Neurology Reviews

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

An experimental antiviral pill appears to work very well at keeping people who are at high risk of severe COVID-19 from being admitted to the hospital and dying, according to the drug’s maker, Pfizer.

The drug -- called Paxlovid -- was 89% effective, compared to a placebo, at preventing hospitalization or death in patients with COVID-19 who were at high risk of severe complications. The company says it plans to ask the FDA to authorize the drug for emergency use.

The medication appears to work so well that Pfizer has stopped enrollment in the trial of the drug, which works by blocking an enzyme called a protease that the new coronavirus needs to make more copies of itself.

Stopping a clinical trial is a rare action that’s typically taken when a therapy appears to be very effective or clearly dangerous. In both those cases, it’s considered unethical to continue a clinical trial where people are randomly assigned either an active drug or a placebo, when safer or more effective options are available to them.

In this case, the company said in a news release that the move was recommended by an independent panel of advisers who are overseeing the trial, called a data safety monitoring committee, and done in consultation with the FDA.

“Today’s news is a real game-changer in the global efforts to halt the devastation of this pandemic,” said Albert Bourla, PhD, Pfizer chairman and chief executive officer. “These data suggest that our oral antiviral candidate, if approved or authorized by regulatory authorities, has the potential to save patients’ lives, reduce the severity of COVID-19 infections, and eliminate up to nine out of ten hospitalizations.”

In a randomized clinical trial that included more than 1,900 patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and were at risk for having severe complications for their infections, those who received Paxlovid within 3 days of the start of their symptoms were 89% less likely to be hospitalized than those who got a placebo pill -- three patients out of 389 who got the drug were hospitalized, compared with 27 out of 385 who got the placebo. Among patients who got the drug within 5 days of the start of their symptoms, six out of 607 were hospitalized within 28 days, compared to 41 out of 612 who got the placebo.

There were no deaths over the course of a month in patients who took Paxlovid, but 10 deaths in the group that got the placebo.

The news comes on the heels of an announcement in October by the drug company Merck that its experimental antiviral pill, molnupiravir, reduced the risk of hospitalization or death by 50% in patients with mild to moderate COVID, compared to a placebo.

The United Kingdom became the first country to authorize the use of molnupiravir, which is brand-named Lagevrio.

Stephen Griffin, PhD, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Leeds, hailed the success of both new antiviral pills.

“They both demonstrate that, with appropriate investment, the development of bespoke direct-acting antiviral drugs targeting SARS-CoV2 was eminently feasible and has ultimately proven far more successful than repurposing other drugs with questionable antiviral effects,” said Dr. Griffin, who was not involved in the development of either drug.

“The success of these antivirals potentially marks a new era in our ability to prevent the severe consequences of SARS-CoV2 infection, and is also a vital element for the care of clinically vulnerable people who may be unable to either receive or respond to vaccines,” he said.

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

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of adults in the United States with small fiber neuropathy (SFN), but in many cases, no cause can be determined. The exact reason for the increase in isolated SFN “remains unclear,” said Christopher J. Klein, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, “we noted during the study period the population has had increased BMI, which appears to be a risk factor for this disorder, with many (50%) developing either glucose impairment or frank diabetes during the study period even if not present at first small fiber neuropathy presentation, also with associated higher triglyceride levels,” he explained.

The study was published online October 27 in Neurology.
 

Significant upward trend

Investigators reviewed the records of all 94 adults diagnosed with pure SFN (no large fiber involvement) between 1998 and 2017 in Olmsted and adjacent counties in Minnesota – and compared them with 282 adults of similar age and gender who did not have neuropathy.

The incidence of SFN over the entire study period was 1.3 per 100,000 per year and the prevalence was 13.3 per 100,000.

There was a “significant upward trend” in SFN incidence over the study period that could not be attributed to the availability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density testing, the authors reported.

The median age of onset of SFN was 54 years and two-thirds were women (67%).

Diabetes, obesity, and hypertriglyceridemia were significantly more common in patients with SFN compared with matched controls. These metabolic risk factors are also associated with peripheral neuropathy regardless of fiber type.

Autonomic symptoms were common and generally mild, affecting 85% of patients with SFN, and included male erectile dysfunction, constipation, light-headedness and palpitations, urinary symptoms, diarrhea, dry eyes and mouth, sweat abnormalities, and gastroparesis.

Insomnia and use of opioid pain medication were more common in those with SFN than matched controls.

More than one-third (36%) of patients with SFN developed large fiber neuropathy an average of 5.3 years after developing SFN.

During an average follow-up of 6.1 years, adults with SFN were significantly more likely to suffer myocardial infarction (46% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-4.9), congestive heart failure (27% vs. 12%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 6%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1), stroke (24% vs. 10%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3), diabetes (51% vs. 22%; OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8-7.6) and rheumatologic disease (30% vs. 7%; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.8-10.4).

For 70% of patients, no cause for SFN could be determined. Diabetes (15%) was the most common cause identified. Other less common causes included Sjögren syndrome, lupus, amyloidosis, and Fabry disease.

“It is important to quantitatively diagnose patients with SFN as many non-neurological musculoskeletal causes can mimic the disorder,” said Dr. Klein.

“If rates of progression are rapid, sinister causes such as out-of-control diabetes, hereditary [transthyretin] TTR amyloidosis, and Fabry disease can be responsible. For other patients, rates of progression are slow and generally do not lead to significant neurologic impairments,” he added.

“However,” he said, “internal medicine follow-up is important for all as this disorder associates with development with higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including commonly heart attacks.”

Of note, although mean age at death was not significantly different in patients with SFN than controls (70 vs. 73 years), there was a significantly higher number of deaths in patients with SFN (n = 18; 19%) than in matched controls (n = 35; 12%) from the time of symptom onset, the researchers reported.
 

Important research

This “important” study sheds light on the comorbidities and longitudinal consequences of SFN, wrote Brian Callaghan, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and J. Robinson Singleton, MD, with the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an accompanying editorial in Neurology.

The study demonstrates clearly that SFN has “metabolic risk factors similar to those seen for sensory predominant peripheral neuropathies affecting a broader range of fiber types. As a result, therapies that address metabolic risk factors are likely to help prevent or treat both conditions,” they wrote.

Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Singleton added that a key strength of the study is the detailed follow-up that examines SFN progression over time. “The authors found that patients with SFN do not report high disability and that progression tends to be slow. Therefore, patients with SFN can be counseled that progression and disability are likely to be modest in most cases. However, when patients do progress quickly, uncommon etiologies should be sought,” the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Foundation, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology. Dr. Klein has received teaching honorarium from Ackea pharmaceuticals for lectures on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and Fabry disease, consulted for Pfizer regarding tafamidis (all compensation for consulting activities is paid directly to Mayo Clinic), and participated in the clinical trials for inotersen and patisiran but received no personal compensation for his participation. Dr. Callaghan consults for DynaMed, performs medical legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Singleton has consulted for Regenacy.

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

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of adults in the United States with small fiber neuropathy (SFN), but in many cases, no cause can be determined. The exact reason for the increase in isolated SFN “remains unclear,” said Christopher J. Klein, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, “we noted during the study period the population has had increased BMI, which appears to be a risk factor for this disorder, with many (50%) developing either glucose impairment or frank diabetes during the study period even if not present at first small fiber neuropathy presentation, also with associated higher triglyceride levels,” he explained.

The study was published online October 27 in Neurology.
 

Significant upward trend

Investigators reviewed the records of all 94 adults diagnosed with pure SFN (no large fiber involvement) between 1998 and 2017 in Olmsted and adjacent counties in Minnesota – and compared them with 282 adults of similar age and gender who did not have neuropathy.

The incidence of SFN over the entire study period was 1.3 per 100,000 per year and the prevalence was 13.3 per 100,000.

There was a “significant upward trend” in SFN incidence over the study period that could not be attributed to the availability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density testing, the authors reported.

The median age of onset of SFN was 54 years and two-thirds were women (67%).

Diabetes, obesity, and hypertriglyceridemia were significantly more common in patients with SFN compared with matched controls. These metabolic risk factors are also associated with peripheral neuropathy regardless of fiber type.

Autonomic symptoms were common and generally mild, affecting 85% of patients with SFN, and included male erectile dysfunction, constipation, light-headedness and palpitations, urinary symptoms, diarrhea, dry eyes and mouth, sweat abnormalities, and gastroparesis.

Insomnia and use of opioid pain medication were more common in those with SFN than matched controls.

More than one-third (36%) of patients with SFN developed large fiber neuropathy an average of 5.3 years after developing SFN.

During an average follow-up of 6.1 years, adults with SFN were significantly more likely to suffer myocardial infarction (46% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-4.9), congestive heart failure (27% vs. 12%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 6%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1), stroke (24% vs. 10%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3), diabetes (51% vs. 22%; OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8-7.6) and rheumatologic disease (30% vs. 7%; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.8-10.4).

For 70% of patients, no cause for SFN could be determined. Diabetes (15%) was the most common cause identified. Other less common causes included Sjögren syndrome, lupus, amyloidosis, and Fabry disease.

“It is important to quantitatively diagnose patients with SFN as many non-neurological musculoskeletal causes can mimic the disorder,” said Dr. Klein.

“If rates of progression are rapid, sinister causes such as out-of-control diabetes, hereditary [transthyretin] TTR amyloidosis, and Fabry disease can be responsible. For other patients, rates of progression are slow and generally do not lead to significant neurologic impairments,” he added.

“However,” he said, “internal medicine follow-up is important for all as this disorder associates with development with higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including commonly heart attacks.”

Of note, although mean age at death was not significantly different in patients with SFN than controls (70 vs. 73 years), there was a significantly higher number of deaths in patients with SFN (n = 18; 19%) than in matched controls (n = 35; 12%) from the time of symptom onset, the researchers reported.
 

Important research

This “important” study sheds light on the comorbidities and longitudinal consequences of SFN, wrote Brian Callaghan, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and J. Robinson Singleton, MD, with the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an accompanying editorial in Neurology.

The study demonstrates clearly that SFN has “metabolic risk factors similar to those seen for sensory predominant peripheral neuropathies affecting a broader range of fiber types. As a result, therapies that address metabolic risk factors are likely to help prevent or treat both conditions,” they wrote.

Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Singleton added that a key strength of the study is the detailed follow-up that examines SFN progression over time. “The authors found that patients with SFN do not report high disability and that progression tends to be slow. Therefore, patients with SFN can be counseled that progression and disability are likely to be modest in most cases. However, when patients do progress quickly, uncommon etiologies should be sought,” the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Foundation, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology. Dr. Klein has received teaching honorarium from Ackea pharmaceuticals for lectures on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and Fabry disease, consulted for Pfizer regarding tafamidis (all compensation for consulting activities is paid directly to Mayo Clinic), and participated in the clinical trials for inotersen and patisiran but received no personal compensation for his participation. Dr. Callaghan consults for DynaMed, performs medical legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Singleton has consulted for Regenacy.

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

Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of adults in the United States with small fiber neuropathy (SFN), but in many cases, no cause can be determined. The exact reason for the increase in isolated SFN “remains unclear,” said Christopher J. Klein, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. However, “we noted during the study period the population has had increased BMI, which appears to be a risk factor for this disorder, with many (50%) developing either glucose impairment or frank diabetes during the study period even if not present at first small fiber neuropathy presentation, also with associated higher triglyceride levels,” he explained.

The study was published online October 27 in Neurology.
 

Significant upward trend

Investigators reviewed the records of all 94 adults diagnosed with pure SFN (no large fiber involvement) between 1998 and 2017 in Olmsted and adjacent counties in Minnesota – and compared them with 282 adults of similar age and gender who did not have neuropathy.

The incidence of SFN over the entire study period was 1.3 per 100,000 per year and the prevalence was 13.3 per 100,000.

There was a “significant upward trend” in SFN incidence over the study period that could not be attributed to the availability of intraepidermal nerve fiber density testing, the authors reported.

The median age of onset of SFN was 54 years and two-thirds were women (67%).

