Neurology Reviews

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

The CDC is preparing to update its COVID-19 mask recommendations to emphasize the use of N95 and KN95 masks that better filter the virus, Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, said on Jan. 12.

“We are preparing an update to the info on our mask website to best reflect the options that are available to people and the different levels of protection different masks provide, and we want to provide Americans the best and most updated information to choose what mask is going to be right for them,” she said at a White House news briefing.

While the higher-quality masks provide better protection, they can be uncomfortable to wear, expensive, and harder to find. That’s why Dr. Walensky added an important caveat.

“Any mask is better than no mask, and we do encourage all Americans to wear a well-fitting mask to protect themselves and prevent the spread of COVID-19. That recommendation is not going to change,” she said.

“Most importantly, the best mask that you wear is the one you will wear and the one you can keep on all day long and tolerate in public indoor settings.”

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization was more focused on vaccines.

WHO officials stressed on Jan. 12 that global vaccine distribution is first priority in defeating the highly contagious Omicron variant, as well as other variants that may evolve. 

The WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition – a group of experts assessing how COVID-19 vaccines perform against Omicron and other emerging variants – says there is an “urgent need” for broader access to vaccines, along with reviewing and updating current vaccines as needed to ensure protection. 

The WHO also disputed the idea that COVID-19 could become endemic in one largely vaccinated nation, while the rest of the world remains unprotected. 

“It is up to us how this pandemic unfolds,” Maria Van Kerkhove, PhD, the WHO’s technical lead on COVID-19 response, said at a news briefing. 

The WHO has a goal of vaccinating 70% of the population of every country by the middle of the year.

But right now, 90 countries have yet to reach 40% vaccination rates, and 36 of those countries have less than 10% of their populations vaccinated, according to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD.

A staggering 85% of the African population has not received a first dose.

But progress is being made, Dr. Ghebreyesus said at the briefing. 

The WHO said there were over 15 million COVID-19 cases reported last week – the most ever in a single week – and this is likely an underestimate. 

The Omicron variant, first identified in South Africa 2 months ago and now found on all seven continents, is “rapidly replacing Delta in almost all countries,” Dr. Ghebreyesus said.

Dr. Walensky said this week’s U.S. daily average COVID-19 case count was 751,000, an increase of 47% from last week. The average daily hospital admissions this week is 19,800, an increase of 33%. Deaths are up 40%, reaching 1,600 per day.

But she also reported new data that supports other research showing Omicron may produce less severe disease. Kaiser Permanente Southern California released a study on Jan. 11 showing that, compared with Delta infections, Omicron was associated with a 53% reduction in hospitalizations, a 74% reduction in intensive care unit admissions, and a 91% lower risk of death.

In the study, no patients with Omicron required mechanical ventilation. The strain now accounts for 98% of cases nationwide.

But Dr. Walensky warned the lower disease severity is not enough to make up for the sheer number of cases that continue to overwhelm hospital systems.

“While we are seeing early evidence that Omicron is less severe than Delta and that those infected are less likely to require hospitalization, it’s important to note that Omicron continues to be much more transmissible than Delta,” she said. “The sudden rise in cases due to Omicron is resulting in unprecedented daily case counts, sickness, absenteeism, and strains on our health care system.”

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

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

Urine for a new vaccine alternative

Yep, you read that right: Another vaccine alternative. Urine sounds disgusting, but you’ve got to admit, it’s resourceful at least.

Christopher Key, the leader of a group of antivaxxers known as the “Vaccine Police,” is now claiming that you should do “urine therapy,” when means drinking your own pee to ward off COVID-19. According to My. Key, “tons and tons of research” shows the benefits of drinking urine to fight COVID-19, the Guardian reported.

EM80/Pixabay

Vaccine or beer? You must now choose

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on toward its third year, the large subset of the population who refuse to get vaccinated has proved nearly intractable. Governments have tried numerous incentives to boost vaccination rates, ranging from free beer to million dollar lotteries. Needless to say, beyond their ability to generate LOTME stories, these incentives have been less than effective.

As the frankly unfairly contagious Omicron variant makes it way through the world, our friends in the Great White North have decided enough is enough. If the carrot doesn’t work, the people of Quebec are going to get the stick. Starting on Jan. 18, vaccination cards will be required to enter stores that sell alcohol or cannabis, better known as the things that have gotten us all through this pandemic.

John Margolies/rawpixel

And you know what? Cutting off the booze supply seems to be working. Christian Dubé, Quebec’s health minister, said that the number of vaccination appointments had quadrupled in the new year, rising from 1,500 per day to 6,000 per day, according to the CTV News report. Now, those aren’t massive numbers, but this is big empty Canada we’re talking about, and the unvaccinated make up about 10% of Quebec’s population, so 6,000 a day is quite impressive.

Mr. Dubé added that additional nonessential businesses could be added to the restriction list in the coming weeks, but we’re not sure it’ll be necessary. Those middle-aged soccer moms will do anything to secure their daily merlot. Also, alcohol and cannabis nonessential? The LOTME staff is appalled and offended at this insinuation.

All I need is the polyester that I breathe

When you do laundry, you’re probably thinking more of how to get that ketchup stain out of your white shirt than the effect it has on the environment. Well, research shows it actually has some significance.

monkeybusinessimages / Getty Images

That significance comes in the form of microfibers, which are released from natural fabrics such as cotton and from synthetic fabrics such as polyester, which are also considered to be microplastics.

The microfibers that get released in the water when we wash clothes are filtered out eventually, but the dryer is the real culprit, according to a study in Environmental Science & Technology Letters. We’re talking a discharge of up to 120 million microfiber fragments directly into the air annually from just one dryer!

Dryers, they found, emitted between 1.4-40 times more microfibers than did washing machines in previous studies. And polyester fabrics produced more fragments when load sizes increased, while fragment production from cotton fabrics remained constant.

Recent findings suggest that inhaling these microfibers can cause lung inflammation, increase cancer risk, and induce asthma attacks. The authors of the current study suggested additional filtration should be done on dryer vents to reduce the amount of pollutants emitted into the air.

Who would have thought just drying your sheets could be such a dangerous act?
 

It’s always in the last place you look

At least a million times every morning in this country, a million children yell something like this as they get ready for school: “Mom, have you seen my ...?”

Well, thanks to Defector.com, now we know what Mom should yell back: “Look in your weird cousin Mortimer!”

We will explain ... again.

When they’re not dealing with COVID-19, the folks who work in emergency departments spend a lot of their time removing things that are stuck in people’s bodily orifices. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission even keeps track of them.

