expected, commented Dr. Danielson of the University of Illinois at Chicago. “Clearly, we tapped into a new population that has not often been seen by primary care providers or endocrinologists, as is often the case for underserved and vulnerable individuals who visit the emergency department as a first line for health care.”

The screening alert system is straightforward to build into an existing EMR, with technical support, Dr. Danielson said. “In theory, it should be able to be incorporated into other clinical centers and emergency departments. One of the current limitations that we are seeing is that the EMR is still flagging some people already diagnosed with diabetes to be screened for diabetes.” However, “because of this, we also see this as an opportunity to identify and reach out to those with diabetes who are still underserved and not receiving the appropriate diabetes care they need.”

The study results have broader public health implications, Dr. Danielson added. “We have identified a new, large population of people with diabetes who need medical care and diabetes education. This will further add to the burden of health care and costs, and it raises the ethical question of screening and not having full resources readily available to help.

“In my opinion, the study sheds light on a significant issue that will hopefully help drive change at both a health systems and public health level locally and nationally,” she added.

“One of the significant research gaps that has emerged now is how to link these new patients to health care and diabetes education at our institution after they leave the emergency department,” said Dr. Danielson. Diabetes screening in the ED setting is “a very novel area for health system scientists, social workers, and others to now come to the table and collaborate on next steps to help our patients.”

The study was initiated by the investigators, but was supported by a grant from Novo Nordisk to two coauthors. Dr. Danielson also disclosed grant funding from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of the study.

Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.

Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.

However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.

In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The primary outcome was the time from the date of a diagnosis or first treatment of a severe physical health condition to a death by suicide. The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.

The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.

The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.

For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.

The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.

The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.

The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.

The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.

However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.

The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.

Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.

However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.

In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The primary outcome was the time from the date of a diagnosis or first treatment of a severe physical health condition to a death by suicide. The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.

The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.

The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.

For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.

The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.

The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.

The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.

The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.

However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.

The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.

Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.

However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.

In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.

The primary outcome was the time from the date of a diagnosis or first treatment of a severe physical health condition to a death by suicide. The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.

The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.

The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.

For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.

The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.

The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.

The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.

The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.

“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.

However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.

The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.

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