Diabetes, obesity, and hypertriglyceridemia were significantly more common in patients with SFN compared with matched controls. These metabolic risk factors are also associated with peripheral neuropathy regardless of fiber type.

Autonomic symptoms were common and generally mild, affecting 85% of patients with SFN, and included male erectile dysfunction, constipation, light-headedness and palpitations, urinary symptoms, diarrhea, dry eyes and mouth, sweat abnormalities, and gastroparesis.

Insomnia and use of opioid pain medication were more common in those with SFN than matched controls.

More than one-third (36%) of patients with SFN developed large fiber neuropathy an average of 5.3 years after developing SFN.

During an average follow-up of 6.1 years, adults with SFN were significantly more likely to suffer myocardial infarction (46% vs. 27%; odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-4.9), congestive heart failure (27% vs. 12%; OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.8), peripheral vascular disease (22% vs. 6%; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1), stroke (24% vs. 10%; OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.5-5.3), diabetes (51% vs. 22%; OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.8-7.6) and rheumatologic disease (30% vs. 7%; OR, 5.3; 95% CI, 2.8-10.4).

For 70% of patients, no cause for SFN could be determined. Diabetes (15%) was the most common cause identified. Other less common causes included Sjögren syndrome, lupus, amyloidosis, and Fabry disease.

“It is important to quantitatively diagnose patients with SFN as many non-neurological musculoskeletal causes can mimic the disorder,” said Dr. Klein.

“If rates of progression are rapid, sinister causes such as out-of-control diabetes, hereditary [transthyretin] TTR amyloidosis, and Fabry disease can be responsible. For other patients, rates of progression are slow and generally do not lead to significant neurologic impairments,” he added.

“However,” he said, “internal medicine follow-up is important for all as this disorder associates with development with higher risk of cardiovascular disease, including commonly heart attacks.”

Of note, although mean age at death was not significantly different in patients with SFN than controls (70 vs. 73 years), there was a significantly higher number of deaths in patients with SFN (n = 18; 19%) than in matched controls (n = 35; 12%) from the time of symptom onset, the researchers reported.
 

Important research

This “important” study sheds light on the comorbidities and longitudinal consequences of SFN, wrote Brian Callaghan, MD, with the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and J. Robinson Singleton, MD, with the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, in an accompanying editorial in Neurology.

The study demonstrates clearly that SFN has “metabolic risk factors similar to those seen for sensory predominant peripheral neuropathies affecting a broader range of fiber types. As a result, therapies that address metabolic risk factors are likely to help prevent or treat both conditions,” they wrote.

Dr. Callaghan and Dr. Singleton added that a key strength of the study is the detailed follow-up that examines SFN progression over time. “The authors found that patients with SFN do not report high disability and that progression tends to be slow. Therefore, patients with SFN can be counseled that progression and disability are likely to be modest in most cases. However, when patients do progress quickly, uncommon etiologies should be sought,” the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Mayo Clinic Foundation, Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Center of MS and Autoimmune Neurology. Dr. Klein has received teaching honorarium from Ackea pharmaceuticals for lectures on hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis and Fabry disease, consulted for Pfizer regarding tafamidis (all compensation for consulting activities is paid directly to Mayo Clinic), and participated in the clinical trials for inotersen and patisiran but received no personal compensation for his participation. Dr. Callaghan consults for DynaMed, performs medical legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Singleton has consulted for Regenacy.

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

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled.

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: “A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received.”

Results results results … and: “Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.”

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in a larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study “was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.”

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states: “The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [ 1 ], cited above. Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis. Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal. The authors agreed to this retraction.”

Ali Samaha, of Lebanese University in Beirut, and the lead author of the study, told us: “It was brought to our attention that we have used wrong file for our paper. We informed immediately the journal and we have run investigations. After revising the raw data we realised that a file that was used to train a research assistant was sent by mistake for analysis. Re-analysing the original data , the conclusions of the paper remained valid. For our transparency we asked for retraction.”

About that BBC report? Samaha said: “The BBC article was generated before the report of independent reviewers who confirmed an innocent mistake by using wrong file.”

Samaha added that he and his colleagues are now considering whether to resubmit the paper.

The article has been cited four times, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science — including in this meta-analysis published in June in the American Journal of Therapeutics , which concluded that: “Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.”

That article was a social media darling, receiving more than 45,000 tweets and pickups in 90 news outlets, according to Altmetrics, which ranks it No. 7 among all papers published at that time.

A version of this article first appeared on Retraction Watch.

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die

Movie watching usually requires a certain suspension of disbelief, and it’s safe to say James Bond movies require this more than most. Between the impossible gadgets and ludicrous doomsday plans, very few have ever stopped to consider the health risks of the James Bond universe.

Tumisu/Pixabay

Now, however, Bond, James Bond, has met his most formidable opponent: Wouter Graumans, a graduate student in epidemiology from the Netherlands. During a foray to Burkina Faso to study infectious diseases, Mr. Graumans came down with a case of food poisoning, which led him to wonder how 007 is able to trot across this big world of ours without contracting so much as a sinus infection.

Because Mr. Graumans is a man of science and conviction, mere speculation wasn’t enough. He and a group of coauthors wrote an entire paper on the health risks of the James Bond universe.

Doing so required watching over 3,000 minutes of numerous movies and analyzing Bond’s 86 total trips to 46 different countries based on current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice for travel to those countries. Time which, the authors state in the abstract, “could easily have been spent on more pressing societal issues or forms of relaxation that are more acceptable in academic circles.”

Naturally, Mr. Bond’s line of work entails exposure to unpleasant things, such as poison, dehydration, heatstroke, and dangerous wildlife (everything from ticks to crocodiles), though oddly enough he never succumbs to any of it. He’s also curiously immune to hangovers, despite rarely drinking anything nonalcoholic. There are also less obvious risks: For one, 007 rarely washes his hands. During one movie, he handles raw chicken to lure away a pack of crocodiles but fails to wash his hands afterward, leaving him at risk for multiple food-borne illnesses.

Of course, we must address the elephant in the bedroom: Mr. Bond’s numerous, er, encounters with women. One would imagine the biggest risk to those women would be from the various STDs that likely course through Bond’s body, but of the 27% who died shortly after … encountering … him, all involved violence, with disease playing no obvious role. Who knows, maybe he’s clean? Stranger things have happened.