Nick Matthews/CC BY-SA 2.0

So if you’re looking for the number 8 button from the TV remote, or maybe a bullet, check Mortimer’s nose. Maybe you’re missing a lollipop, a hairpin, or some espresso beans. Mortimer’s friend Beulah might have put them in her ear.

Has an earbud gone missing? Another friend of Mortimer’s went to the ED with something stuck in his throat and said that he had a “pill in one hand and his earbud in the other hand, got distracted and took the earbud instead.” Yes, that is an actual quote (via Defector) from the CPSC database.

What about that old saying that someone’s lost his marbles? Well, the ED found one of Mortimer’s marbles ... in his penis. Also a spork, and a bread twist tie, and a chopstick. No, not all at the same time. As for Beulah, a barbell and a Spider-Man action figure somehow found their way – not at the same time, thank goodness – into her vagina.

And have you ever heard someone say that they’re “not going to stand for this”? Mortimer has, so he sat down ... on a light bulb, and a rolling pin, and a billiard ball. Yup, the ED had to remove these items from his rectum.

But not all at the same time, thank goodness.

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

People who build up high levels of immune cells from coronaviruses that cause the common cold could have some protection against COVID-19, according to a small study published Jan. 10 in Nature Communications.

Previous studies have shown that T cells created from other coronaviruses can recognize SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. In the new study, researchers at Imperial College London found that the presence of these T cells at the time of COVID-19 exposure could reduce the chance of getting infected.

The findings could provide a blueprint for a second-generation, universal vaccine to prevent infection from COVID-19 variants, including Omicron and ones that crop up later.

“Being exposed to SARS-CoV-2 virus doesn’t always result in infection, and we’ve been keen to understand why,” Rhia Kundu, PhD, the lead study author from Imperial’s National Heart and Lung Institute, said in a statement.

People with higher levels of T cells from the common cold were less likely to become infected with COVID-19, the researchers found.

“While this is an important discovery, it is only one form of protection, and I would stress that no one should rely on this alone,” Dr. Kundu said. “Instead, the best way to protect yourself against COVID-19 is to be fully vaccinated, including getting your booster dose.”

For the study, Dr. Kundu and colleagues analyzed blood samples from 52 people who lived with someone with confirmed COVID-19 in September 2020. Among the 26 people who didn’t contract COVID-19, there were “significantly higher levels” of preexisting T cells from common cold coronaviruses, as compared with the 26 people who did become infected.

The T cells researched in the study are considered “cross-reactive” and can recognize the proteins of SARS-CoV-2. They offer protection by targeting proteins inside the SARS-CoV-2 virus, rather than the spike proteins on the surface that allow the virus to invade cells.

The current COVID-19 vaccines target the spike proteins, which are more likely to mutate than internal proteins, the researchers wrote. The Omicron variant, for instance, has numerous mutations on spike proteins that may allow it to evade vaccines.

The data suggest that the next step of COVID-19 vaccine development could focus on internal proteins, the researchers said, which could provide lasting protection because T-cell responses persist longer than antibody responses that fade within a few months of vaccination.

“New vaccines that include these conserved, internal proteins would therefore induce broadly protective T-cell responses that should protect against current and future SARS-CoV-2 variants,” Ajit Lalvani, MD, the senior study author and director of Imperial’s respiratory infections health protection research unit, said in the statement.

But more research is needed, the authors said, noting that the study had a small sample size and lacked ethnic diversity, which puts limits on the research.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Doctors providing “fraudulent” COVID-19 information became a hot-button issue for physicians responding to Medscape’s recent article, "Shouldn’t Doctors Who Spread False COVID-19 Information Lose Their Licenses?”

COVID-19 safety recommendations are set by mainstream medical organizations as new information becomes available, but some doctors consistently oppose advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. These physicians often promote off-label, unapproved use of medications for COVID-19 and/or contradict mainstream safety guidelines such as vaccines, masks, and social distancing.

Some medical organizations are concerned that these doctors are hampering efforts to control the highly contagious coronavirus and are, at worst, placing lives in danger with their contrarian views that can spread like wildfire on social media sites. Their words are often used by those who refuse to be vaccinated or wear masks.

State licensing boards have mostly refused to discipline these doctors for making false and/or misleading claims, but as the virus spreads, there are calls to take action against them. However, others worry that such actions would violate free speech and critical thought.

Medscape recently took on the question of whether doctors should lose their licenses for spreading misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19, which spurred a strong response from clinician readers.
 

Yes, those doctors are doing wrong

Several physicians took a strong stand against their fellow doctors who are spreading misinformation about COVID-19.

One doctor endorsed the idea of removing licenses for spreading misinformation and called for criminal prosecution: “It should certainly be grounds for cancellation of all licensing (after appropriate examination to rule out acute psychotic episodes, dementia, tumor, etc.) and very likely [include] a charge of manslaughter.”

Another health care provider said, “A person who does not accept science should not, of course, be allowed to practice medicine. One who argues publicly that vaccines and masks don’t work should be prosecuted for crimes ranging from reckless endangerment to attempted murder.”

One reader framed COVID-19 misinformers in stark terms: “These men and women are medical prostitutes. Their medical and surgical colleges [should] have a panel to track in-court testimony and the disinformation they spread ...”

“This is malpractice of the worst kind,” said a clinician. “Public health officials and science are quite clear on [the] best practices for safety during a pandemic, which is killing millions. This is a standard of care.”

“Medical Boards should suspend licenses and give the physician a chance to testify [about] the scientific basis for his comments,” added a health care provider. “Boards involve themselves in all kinds of perceived disciplinary infractions. We are in the midst of a lethal pandemic. I would think that would take precedence over many other issues?”

“I do believe that physicians have the responsibility to speak the truth and have scientifically displayed minds,” said a reader. “Not [to] promulgate misleading, false, and/or unverified information.”

“Any physician, who holds a license, should abide [by] government and state regulation,” asserted a doctor. “He should be disciplined by the board for spreading medical/public misinformation since he is creating potential harm to the population.”

One specialist insisted that “state boards do not do enough to restrict/limit the practice of physicians touting questionable therapies.”

“Any doctor who spreads false information about Covid is hurting our country, our individuals, and our economy and leading to needless deaths,” asserted a physician. “However, there are uncertainties, and where those exist, physicians [should] simply say ‘it is unknown.’”
 

No, those physicians have a right to speak their beliefs

However, many physicians worried that science and controversial thought were being muzzled.

“Absolutely no,” a doctor stated. “Who judges what is misinformation in this age where debate is canceled? Science advances with challenge, and it’s not about an authority dictating the allowable opinion.”

Another clinician claimed the “truth is very difficult to discern from less-than-truth in a country running on a profit-oriented economic ideology.”

One specialist warned that if disinformation doctors are held responsible, then “that means a lot of doctors” will be “gone” because “almost anything that is written or said about COVID can be contested.”