The timing of this article may seem a bit suspicious. Was it a PR stunt by the studio? Rest assured, the authors addressed this, noting that they received no funding for the study, and that, “given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” We love when a punchline writes itself.
 

How to see Atlanta on $688.35 a day

The world is always changing, so we have to change with it. This week, LOTME becomes a travel guide, and our first stop is the Big A, the Big Peach, Dogwood City, Empire City of the South, Wakanda.

There’s lots to do in Atlanta: Celebrate a World Series win, visit the College Football Hall of Fame or the World of Coca Cola, or take the Stranger Things/Upside Down film locations tour. Serious adventurers, however, get out of the city and go to Emory Decatur Hospital in – you guessed it – Decatur (unofficial motto: “Everything is Greater in Decatur”).

©Getty Images

Find the emergency room and ask for Taylor Davis, who will be your personal guide. She’ll show you how to check in at the desk, sit in the waiting room for 7 hours, and then leave without seeing any medical personnel or receiving any sort of attention whatsoever. All the things she did when she went there in July for a head injury.

Ms. Davis told Fox5 Atlanta: “I didn’t get my vitals taken, nobody called my name. I wasn’t seen at all.”

But wait! There’s more! By booking your trip through LOTMEgo* and using the code “Decatur,” you’ll get the Taylor Davis special, which includes a bill/cover charge for $688.35 from the hospital. An Emory Healthcare patient financial services employee told Ms. Davis that “you get charged before you are seen. Not for being seen.”

If all this has you ready to hop in your car (really?), then check out LOTMEgo* on Twittbook and InstaTok. You’ll also find trick-or-treating tips and discounts on haunted hospital tours.

*Does not actually exist

Breaking down the hot flash

Do you ever wonder why we scramble for cold things when we’re feeling nauseous? Whether it’s the cool air that needs to hit your face in the car or a cold, damp towel on the back of your neck, scientists think it could possibly be an evolutionary mechanism at the cellular level.

Piqsels

Motion sickness it’s actually a battle of body temperature, according to an article from LiveScience. Capillaries in the skin dilate, allowing for more blood flow near the skin’s surface and causing core temperature to fall. Once body temperature drops, the hypothalamus, which regulates temperature, tries to do its job by raising body temperature. Thus the hot flash!

The cold compress and cool air help fight the battle by counteracting the hypothalamus, but why the drop in body temperature to begin with?

There are a few theories. Dr. Robert Glatter, an emergency physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScience that the lack of oxygen needed in body tissue to survive at lower temperatures could be making it difficult to get oxygen to the body when a person is ill, and is “more likely an adaptive response influenced by poorly understood mechanisms at the cellular level.”

Another theory is that the nausea and body temperature shift is the body’s natural response to help people vomit.

Then there’s the theory of “defensive hypothermia,” which suggests that cold sweats are a possible mechanism to conserve energy so the body can fight off an intruder, which was supported by a 2014 study and a 2016 review.

It’s another one of the body’s many survival tricks.
 

Teachers were right: Pupils can do the math

Teachers liked to preach that we wouldn’t have calculators with us all the time, but that wound up not being true. Our phones have calculators at the press of a button. But maybe even calculators aren’t always needed because our pupils do more math than you think.

pxfuel

The pupil light reflex – constrict in light and dilate in darkness – is well known, but recent work shows that pupil size is also regulated by cognitive and perceptual factors. By presenting subjects with images of various numbers of dots and measuring pupil size, the investigators were able to show “that numerical information is intrinsically related to perception,” lead author Dr. Elisa Castaldi of Florence University noted in a written statement.

The researchers found that pupils are responsible for important survival techniques. Coauthor David Burr of the University of Sydney and the University of Florence gave an evolutionary perspective: “When we look around, we spontaneously perceive the form, size, movement and colour of a scene. Equally spontaneously, we perceive the number of items before us. This ability, shared with most other animals, is an evolutionary fundamental: It reveals immediately important quantities, such as how many apples there are on the tree, or how many enemies are attacking.”

Useful information, indeed, but our pupils seem to be more interested in the quantity of beers in the refrigerator.

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die

Movie watching usually requires a certain suspension of disbelief, and it’s safe to say James Bond movies require this more than most. Between the impossible gadgets and ludicrous doomsday plans, very few have ever stopped to consider the health risks of the James Bond universe.

Tumisu/Pixabay

Now, however, Bond, James Bond, has met his most formidable opponent: Wouter Graumans, a graduate student in epidemiology from the Netherlands. During a foray to Burkina Faso to study infectious diseases, Mr. Graumans came down with a case of food poisoning, which led him to wonder how 007 is able to trot across this big world of ours without contracting so much as a sinus infection.

Because Mr. Graumans is a man of science and conviction, mere speculation wasn’t enough. He and a group of coauthors wrote an entire paper on the health risks of the James Bond universe.

Doing so required watching over 3,000 minutes of numerous movies and analyzing Bond’s 86 total trips to 46 different countries based on current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice for travel to those countries. Time which, the authors state in the abstract, “could easily have been spent on more pressing societal issues or forms of relaxation that are more acceptable in academic circles.”

Naturally, Mr. Bond’s line of work entails exposure to unpleasant things, such as poison, dehydration, heatstroke, and dangerous wildlife (everything from ticks to crocodiles), though oddly enough he never succumbs to any of it. He’s also curiously immune to hangovers, despite rarely drinking anything nonalcoholic. There are also less obvious risks: For one, 007 rarely washes his hands. During one movie, he handles raw chicken to lure away a pack of crocodiles but fails to wash his hands afterward, leaving him at risk for multiple food-borne illnesses.

Of course, we must address the elephant in the bedroom: Mr. Bond’s numerous, er, encounters with women. One would imagine the biggest risk to those women would be from the various STDs that likely course through Bond’s body, but of the 27% who died shortly after … encountering … him, all involved violence, with disease playing no obvious role. Who knows, maybe he’s clean? Stranger things have happened.

The timing of this article may seem a bit suspicious. Was it a PR stunt by the studio? Rest assured, the authors addressed this, noting that they received no funding for the study, and that, “given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” We love when a punchline writes itself.
 

How to see Atlanta on $688.35 a day

The world is always changing, so we have to change with it. This week, LOTME becomes a travel guide, and our first stop is the Big A, the Big Peach, Dogwood City, Empire City of the South, Wakanda.

There’s lots to do in Atlanta: Celebrate a World Series win, visit the College Football Hall of Fame or the World of Coca Cola, or take the Stranger Things/Upside Down film locations tour. Serious adventurers, however, get out of the city and go to Emory Decatur Hospital in – you guessed it – Decatur (unofficial motto: “Everything is Greater in Decatur”).

©Getty Images

Find the emergency room and ask for Taylor Davis, who will be your personal guide. She’ll show you how to check in at the desk, sit in the waiting room for 7 hours, and then leave without seeing any medical personnel or receiving any sort of attention whatsoever. All the things she did when she went there in July for a head injury.

Ms. Davis told Fox5 Atlanta: “I didn’t get my vitals taken, nobody called my name. I wasn’t seen at all.”

But wait! There’s more! By booking your trip through LOTMEgo* and using the code “Decatur,” you’ll get the Taylor Davis special, which includes a bill/cover charge for $688.35 from the hospital. An Emory Healthcare patient financial services employee told Ms. Davis that “you get charged before you are seen. Not for being seen.”

If all this has you ready to hop in your car (really?), then check out LOTMEgo* on Twittbook and InstaTok. You’ll also find trick-or-treating tips and discounts on haunted hospital tours.

*Does not actually exist

Breaking down the hot flash

Do you ever wonder why we scramble for cold things when we’re feeling nauseous? Whether it’s the cool air that needs to hit your face in the car or a cold, damp towel on the back of your neck, scientists think it could possibly be an evolutionary mechanism at the cellular level.

Piqsels

Motion sickness it’s actually a battle of body temperature, according to an article from LiveScience. Capillaries in the skin dilate, allowing for more blood flow near the skin’s surface and causing core temperature to fall. Once body temperature drops, the hypothalamus, which regulates temperature, tries to do its job by raising body temperature. Thus the hot flash!

The cold compress and cool air help fight the battle by counteracting the hypothalamus, but why the drop in body temperature to begin with?

There are a few theories. Dr. Robert Glatter, an emergency physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScience that the lack of oxygen needed in body tissue to survive at lower temperatures could be making it difficult to get oxygen to the body when a person is ill, and is “more likely an adaptive response influenced by poorly understood mechanisms at the cellular level.”

Another theory is that the nausea and body temperature shift is the body’s natural response to help people vomit.

Then there’s the theory of “defensive hypothermia,” which suggests that cold sweats are a possible mechanism to conserve energy so the body can fight off an intruder, which was supported by a 2014 study and a 2016 review.

It’s another one of the body’s many survival tricks.
 

Teachers were right: Pupils can do the math

Teachers liked to preach that we wouldn’t have calculators with us all the time, but that wound up not being true. Our phones have calculators at the press of a button. But maybe even calculators aren’t always needed because our pupils do more math than you think.

pxfuel

The pupil light reflex – constrict in light and dilate in darkness – is well known, but recent work shows that pupil size is also regulated by cognitive and perceptual factors. By presenting subjects with images of various numbers of dots and measuring pupil size, the investigators were able to show “that numerical information is intrinsically related to perception,” lead author Dr. Elisa Castaldi of Florence University noted in a written statement.

The researchers found that pupils are responsible for important survival techniques. Coauthor David Burr of the University of Sydney and the University of Florence gave an evolutionary perspective: “When we look around, we spontaneously perceive the form, size, movement and colour of a scene. Equally spontaneously, we perceive the number of items before us. This ability, shared with most other animals, is an evolutionary fundamental: It reveals immediately important quantities, such as how many apples there are on the tree, or how many enemies are attacking.”

Useful information, indeed, but our pupils seem to be more interested in the quantity of beers in the refrigerator.

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die

Movie watching usually requires a certain suspension of disbelief, and it’s safe to say James Bond movies require this more than most. Between the impossible gadgets and ludicrous doomsday plans, very few have ever stopped to consider the health risks of the James Bond universe.

Tumisu/Pixabay

Now, however, Bond, James Bond, has met his most formidable opponent: Wouter Graumans, a graduate student in epidemiology from the Netherlands. During a foray to Burkina Faso to study infectious diseases, Mr. Graumans came down with a case of food poisoning, which led him to wonder how 007 is able to trot across this big world of ours without contracting so much as a sinus infection.

Because Mr. Graumans is a man of science and conviction, mere speculation wasn’t enough. He and a group of coauthors wrote an entire paper on the health risks of the James Bond universe.

Doing so required watching over 3,000 minutes of numerous movies and analyzing Bond’s 86 total trips to 46 different countries based on current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice for travel to those countries. Time which, the authors state in the abstract, “could easily have been spent on more pressing societal issues or forms of relaxation that are more acceptable in academic circles.”

Naturally, Mr. Bond’s line of work entails exposure to unpleasant things, such as poison, dehydration, heatstroke, and dangerous wildlife (everything from ticks to crocodiles), though oddly enough he never succumbs to any of it. He’s also curiously immune to hangovers, despite rarely drinking anything nonalcoholic. There are also less obvious risks: For one, 007 rarely washes his hands. During one movie, he handles raw chicken to lure away a pack of crocodiles but fails to wash his hands afterward, leaving him at risk for multiple food-borne illnesses.

Of course, we must address the elephant in the bedroom: Mr. Bond’s numerous, er, encounters with women. One would imagine the biggest risk to those women would be from the various STDs that likely course through Bond’s body, but of the 27% who died shortly after … encountering … him, all involved violence, with disease playing no obvious role. Who knows, maybe he’s clean? Stranger things have happened.

The timing of this article may seem a bit suspicious. Was it a PR stunt by the studio? Rest assured, the authors addressed this, noting that they received no funding for the study, and that, “given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors.” We love when a punchline writes itself.
 