Another physician warned his colleagues about suppressing new ideas: “To condemn what we didn’t try, or purposefully ignore a different approach because [it] doesn’t agree with our opinion is suppression of information.”

Some doctors insisted the issue extended beyond medicine and into Constitutional freedoms. They also expressed their mistrust in the government to regulate physicians.

“There is a First Amendment in this country,” said one reader. “What you think is false may not be so. The people can listen to whoever they want to and make their own medical decisions. We do not need one iota more of politicizing medicine. Having an MD or DO does not mean you relinquish your First Amendment rights.”

“One of the fundamental problems with a system that allows government to ‘license’ physicians, or any other profession, is that politics inevitably turn to cronyism, and big businesses and wealthy people start controlling the government,” argued a doctor.

One clinician suggested enforcement against health food, drug company commercials, and talk shows: “What about all the [misinformation] at the health food stores and the like. Doctors of natural-whatever? Those info-commercials on tv. How many faxes do I get to ‘approve’ because ‘patients request’ braces and pain-treating expensive compounds advertised on TV? We tolerate those ... What about Dr. Oz and the docs on talk shows claiming BS?”
 

And the debate goes even further

Some physicians questioned the very notion of claiming “truth.”

“Nobody should be certain that they have the ‘absolute truth,’” said one reader. “In fact, the best clinical insights exceed so-called knowledge by at least one step.”

“Who can determine exactly what is truth?” asked another clinician. “For sure, the ‘Federal Government,’ who ‘is here to help you,’ is not qualified to make such determinations, and who are you to make such a suggestion as to remove someone’s license because they disagree with you? Give me a break!”

Another physician echoed that sentiment: “What’s true and false is often and certainly currently debatable. There are well-qualified physicians (with credentials such as the development of mRNA technology), virologists, and biostatisticians that have valid thoughts on this but do not necessarily agree with the drug company-sponsored journals and news channels (most of them). Their voices should be heard, and they should not lose their licenses. They are doing their work in good conscience.”

One reader commented that he wanted his “freedom of speech,” and offered this defiant advice: “You can take this license and shove it.”

Finally, a physician noted that the political climate has influenced medical directives: “If someone in a leadership role knowingly, and with intent, spread false information, that is wrong. However, during this global pandemic the active and the politics have combined. Red state no mandate, blue state mandate – what does that tell you about American leadership?”

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

Medicare intends to limit coverage of the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) via a special program intended to help assess how well this exorbitantly expensive medication works, federal officials announced Jan. 11.

On Dec. 20, 2021, Biogen announced a plan to reduce the annual U.S. cost of the drug by 50% – from $56,000 to $28,200 – as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials were deciding on Medicare’s coverage policy for the medication.

In making its proposed coverage decision, the CMS announced it will pay for aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, under its coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) mechanism. In making its decision, the CMS approached aducanumab as the first of a potential new class of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs in this class would be covered for those with Medicare only if they are enrolled in qualifying clinical trials, the CMS said. The agency will accept public comments on this decision for 30 days.  

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “committed to providing the American public with a clear, trusted, evidence-based decision that is made only after a thorough analysis of public feedback on the benefits and risks of coverage for Medicare patients.”

As previously reported, the FDA approved aducanumab on June 7, 2021, via an accelerated approval process. The approval, which set off a firestorm of controversy that included resignations of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee panel members, was granted based on the medication’s ability to reduce beta-amyloid plaque.

Under the accelerated approval mechanism, Biogen still must deliver solid scientific proof that aducanumab has clinically significant disease-modifying effects. However, the final evidence won’t be in any time soon. In its approval letter, the FDA set a 2030 deadline for a final report on this research.

 

‘Unusual but appropriate’ step

The Medicare decision marks something of a shift in the agency’s approach to paying for medications. On a call with reporters, Tamara Syrek Jensen, JD, director of CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group, admitted that the agency had taken an “unusual but appropriate” step in trying to set a national policy regarding payment for a drug.

On the same call, Lee Fleisher, MD, CMS’ chief medical officer, addressed the challenges presented by aducanumab, given the serious need for treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. “As a practicing physician, I cannot overemphasize the need to understand the risks and benefits of a given treatment in order to better inform patients and their families,” Dr. Fleisher said. “We do know based on some of the evidence that there may be potential promise with this treatment. That’s why it is critical for us to pursue additional scientific evidence.”

The coverage-with-evidence program will allow Medicare to aid in gathering data, while protecting patients, Dr. Fleisher noted.

“CMS is using its authority provided by Congress to determine if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary, meaning that the benefits of improvement of cognition outweigh the harms in the Medicare population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
 

Biogen disappointed

Cambridge, Mass.–based Biogen urged the CMS to reconsider its approach to payment for aducanumab. In a statement, the company said Medicare should cover “the class of amyloid-directed therapies with the populations studied in the respective clinical trials and guided by expert recommendations for appropriate use.

“We believe Alzheimer’s patients should have access consistent with other therapies with FDA accelerated approval,” Biogen said in the release.

In the company’s view, the CED approach will “significantly limit patient access to an FDA-approved treatment, especially for underserved patients as evidenced in other CED determinations.

“CEDs can take months to years to initiate, and hundreds of Alzheimer’s patients – the majority of whom are Medicare beneficiaries – are progressing each day from mild to moderate disease stages, where treatment may no longer be an option,” Biogen said.

Drug makers had been worried about CMS opting for CED even before the draft decision was unveiled.
 

Others weigh in

BIO, the trade group for biotechnology companies, urged the CMS to provide access to aducanumab without excess restrictions.

There already are concerns among drug makers about CMS efforts “to impose new coverage barriers – and, in particular, coverage with evidence development,” Crystal Kuntz, vice president of policy and research at BIO, and Andy Cosgrove, the organization’s senior director for policy and research, noted in a July 2021 comment about the aducanumab review.

Medicare should instead continue to provide access to medicines for indications that the FDA has approved, with additional flexibility for off-label indications of cancer drugs, they noted. “We believe this should continue to be the case, to ensure that vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries have necessary access to life-altering and lifesaving medications,” the BIO officials wrote.

However, the CMS also received many pleas from physicians asking the agency to limit use of aducanumab at least until there is evidence that it produces a significant clinical benefit.

In a press release, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, applauded the decision, describing it as “the right call.

“This decision supports conducting additional clinical trials, which are needed to obtain further insights into the clinical efficacy and safety profile of this drug in real-world populations. This decision has implications for other drugs in this class in late-stage development. If these trials show more clear and robust clinical efficacy, then it is possible the FDA will give these amyloid monoclonal antibodies full approval, and Medicare would be likely to provide full payment,” he added.