How to see Atlanta on $688.35 a day

The world is always changing, so we have to change with it. This week, LOTME becomes a travel guide, and our first stop is the Big A, the Big Peach, Dogwood City, Empire City of the South, Wakanda.

There’s lots to do in Atlanta: Celebrate a World Series win, visit the College Football Hall of Fame or the World of Coca Cola, or take the Stranger Things/Upside Down film locations tour. Serious adventurers, however, get out of the city and go to Emory Decatur Hospital in – you guessed it – Decatur (unofficial motto: “Everything is Greater in Decatur”).

©Getty Images

Find the emergency room and ask for Taylor Davis, who will be your personal guide. She’ll show you how to check in at the desk, sit in the waiting room for 7 hours, and then leave without seeing any medical personnel or receiving any sort of attention whatsoever. All the things she did when she went there in July for a head injury.

Ms. Davis told Fox5 Atlanta: “I didn’t get my vitals taken, nobody called my name. I wasn’t seen at all.”

But wait! There’s more! By booking your trip through LOTMEgo* and using the code “Decatur,” you’ll get the Taylor Davis special, which includes a bill/cover charge for $688.35 from the hospital. An Emory Healthcare patient financial services employee told Ms. Davis that “you get charged before you are seen. Not for being seen.”

If all this has you ready to hop in your car (really?), then check out LOTMEgo* on Twittbook and InstaTok. You’ll also find trick-or-treating tips and discounts on haunted hospital tours.

*Does not actually exist

Breaking down the hot flash

Do you ever wonder why we scramble for cold things when we’re feeling nauseous? Whether it’s the cool air that needs to hit your face in the car or a cold, damp towel on the back of your neck, scientists think it could possibly be an evolutionary mechanism at the cellular level.

Piqsels

Motion sickness it’s actually a battle of body temperature, according to an article from LiveScience. Capillaries in the skin dilate, allowing for more blood flow near the skin’s surface and causing core temperature to fall. Once body temperature drops, the hypothalamus, which regulates temperature, tries to do its job by raising body temperature. Thus the hot flash!

The cold compress and cool air help fight the battle by counteracting the hypothalamus, but why the drop in body temperature to begin with?

There are a few theories. Dr. Robert Glatter, an emergency physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, told LiveScience that the lack of oxygen needed in body tissue to survive at lower temperatures could be making it difficult to get oxygen to the body when a person is ill, and is “more likely an adaptive response influenced by poorly understood mechanisms at the cellular level.”

Another theory is that the nausea and body temperature shift is the body’s natural response to help people vomit.

Then there’s the theory of “defensive hypothermia,” which suggests that cold sweats are a possible mechanism to conserve energy so the body can fight off an intruder, which was supported by a 2014 study and a 2016 review.

It’s another one of the body’s many survival tricks.
 

Teachers were right: Pupils can do the math

Teachers liked to preach that we wouldn’t have calculators with us all the time, but that wound up not being true. Our phones have calculators at the press of a button. But maybe even calculators aren’t always needed because our pupils do more math than you think.

pxfuel

The pupil light reflex – constrict in light and dilate in darkness – is well known, but recent work shows that pupil size is also regulated by cognitive and perceptual factors. By presenting subjects with images of various numbers of dots and measuring pupil size, the investigators were able to show “that numerical information is intrinsically related to perception,” lead author Dr. Elisa Castaldi of Florence University noted in a written statement.

The researchers found that pupils are responsible for important survival techniques. Coauthor David Burr of the University of Sydney and the University of Florence gave an evolutionary perspective: “When we look around, we spontaneously perceive the form, size, movement and colour of a scene. Equally spontaneously, we perceive the number of items before us. This ability, shared with most other animals, is an evolutionary fundamental: It reveals immediately important quantities, such as how many apples there are on the tree, or how many enemies are attacking.”

Useful information, indeed, but our pupils seem to be more interested in the quantity of beers in the refrigerator.

Use of cannabis is common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), especially for the treatment of MS-related spasticity, new research suggests. Findings from a survey conducted through a large registry in 2020 showed that 31% of patients with MS reported trying cannabis to treat their symptoms – and 20% reported regular use.

Spasticity was reported by 80% as the reason why they used cannabis, while pain was cited as the reason by 69% and sleep problems/insomnia was cited by 61%.

Investigators noted that the new data reflect the latest patterns of use amid sweeping changes in recreational and medical marijuana laws.

“Interest in the use of cannabis for managing MS symptoms continues to increase as more data become available and access becomes easier,” co-investigator Amber Salter, PhD, associate professor, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Administration routes vary

The survey was conducted through the longitudinal North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry, a voluntary, self-report registry for patients with MS. Of 6,934 registry participants invited to participate, 3,249 (47%) responded. The majority of responders were women (79%) and the mean age was 61 years. About 63% were being treated with disease-modifying therapies.

Overall, 31% of respondents reported having used cannabis to treat their MS symptoms. In addition, 20% reported regular current cannabis use, with an average use of 20 days in the past month. As many as 40% of the current users reported using cannabis daily.

“In general we saw some small differences in current users, who tended to include more males; have higher spasticity, pain, and sleep symptoms; and [were] more likely to be unemployed and younger,” Dr. Salter said.

The most common forms of cannabis administration were smoking (33%) and eating (20%). In addition, 12% reported vaporizing cannabis with a highly concentrated material, 11% administered cannabis sublingually, and 11% reported swallowing it.

Further, 8% reported vaporizing cannabis as a dried flower, 5% used it topically, and 1% reported drinking it.

Of note, the definition of “cannabis/marijuana” in the study excluded hemp cannabidiol (CBD) or products marketed as CBD only.
 

Consistent use

The most common reason for use by far was spasticity (80%). This was followed by for pain (69%) and sleep/insomnia problems (61%). Among users, 37% reported doing so to treat all three of those problems.

Regarding other symptoms, 36% used cannabis for anxiety, 24% for depression, 18% for overactive bladder, 17% for nausea or gastrointestinal problems, 16% for migraine or headaches, 14% for tremors, and 6% for other purposes.

The vast majority (95%) reported cannabis to be very or somewhat helpful for their symptoms.

Among the 69% of respondents who reported not using cannabis for their MS symptoms, the most commonly cited reasons were a lack of evidence on efficacy (40%) or safety (27%), concerns of legality (25%), lack of insurance coverage (22%), prohibitive cost (18%), and adverse side effects.

Surprisingly, the dramatic shift in the legalization of cannabis use in many states does not appear to be reflected in changes in cannabis use for MS, Dr. Salter said.

“We conducted an anonymous NARCOMS survey a couple of years prior to this survey, and our results are generally consistent. There’s been a small increase in the use and an acceptance or willingness to consider cannabis, but it’s relatively consistent,” she said.

“Despite the changes in access, the landscape hasn’t really changed very much in terms of evidence of the effects on MS symptoms, so that could be why,” Dr. Salter added.

Most patients appear to feel comfortable discussing their cannabis use with their physician, with 75% reporting doing so. However, the most common primary source of medical guidance for treating MS with cannabis was “nobody/self”; for 20%, the source for medical guidance was a dispensary professional.

As many as 62% of respondents reported obtaining their cannabis products from dispensaries, while other sources included family/friend (18%) or an acquaintance (13%). About 31% reported their most preferred type of cannabis to be equal parts THC and cannabidiol, while 30% preferred high THC/low cannabidiol (30%).
 

Mirrors clinical practice findings

Commenting on the study, Laura T. Safar, MD, vice chair of Psychiatry at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings generally fall in line with cannabis use among patients with MS in her practice.

“This is [consistent] with my general experience: A high percentage of my patients with MS are using cannabis with the goal of addressing their MS symptoms that way,” said Dr. Safar, who was not involved with the research.

One notable recent change in patients’ inquiries about cannabis is their apparent confidence in the information they’re getting, she noted. This is a sign of the ever-expanding sources of information – but from sources who may or may not have an understanding of effects in MS, she added.

“What seems new is a certain level of specificity in the information patients state – regardless of its accuracy. There is more technical information widely available about cannabis online and in the dispensaries,” said Dr. Safar.

“A lot of that information may not have been tested scientifically, but it is presented with an aura of truth,” she said.

While misconceptions about cannabis use in MS may not be new, “the conviction with which they are stated and believed seems stronger,” even though they have been validated by questionably expert sources, Dr. Safar noted.

She pointed out that psychiatric effects are among her patients’ notable concerns of cannabis use in MS.

“Cannabis use, especially daily use in moderate to large amounts, can have negative cognitive side effects,” she said. “In addition, it can have other psychiatric side effects: worsening of mood and anxiety, apathy, and anhedonia, a lack of pleasure or enjoyment, and a flattening of the emotional experience.”
 

Countering misinformation

Dr. Safar said she works to counter misinformation and provide more reliable, evidence-based recommendations.

“I educate my patients about what we know from scientific trials about the potential benefits, including possible help with pain, excluding central pain, and with spasticity,” she said. Dr. Safar added that she also discusses possible risks, such as worsening of cognition, mood, and anxiety.

On the basis of an individual’s presentation, and working in collaboration with their neurologist as appropriate, Dr. Safar said she discusses the following issues with the patient:

• Does cannabis make sense for the symptoms being presented?
• Has the patient received benefit so far?
• Are there side effects they may be experiencing?
• Would it be appropriate to lower the cannabis dose/frequency of its use?
• If a patient is using cannabis with an objective that is not backed up by the literature, such as depression, are they open to information about other treatment options?

The study was sponsored by GW Research. Dr. Salter has conducted research for GW Pharmaceuticals companies. Dr. Safar has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cannabis is common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), especially for the treatment of MS-related spasticity, new research suggests. Findings from a survey conducted through a large registry in 2020 showed that 31% of patients with MS reported trying cannabis to treat their symptoms – and 20% reported regular use.

Spasticity was reported by 80% as the reason why they used cannabis, while pain was cited as the reason by 69% and sleep problems/insomnia was cited by 61%.

Investigators noted that the new data reflect the latest patterns of use amid sweeping changes in recreational and medical marijuana laws.

“Interest in the use of cannabis for managing MS symptoms continues to increase as more data become available and access becomes easier,” co-investigator Amber Salter, PhD, associate professor, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Administration routes vary

The survey was conducted through the longitudinal North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry, a voluntary, self-report registry for patients with MS. Of 6,934 registry participants invited to participate, 3,249 (47%) responded. The majority of responders were women (79%) and the mean age was 61 years. About 63% were being treated with disease-modifying therapies.

Overall, 31% of respondents reported having used cannabis to treat their MS symptoms. In addition, 20% reported regular current cannabis use, with an average use of 20 days in the past month. As many as 40% of the current users reported using cannabis daily.

“In general we saw some small differences in current users, who tended to include more males; have higher spasticity, pain, and sleep symptoms; and [were] more likely to be unemployed and younger,” Dr. Salter said.

The most common forms of cannabis administration were smoking (33%) and eating (20%). In addition, 12% reported vaporizing cannabis with a highly concentrated material, 11% administered cannabis sublingually, and 11% reported swallowing it.

Further, 8% reported vaporizing cannabis as a dried flower, 5% used it topically, and 1% reported drinking it.

Of note, the definition of “cannabis/marijuana” in the study excluded hemp cannabidiol (CBD) or products marketed as CBD only.
 

Consistent use

The most common reason for use by far was spasticity (80%). This was followed by for pain (69%) and sleep/insomnia problems (61%). Among users, 37% reported doing so to treat all three of those problems.

Regarding other symptoms, 36% used cannabis for anxiety, 24% for depression, 18% for overactive bladder, 17% for nausea or gastrointestinal problems, 16% for migraine or headaches, 14% for tremors, and 6% for other purposes.

The vast majority (95%) reported cannabis to be very or somewhat helpful for their symptoms.

Among the 69% of respondents who reported not using cannabis for their MS symptoms, the most commonly cited reasons were a lack of evidence on efficacy (40%) or safety (27%), concerns of legality (25%), lack of insurance coverage (22%), prohibitive cost (18%), and adverse side effects.

Surprisingly, the dramatic shift in the legalization of cannabis use in many states does not appear to be reflected in changes in cannabis use for MS, Dr. Salter said.