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

Medicare intends to limit coverage of the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) via a special program intended to help assess how well this exorbitantly expensive medication works, federal officials announced Jan. 11.

On Dec. 20, 2021, Biogen announced a plan to reduce the annual U.S. cost of the drug by 50% – from $56,000 to $28,200 – as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials were deciding on Medicare’s coverage policy for the medication.

In making its proposed coverage decision, the CMS announced it will pay for aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, under its coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) mechanism. In making its decision, the CMS approached aducanumab as the first of a potential new class of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs in this class would be covered for those with Medicare only if they are enrolled in qualifying clinical trials, the CMS said. The agency will accept public comments on this decision for 30 days.  

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “committed to providing the American public with a clear, trusted, evidence-based decision that is made only after a thorough analysis of public feedback on the benefits and risks of coverage for Medicare patients.”

As previously reported, the FDA approved aducanumab on June 7, 2021, via an accelerated approval process. The approval, which set off a firestorm of controversy that included resignations of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee panel members, was granted based on the medication’s ability to reduce beta-amyloid plaque.

Under the accelerated approval mechanism, Biogen still must deliver solid scientific proof that aducanumab has clinically significant disease-modifying effects. However, the final evidence won’t be in any time soon. In its approval letter, the FDA set a 2030 deadline for a final report on this research.

 

‘Unusual but appropriate’ step

The Medicare decision marks something of a shift in the agency’s approach to paying for medications. On a call with reporters, Tamara Syrek Jensen, JD, director of CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group, admitted that the agency had taken an “unusual but appropriate” step in trying to set a national policy regarding payment for a drug.

On the same call, Lee Fleisher, MD, CMS’ chief medical officer, addressed the challenges presented by aducanumab, given the serious need for treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. “As a practicing physician, I cannot overemphasize the need to understand the risks and benefits of a given treatment in order to better inform patients and their families,” Dr. Fleisher said. “We do know based on some of the evidence that there may be potential promise with this treatment. That’s why it is critical for us to pursue additional scientific evidence.”

The coverage-with-evidence program will allow Medicare to aid in gathering data, while protecting patients, Dr. Fleisher noted.

“CMS is using its authority provided by Congress to determine if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary, meaning that the benefits of improvement of cognition outweigh the harms in the Medicare population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
 

Biogen disappointed

Cambridge, Mass.–based Biogen urged the CMS to reconsider its approach to payment for aducanumab. In a statement, the company said Medicare should cover “the class of amyloid-directed therapies with the populations studied in the respective clinical trials and guided by expert recommendations for appropriate use.

“We believe Alzheimer’s patients should have access consistent with other therapies with FDA accelerated approval,” Biogen said in the release.

In the company’s view, the CED approach will “significantly limit patient access to an FDA-approved treatment, especially for underserved patients as evidenced in other CED determinations.

“CEDs can take months to years to initiate, and hundreds of Alzheimer’s patients – the majority of whom are Medicare beneficiaries – are progressing each day from mild to moderate disease stages, where treatment may no longer be an option,” Biogen said.

Drug makers had been worried about CMS opting for CED even before the draft decision was unveiled.
 

Others weigh in

BIO, the trade group for biotechnology companies, urged the CMS to provide access to aducanumab without excess restrictions.

There already are concerns among drug makers about CMS efforts “to impose new coverage barriers – and, in particular, coverage with evidence development,” Crystal Kuntz, vice president of policy and research at BIO, and Andy Cosgrove, the organization’s senior director for policy and research, noted in a July 2021 comment about the aducanumab review.

Medicare should instead continue to provide access to medicines for indications that the FDA has approved, with additional flexibility for off-label indications of cancer drugs, they noted. “We believe this should continue to be the case, to ensure that vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries have necessary access to life-altering and lifesaving medications,” the BIO officials wrote.

However, the CMS also received many pleas from physicians asking the agency to limit use of aducanumab at least until there is evidence that it produces a significant clinical benefit.

In a press release, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, applauded the decision, describing it as “the right call.

“This decision supports conducting additional clinical trials, which are needed to obtain further insights into the clinical efficacy and safety profile of this drug in real-world populations. This decision has implications for other drugs in this class in late-stage development. If these trials show more clear and robust clinical efficacy, then it is possible the FDA will give these amyloid monoclonal antibodies full approval, and Medicare would be likely to provide full payment,” he added.

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

Medicare intends to limit coverage of the controversial Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) via a special program intended to help assess how well this exorbitantly expensive medication works, federal officials announced Jan. 11.

On Dec. 20, 2021, Biogen announced a plan to reduce the annual U.S. cost of the drug by 50% – from $56,000 to $28,200 – as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services officials were deciding on Medicare’s coverage policy for the medication.

In making its proposed coverage decision, the CMS announced it will pay for aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody, under its coverage-with-evidence-development (CED) mechanism. In making its decision, the CMS approached aducanumab as the first of a potential new class of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs in this class would be covered for those with Medicare only if they are enrolled in qualifying clinical trials, the CMS said. The agency will accept public comments on this decision for 30 days.  

In a statement, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure said the agency is “committed to providing the American public with a clear, trusted, evidence-based decision that is made only after a thorough analysis of public feedback on the benefits and risks of coverage for Medicare patients.”

As previously reported, the FDA approved aducanumab on June 7, 2021, via an accelerated approval process. The approval, which set off a firestorm of controversy that included resignations of three FDA Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee panel members, was granted based on the medication’s ability to reduce beta-amyloid plaque.

Under the accelerated approval mechanism, Biogen still must deliver solid scientific proof that aducanumab has clinically significant disease-modifying effects. However, the final evidence won’t be in any time soon. In its approval letter, the FDA set a 2030 deadline for a final report on this research.

 

‘Unusual but appropriate’ step

The Medicare decision marks something of a shift in the agency’s approach to paying for medications. On a call with reporters, Tamara Syrek Jensen, JD, director of CMS’ Coverage and Analysis Group, admitted that the agency had taken an “unusual but appropriate” step in trying to set a national policy regarding payment for a drug.

On the same call, Lee Fleisher, MD, CMS’ chief medical officer, addressed the challenges presented by aducanumab, given the serious need for treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. “As a practicing physician, I cannot overemphasize the need to understand the risks and benefits of a given treatment in order to better inform patients and their families,” Dr. Fleisher said. “We do know based on some of the evidence that there may be potential promise with this treatment. That’s why it is critical for us to pursue additional scientific evidence.”

The coverage-with-evidence program will allow Medicare to aid in gathering data, while protecting patients, Dr. Fleisher noted.

“CMS is using its authority provided by Congress to determine if the drug is considered reasonable and necessary, meaning that the benefits of improvement of cognition outweigh the harms in the Medicare population,” Dr. Fleisher said.
 

Biogen disappointed

Cambridge, Mass.–based Biogen urged the CMS to reconsider its approach to payment for aducanumab. In a statement, the company said Medicare should cover “the class of amyloid-directed therapies with the populations studied in the respective clinical trials and guided by expert recommendations for appropriate use.

“We believe Alzheimer’s patients should have access consistent with other therapies with FDA accelerated approval,” Biogen said in the release.

In the company’s view, the CED approach will “significantly limit patient access to an FDA-approved treatment, especially for underserved patients as evidenced in other CED determinations.

“CEDs can take months to years to initiate, and hundreds of Alzheimer’s patients – the majority of whom are Medicare beneficiaries – are progressing each day from mild to moderate disease stages, where treatment may no longer be an option,” Biogen said.

Drug makers had been worried about CMS opting for CED even before the draft decision was unveiled.
 

Others weigh in

BIO, the trade group for biotechnology companies, urged the CMS to provide access to aducanumab without excess restrictions.

There already are concerns among drug makers about CMS efforts “to impose new coverage barriers – and, in particular, coverage with evidence development,” Crystal Kuntz, vice president of policy and research at BIO, and Andy Cosgrove, the organization’s senior director for policy and research, noted in a July 2021 comment about the aducanumab review.

Medicare should instead continue to provide access to medicines for indications that the FDA has approved, with additional flexibility for off-label indications of cancer drugs, they noted. “We believe this should continue to be the case, to ensure that vulnerable Medicare beneficiaries have necessary access to life-altering and lifesaving medications,” the BIO officials wrote.

However, the CMS also received many pleas from physicians asking the agency to limit use of aducanumab at least until there is evidence that it produces a significant clinical benefit.

In a press release, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, applauded the decision, describing it as “the right call.

“This decision supports conducting additional clinical trials, which are needed to obtain further insights into the clinical efficacy and safety profile of this drug in real-world populations. This decision has implications for other drugs in this class in late-stage development. If these trials show more clear and robust clinical efficacy, then it is possible the FDA will give these amyloid monoclonal antibodies full approval, and Medicare would be likely to provide full payment,” he added.

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

An estimated 50% of children with atopic dermatitis (AD) struggle with sleep problems, with complaints that vary from sleep fragmentation to restlessness and limb movements, according to Stephen H. Sheldon, DO.

“They wake up frequently,” Dr. Sheldon, professor of pediatrics and neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “They may not stay up for long periods of time, but they move about often. There’s a loss of about 50 minutes of sleep per night in children with AD. This loss can result in significant sleep debt the following day. They have difficulty settling at night. Once they get into bed, they have difficulty falling asleep, and many of them have difficulty staying asleep.”

At the sleep medicine center at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, he and his colleagues have observed that some children with AD complain of difficulty with limb movements. “Part of the issue has been that they have been diagnosed with different sleep-related disorders, such as period limb movement disorder, restless leg syndrome, and growing pain,” Dr. Sheldon said. “Often, they do not know how to describe the manifestations of their leg discomfort in restless leg syndrome and period limb movement disorder and limb movements of sleep.”

Children who complain of growing pains say that their legs hurt, he continued. Sometimes they’ll say that they feel like spiders are crawling on their legs, or that their legs itch, but they often say they have pain in their legs that wakes them up and keeps them from keeping their legs still.

According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, periodic limb movement disorder of sleep is characterized by frequent limb movements that last at least 0.5 seconds and are separated by no more than 90 seconds. “They’re four movements in a row that are at least 5 seconds apart,” Dr. Sheldon said.

Interestingly, he added, children who have limb movement disorder have symptoms during the day, similar to adults. “But we see many children with periodic limb movements of sleep whose arms and legs are moving all night, and they don’t have many symptoms during the day.” These children may have difficulty falling or staying asleep, but do not fulfill all of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria for diagnosis of periodic limb movement disorder, he added.

In 2018, Lourdes M. DelRosso, MD, EdD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described a new sleep problem they termed restless sleep disorder: those who do not fit the criteria for any other sleep disorder but have daytime impairment.

“On video they have very frequent movements – more than five movements an hour of major body activity,” Dr. Sheldon explained. “They’ll move their trunk, their legs, and reposition themselves. We have found that there are many children who presented to the sleep disorder center with restless sleep, limb movement disorder, periodic limb movements of sleep, and daytime symptoms that would fulfill the criteria of periodic limb movement disorder but also have atopic dermatitis.”

Recently, Dr. Sheldon and his colleagues used polysomnographic variables to study children who presented to Lurie Children’s Hospital with AD and symptoms such as difficulty maintaining sleep and snoring with allergic rhinitis. They found that there were increased periods of being awake after the onset of sleep, “meaning the children fell asleep fairly easily in the beginning of the night but they had significant wake after they fell asleep,” he said. “They would wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for long periods of time – either one long session or multiple shorter sessions throughout the night. They had increased total limb movements per hour of sleep. This means that their limb movements were greater than five events per hour of sleep and it resulted in restless sleep and limb movements that would fulfill the criteria of periodic limb movement disorder.”

Most of these children had mild to moderate AD, he continued. “We feel that the sensory afferent loop in these youngsters doesn’t really turn off completely when they’re asleep. This is ripe for further study, but it makes intuitive sense that if the sensory afferent loop continues during sleep, it may affect the arousal system significantly.”

Dr. Sheldon recommended that any child who presents with a diagnosis of periodic limb movement disorder, periodic limb movements of sleep, or restless sleep disorder should be evaluated for AD. “The treatment then, would first require differentiation between periodic limb movement disorder of sleep and AD. Both should be addressed at the same time in order to solve the child’s daytime AD problem as well as the sleep-related issues that occur with an AD diagnosis.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

An estimated 50% of children with atopic dermatitis (AD) struggle with sleep problems, with complaints that vary from sleep fragmentation to restlessness and limb movements, according to Stephen H. Sheldon, DO.

“They wake up frequently,” Dr. Sheldon, professor of pediatrics and neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “They may not stay up for long periods of time, but they move about often. There’s a loss of about 50 minutes of sleep per night in children with AD. This loss can result in significant sleep debt the following day. They have difficulty settling at night. Once they get into bed, they have difficulty falling asleep, and many of them have difficulty staying asleep.”

At the sleep medicine center at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, he and his colleagues have observed that some children with AD complain of difficulty with limb movements. “Part of the issue has been that they have been diagnosed with different sleep-related disorders, such as period limb movement disorder, restless leg syndrome, and growing pain,” Dr. Sheldon said. “Often, they do not know how to describe the manifestations of their leg discomfort in restless leg syndrome and period limb movement disorder and limb movements of sleep.”

Children who complain of growing pains say that their legs hurt, he continued. Sometimes they’ll say that they feel like spiders are crawling on their legs, or that their legs itch, but they often say they have pain in their legs that wakes them up and keeps them from keeping their legs still.

According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, periodic limb movement disorder of sleep is characterized by frequent limb movements that last at least 0.5 seconds and are separated by no more than 90 seconds. “They’re four movements in a row that are at least 5 seconds apart,” Dr. Sheldon said.

Interestingly, he added, children who have limb movement disorder have symptoms during the day, similar to adults. “But we see many children with periodic limb movements of sleep whose arms and legs are moving all night, and they don’t have many symptoms during the day.” These children may have difficulty falling or staying asleep, but do not fulfill all of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria for diagnosis of periodic limb movement disorder, he added.

In 2018, Lourdes M. DelRosso, MD, EdD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described a new sleep problem they termed restless sleep disorder: those who do not fit the criteria for any other sleep disorder but have daytime impairment.

“On video they have very frequent movements – more than five movements an hour of major body activity,” Dr. Sheldon explained. “They’ll move their trunk, their legs, and reposition themselves. We have found that there are many children who presented to the sleep disorder center with restless sleep, limb movement disorder, periodic limb movements of sleep, and daytime symptoms that would fulfill the criteria of periodic limb movement disorder but also have atopic dermatitis.”

Recently, Dr. Sheldon and his colleagues used polysomnographic variables to study children who presented to Lurie Children’s Hospital with AD and symptoms such as difficulty maintaining sleep and snoring with allergic rhinitis. They found that there were increased periods of being awake after the onset of sleep, “meaning the children fell asleep fairly easily in the beginning of the night but they had significant wake after they fell asleep,” he said. “They would wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for long periods of time – either one long session or multiple shorter sessions throughout the night. They had increased total limb movements per hour of sleep. This means that their limb movements were greater than five events per hour of sleep and it resulted in restless sleep and limb movements that would fulfill the criteria of periodic limb movement disorder.”

Most of these children had mild to moderate AD, he continued. “We feel that the sensory afferent loop in these youngsters doesn’t really turn off completely when they’re asleep. This is ripe for further study, but it makes intuitive sense that if the sensory afferent loop continues during sleep, it may affect the arousal system significantly.”

Dr. Sheldon recommended that any child who presents with a diagnosis of periodic limb movement disorder, periodic limb movements of sleep, or restless sleep disorder should be evaluated for AD. “The treatment then, would first require differentiation between periodic limb movement disorder of sleep and AD. Both should be addressed at the same time in order to solve the child’s daytime AD problem as well as the sleep-related issues that occur with an AD diagnosis.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

An estimated 50% of children with atopic dermatitis (AD) struggle with sleep problems, with complaints that vary from sleep fragmentation to restlessness and limb movements, according to Stephen H. Sheldon, DO.

“They wake up frequently,” Dr. Sheldon, professor of pediatrics and neurology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium. “They may not stay up for long periods of time, but they move about often. There’s a loss of about 50 minutes of sleep per night in children with AD. This loss can result in significant sleep debt the following day. They have difficulty settling at night. Once they get into bed, they have difficulty falling asleep, and many of them have difficulty staying asleep.”

At the sleep medicine center at Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, he and his colleagues have observed that some children with AD complain of difficulty with limb movements. “Part of the issue has been that they have been diagnosed with different sleep-related disorders, such as period limb movement disorder, restless leg syndrome, and growing pain,” Dr. Sheldon said. “Often, they do not know how to describe the manifestations of their leg discomfort in restless leg syndrome and period limb movement disorder and limb movements of sleep.”

Children who complain of growing pains say that their legs hurt, he continued. Sometimes they’ll say that they feel like spiders are crawling on their legs, or that their legs itch, but they often say they have pain in their legs that wakes them up and keeps them from keeping their legs still.

According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, periodic limb movement disorder of sleep is characterized by frequent limb movements that last at least 0.5 seconds and are separated by no more than 90 seconds. “They’re four movements in a row that are at least 5 seconds apart,” Dr. Sheldon said.

Interestingly, he added, children who have limb movement disorder have symptoms during the day, similar to adults. “But we see many children with periodic limb movements of sleep whose arms and legs are moving all night, and they don’t have many symptoms during the day.” These children may have difficulty falling or staying asleep, but do not fulfill all of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine criteria for diagnosis of periodic limb movement disorder, he added.

In 2018, Lourdes M. DelRosso, MD, EdD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, and colleagues described a new sleep problem they termed restless sleep disorder: those who do not fit the criteria for any other sleep disorder but have daytime impairment.

“On video they have very frequent movements – more than five movements an hour of major body activity,” Dr. Sheldon explained. “They’ll move their trunk, their legs, and reposition themselves. We have found that there are many children who presented to the sleep disorder center with restless sleep, limb movement disorder, periodic limb movements of sleep, and daytime symptoms that would fulfill the criteria of periodic limb movement disorder but also have atopic dermatitis.”

Recently, Dr. Sheldon and his colleagues used polysomnographic variables to study children who presented to Lurie Children’s Hospital with AD and symptoms such as difficulty maintaining sleep and snoring with allergic rhinitis. They found that there were increased periods of being awake after the onset of sleep, “meaning the children fell asleep fairly easily in the beginning of the night but they had significant wake after they fell asleep,” he said. “They would wake up in the middle of the night and stay awake for long periods of time – either one long session or multiple shorter sessions throughout the night. They had increased total limb movements per hour of sleep. This means that their limb movements were greater than five events per hour of sleep and it resulted in restless sleep and limb movements that would fulfill the criteria of periodic limb movement disorder.”

Most of these children had mild to moderate AD, he continued. “We feel that the sensory afferent loop in these youngsters doesn’t really turn off completely when they’re asleep. This is ripe for further study, but it makes intuitive sense that if the sensory afferent loop continues during sleep, it may affect the arousal system significantly.”

Dr. Sheldon recommended that any child who presents with a diagnosis of periodic limb movement disorder, periodic limb movements of sleep, or restless sleep disorder should be evaluated for AD. “The treatment then, would first require differentiation between periodic limb movement disorder of sleep and AD. Both should be addressed at the same time in order to solve the child’s daytime AD problem as well as the sleep-related issues that occur with an AD diagnosis.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The United States reported 1.35 million new COVID-19 cases on Jan. 10, logging the highest daily total for any country in the world during the pandemic.

The United States set the previous record of 1 million cases on Jan. 3. (A large number of cases are reported on Mondays, since many states don’t provide updates over the weekend, according to Reuters.)

Still, the 7-day average for new cases has surpassed 700,000, tripling in 2 weeks as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread across the country.

The daily record of new cases came a day after the United States crossed the grim milestone of 60 million COVID-19 cases during the pandemic, according to the latest data from Johns Hopkins University. More than 11 million new cases were reported in the past 28 days, with 5 million reported since Jan. 2.

Globally, more than 310 million cases have been reported, resulting in nearly 5.5 million COVID-19 deaths. Almost 40 million cases have been confirmed worldwide during the past month, with the United States accounting for 28% of those.

Texas became the second state to report more than 5 million cases since the pandemic began, behind California’s total of 6 million cases. Florida has reported more than 4.6 million, while New York has reported more than 4.1 million.

The United States has also hit an all-time high for hospitalizations, with nearly 146,000 COVID-19 patients in hospitals across the country, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The previous record was 142,000 hospitalizations in January 2021.

Jan. 11’s hospitalizations are more than twice as many as 2 weeks ago, according to CNN. About 78% of inpatient beds are in use nationwide, and 21% are being used for COVID-19 patients.

Deaths are averaging about 1,700 per day, Reuters reported, which is up from 1,400 in recent days but not much higher than earlier this winter. The peak average was 3,400 daily deaths in mid-January 2021.

The surging numbers of cases and hospitalizations across the country are straining hospitals. On Jan. 10, Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam declared a state of emergency after the number of intensive care unit hospitalizations more than doubled since Dec. 1, CNN reported. The order allows hospitals to expand bed capacity, use telehealth options, and be more flexible with staffing.

Texas is hiring at least 2,700 medical staff to help with the surge, CNN reported, and Kentucky has mobilized the National Guard to provide support.

“Omicron continues to burn through the commonwealth, growing at levels we have never seen before. Omicron is significantly more contagious than even the Delta variant,” Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said during a news briefing Jan. 10.

Kentucky reported its highest weekly total of cases last week and has its highest rate of positive tests, at 26%. Mr. Beshear said the state is down to 134 available adult ICU beds.

“If it spreads at the rate we are seeing, it is certainly going to fill up our hospitals,” he said.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The number of individuals older than 40 with dementia will nearly triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taken to address risk factors, new research suggests.

Results from a study of 195 countries and territories estimates that by 2050, 153 million people are expected to have dementia worldwide – up from 57 million in 2019. In the United States, the number is expected to increase 100%, from an estimated 5.3 million in 2019 to 10.5 million in 2050.

The increase is largely driven by population growth and population aging, but researchers noted that expanding access to education and addressing risk factors such as obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking could blunt the rise in cases.

The study predicts increases in dementia in every country included in the analysis. The sharpest rise is expected in north Africa and the Middle East (367%) and sub-Saharan Africa (357%). The smallest increases will be in high-income countries in Asia Pacific (53%) and western Europe (74%).

Although the United States had the 37th lowest percentage increase across all countries considered, “this expected increase is still large and requires attention from policy and decision-makers,” said coinvestigator Emma Nichols, MPH, a researcher with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle.

The findings were published online Jan. 6, 2022, in The Lancet Public Health (doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667[21]00249-8).
 

Dementia prevalence

For the study, researchers used country-specific estimates of dementia prevalence from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 study to project dementia prevalence globally, by world region, and at the country level.

They also used information on projected trends in four important dementia risk factors (high body mass index, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and education) to estimate how changes in these risk factors might impact dementia prevalence between 2019 and 2050.

Despite large increases in the projected number of people living with dementia, age-standardized both-sex prevalence remained stable between 2019 and 2050, with a global percentage change of 0.1% (95% uncertainty interval, –7.5 to 10.8).

Dementia prevalence was higher in women than in men and increased with age, doubling about every 5 years until 85 years of age in both 2019 and 2050 (female-to-male ratio, 1.67; 95% UI, 1.52-1.85).

Projected increases in cases could largely be attributed to population growth and population aging, although their relative importance varied by world region. Population growth contributed most to the increases in sub-Saharan Africa and population aging contributed most to the increases in east Asia.

The countries with the highest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were: Qatar (1,926%), United Arab Emirates (1,795%), Bahrain (1,084%), Oman (943%), Saudi Arabia (898%), Kuwait (850%), Iraq (559%), Maldives (554%), Jordan (522%), and Equatorial Guinea (498%).

The countries with the lowest expected percentage change in total number of dementia cases between 2019 and 2050 were Japan (27%), Bulgaria (37%), Serbia (38%), Lithuania (44%), Greece (45%), Latvia (47%), Croatia (55%), Ukraine (55%), Italy (56%), and Finland (58%).
 

Modifiable risk factors

Researchers also calculated how changes in risk factors might affect dementia prevalence. They found that improvements in global education access would reduce dementia prevalence by an estimated 6.2 million cases worldwide by 2050. However, that decrease would be offset by expected increases in obesity, high blood sugar, and smoking, which investigators estimate will result in an additional 6.8 million dementia cases.

The projections are based on expected trends in population aging, population growth, and risk factor trajectories, but “projections could change if effective interventions for modifiable risk factors are developed and deployed,” Ms. Nichols said.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care issued an update of its 2017 report, identifying 12 modifiable risk factors that could delay or prevent 40% of dementia cases. The risk factors were low education, hypertension, hearing impairment, smoking, midlife obesity, depression, physical inactivity, diabetes, social isolation, excessive alcohol consumption, head injury, and air pollution.

“Countries, including the U.S., should look to develop effective interventions for modifiable risk factors, but also should invest in the resources needed to support those with dementia and their caregivers,” Ms. Nichols said. She added that additional support for research and resources to develop therapeutic interventions is also warranted.
 

Oversimplifying mechanisms?

In an accompanying commentary, Michaël Schwarzinger, MD, and Carole Dufouil, PhD, of Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, noted that the authors’ efforts to build on GBD 2019 oversimplify the underlying mechanisms that cause dementia. The authors “provide somehow apocalyptic projections that do not factor in advisable changes in lifestyle over the lifetime,” they wrote.

“There is a considerable and urgent need to reinforce a public health approach towards dementia to better inform the people and decision-makers about the appropriate means to delay or avoid these dire projections,” the editorialists added.

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures. Ms. Nichols and the editorialists disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

During my usual 2 weeks off over the holidays I did my usual stuff – taxes, read journals, do CME, review legal cases that have come in, hang out with my family, nap with my dogs.

Somewhere in that stretch of time off. I run out of things to do, and that’s when I have to confront an odd truth: I’ve forgotten how to relax.

In medical school and residency I certainly could enjoy the rare weekend time off. I’d watch sports, go running, do things with friends.

But now it’s a different world. My friends, while still people I enjoy, are on the other end of a computer, far away. My interest in sports and movies waned years ago, and I avoid televisions as part of my aversion to the news. Even the books I used to enjoy, such as the late Clive Cussler’s, don’t hold my attention anymore. If I’m going to read anything it’s going to be humor, because the medical field is serious enough as it is.

The bottom line is that it’s hard for me to relax and “do nothing” anymore. I don’t know if that’s just me, or if it’s part of the personality of being a doctor, or both.

If I’m not at my desk working, I feel like I’m not doing anything. Do other doctors feel that way? Have I become a workaholic in my middle age?

Is this a bad thing?

It probably is, and I should look to the beginning of a new year to make some changes. Maybe I should go back to running (or, at this point in my life, walking) or finding some humor books I enjoy and reading them. The old standby of going on a vacation is kind of limited right now.

I’ve been an attending physician for 24 years now, which is still hard to believe. My retirement isn’t (hopefully) anytime soon, but is coming up faster than it seems. If I don’t relearn to relax by then, when will I?
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Inpatient and outpatient treatments of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke (mIS) yield comparable safety outcomes, new research suggests. In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.

“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher risk in EDs

There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.

Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.

The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.

The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.

In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.

Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.

Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.

Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
 

‘Most comprehensive look’

“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.

The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.

“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.

Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.

The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.

However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.

Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.

Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.

In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.

But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.

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

Inpatient and outpatient treatments of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke (mIS) yield comparable safety outcomes, new research suggests. In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.

“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher risk in EDs

There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.

Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.

The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.

The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.

In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.

Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.

Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.

Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
 

‘Most comprehensive look’

“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.

The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.

“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.

Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.

The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.

However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.

Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.

Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.

In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.

But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.

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

Inpatient and outpatient treatments of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke (mIS) yield comparable safety outcomes, new research suggests. In a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 patients with TIA or mIS, risk for subsequent stroke within 90 days was 2.1% for those treated in a TIA clinic versus 2.8% for patients treated in inpatient settings, which was not significantly different. The risk for patients treated in an emergency department was higher, at 3.5%.

“The message is that if you do the correct risk stratification and then triage patients based on their risk profile, you can safely discharge and have a timely follow-up for the patients who have low risk for a subsequent event,” said coinvestigator Ramin Zand, MD, vascular neurologist and stroke attending physician at Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania.

The findings were published online Jan. 5 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Higher risk in EDs

There is currently no consensus on the care protocol for patients with TIA or mIS, and the rate at which these patients are hospitalized varies by region, hospital, and practitioner, the investigators noted.

Previous studies have indicated that outpatient management of certain individuals with TIA can be safe and cost-effective.

The current researchers searched for retrospective and prospective studies of adult patients that provided information about ischemic stroke after TIA or mIS. Studies that used time- and tissue-based definitions of TIA were included, as well as studies that used various definitions of mIS.

The investigators examined care provided at TIA clinics, inpatient settings (such as medical-surgical units, stroke units, or observation units), EDs, and unspecified settings. Their main aim was to compare outcomes between TIA clinics and inpatient settings.

In all, 226,683 patients (recruited between 1981 and 2018) from 71 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The studies examined 101 cohorts, 24 of which were studied prospectively. Among the 5,636 patients who received care in TIA clinics, the mean age was 65.7 years, and 50.8% of this group were men. Among the 130,139 inpatients, the mean age was 78.3 years, and 61.6% of the group were women.

Results showed no significant difference in risk for subsequent stroke between patients treated in the inpatient and outpatient settings.

Among patients treated in a TIA clinic, risk for subsequent stroke following a TIA or mIS was 0.3% within 2 days, 1.0% within 7 days, 1.3% within 30 days, and 2.1% within 90 days. Among those treated as inpatients, risk for subsequent stroke was 0.5% within 2 days, 1.2% within 7 days, 1.6% within 30 days, and 2.8% within 90 days.

Risk for subsequent stroke was higher among patients treated in the ED and in unspecified settings. At the EDs, the risk was 1.9% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 3.5% within 30 days, and 3.5% within 90 days. Among those treated in unspecified settings, the risk was 2.2% within 2 days, 3.4% within 7 days, 4.2% within 30 days, and 6.0% within 90 days.

Patients treated in the ED also had a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2 and 7 days, compared with those treated in inpatient settings and a significantly higher risk for subsequent stroke at 2, 7, and 90 days, compared with those treated in TIA clinics.
 

‘Most comprehensive look’

“This is the most comprehensive look at all the studies to try and answer this research question,” said Dr. Zand. The results were similar to what was expected, he added.

The infrastructure and resources differed among the sites at which the various studies were conducted, and the investigators adjusted for these differences as much as possible, Dr. Zand noted. A certain amount of selection bias may remain, but it does not affect the overall conclusion, he added.

“Timely outpatient care among low-risk TIA patients is both feasible and safe,” he said.

Dr. Zand noted that the findings have implications not only for patient management but also for the management of the health system. “It’s not feasible nor desirable to admit all the TIA patients, especially with the lessons that we learned from COVID, the burden on the health systems, and the fact that many hospitals are operating at full capacity right now,” he said.

The recommendation is to hospitalize high-risk patients and provide outpatient evaluation and workup to low-risk patients, he added. “This is exactly what we saw in this study,” Dr. Zand said.
 

Selection bias?

Commenting on the research, Louis R. Caplan, MD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that evaluation of patients with TIA or mIS “can be done very well as an outpatient” if clinicians have experienced personnel, the outpatient facilities to do the studies necessary, and criteria in place for deciding who to admit or not admit.

However, the decision on whether to choose an inpatient or outpatient approach for a particular patient is complicated, said Dr. Caplan, who was not involved with the research.

Clinicians must consider factors such as whether the patient is mobile, has a car, or has a significant other. The patient’s symptoms and past illnesses also influence the decision, he added.

Dr. Caplan noted that in the meta-analysis, far fewer patients were seen in the TIA clinics than were seen in the inpatient setting. In addition, none of the studies used uniform criteria to determine which patients should undergo workup as outpatients and which as inpatients. “There was a lot of selection bias that may have had nothing to do with how sick the person was,” Dr. Caplan said.

In addition, few hospitals in the United States have an outpatient TIA clinic, he noted. Most of the studies of TIA clinics that the researchers examined were conducted in Europe. “It’s easier to do [that] in Europe because of their socialized medicine,” said Dr. Caplan.

But TIA clinics should be more widespread in the U.S., he added. “Insurance companies should be willing to pay for comparable facilities, inpatient and outpatient,” he said.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Zand reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Caplan was an investigator for TIAregistry.org, which analyzed the outcomes of treatment in TIA clinics in Europe.

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