“We conducted an anonymous NARCOMS survey a couple of years prior to this survey, and our results are generally consistent. There’s been a small increase in the use and an acceptance or willingness to consider cannabis, but it’s relatively consistent,” she said.

“Despite the changes in access, the landscape hasn’t really changed very much in terms of evidence of the effects on MS symptoms, so that could be why,” Dr. Salter added.

Most patients appear to feel comfortable discussing their cannabis use with their physician, with 75% reporting doing so. However, the most common primary source of medical guidance for treating MS with cannabis was “nobody/self”; for 20%, the source for medical guidance was a dispensary professional.

As many as 62% of respondents reported obtaining their cannabis products from dispensaries, while other sources included family/friend (18%) or an acquaintance (13%). About 31% reported their most preferred type of cannabis to be equal parts THC and cannabidiol, while 30% preferred high THC/low cannabidiol (30%).
 

Mirrors clinical practice findings

Commenting on the study, Laura T. Safar, MD, vice chair of Psychiatry at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings generally fall in line with cannabis use among patients with MS in her practice.

“This is [consistent] with my general experience: A high percentage of my patients with MS are using cannabis with the goal of addressing their MS symptoms that way,” said Dr. Safar, who was not involved with the research.

One notable recent change in patients’ inquiries about cannabis is their apparent confidence in the information they’re getting, she noted. This is a sign of the ever-expanding sources of information – but from sources who may or may not have an understanding of effects in MS, she added.

“What seems new is a certain level of specificity in the information patients state – regardless of its accuracy. There is more technical information widely available about cannabis online and in the dispensaries,” said Dr. Safar.

“A lot of that information may not have been tested scientifically, but it is presented with an aura of truth,” she said.

While misconceptions about cannabis use in MS may not be new, “the conviction with which they are stated and believed seems stronger,” even though they have been validated by questionably expert sources, Dr. Safar noted.

She pointed out that psychiatric effects are among her patients’ notable concerns of cannabis use in MS.

“Cannabis use, especially daily use in moderate to large amounts, can have negative cognitive side effects,” she said. “In addition, it can have other psychiatric side effects: worsening of mood and anxiety, apathy, and anhedonia, a lack of pleasure or enjoyment, and a flattening of the emotional experience.”
 

Countering misinformation

Dr. Safar said she works to counter misinformation and provide more reliable, evidence-based recommendations.

“I educate my patients about what we know from scientific trials about the potential benefits, including possible help with pain, excluding central pain, and with spasticity,” she said. Dr. Safar added that she also discusses possible risks, such as worsening of cognition, mood, and anxiety.

On the basis of an individual’s presentation, and working in collaboration with their neurologist as appropriate, Dr. Safar said she discusses the following issues with the patient:

• Does cannabis make sense for the symptoms being presented?
• Has the patient received benefit so far?
• Are there side effects they may be experiencing?
• Would it be appropriate to lower the cannabis dose/frequency of its use?
• If a patient is using cannabis with an objective that is not backed up by the literature, such as depression, are they open to information about other treatment options?

The study was sponsored by GW Research. Dr. Salter has conducted research for GW Pharmaceuticals companies. Dr. Safar has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of cannabis is common in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), especially for the treatment of MS-related spasticity, new research suggests. Findings from a survey conducted through a large registry in 2020 showed that 31% of patients with MS reported trying cannabis to treat their symptoms – and 20% reported regular use.

Spasticity was reported by 80% as the reason why they used cannabis, while pain was cited as the reason by 69% and sleep problems/insomnia was cited by 61%.

Investigators noted that the new data reflect the latest patterns of use amid sweeping changes in recreational and medical marijuana laws.

“Interest in the use of cannabis for managing MS symptoms continues to increase as more data become available and access becomes easier,” co-investigator Amber Salter, PhD, associate professor, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, told attendees at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Administration routes vary

The survey was conducted through the longitudinal North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry, a voluntary, self-report registry for patients with MS. Of 6,934 registry participants invited to participate, 3,249 (47%) responded. The majority of responders were women (79%) and the mean age was 61 years. About 63% were being treated with disease-modifying therapies.

Overall, 31% of respondents reported having used cannabis to treat their MS symptoms. In addition, 20% reported regular current cannabis use, with an average use of 20 days in the past month. As many as 40% of the current users reported using cannabis daily.

“In general we saw some small differences in current users, who tended to include more males; have higher spasticity, pain, and sleep symptoms; and [were] more likely to be unemployed and younger,” Dr. Salter said.

The most common forms of cannabis administration were smoking (33%) and eating (20%). In addition, 12% reported vaporizing cannabis with a highly concentrated material, 11% administered cannabis sublingually, and 11% reported swallowing it.

Further, 8% reported vaporizing cannabis as a dried flower, 5% used it topically, and 1% reported drinking it.

Of note, the definition of “cannabis/marijuana” in the study excluded hemp cannabidiol (CBD) or products marketed as CBD only.
 

Consistent use

The most common reason for use by far was spasticity (80%). This was followed by for pain (69%) and sleep/insomnia problems (61%). Among users, 37% reported doing so to treat all three of those problems.

Regarding other symptoms, 36% used cannabis for anxiety, 24% for depression, 18% for overactive bladder, 17% for nausea or gastrointestinal problems, 16% for migraine or headaches, 14% for tremors, and 6% for other purposes.

The vast majority (95%) reported cannabis to be very or somewhat helpful for their symptoms.

Among the 69% of respondents who reported not using cannabis for their MS symptoms, the most commonly cited reasons were a lack of evidence on efficacy (40%) or safety (27%), concerns of legality (25%), lack of insurance coverage (22%), prohibitive cost (18%), and adverse side effects.

Surprisingly, the dramatic shift in the legalization of cannabis use in many states does not appear to be reflected in changes in cannabis use for MS, Dr. Salter said.

“We conducted an anonymous NARCOMS survey a couple of years prior to this survey, and our results are generally consistent. There’s been a small increase in the use and an acceptance or willingness to consider cannabis, but it’s relatively consistent,” she said.

“Despite the changes in access, the landscape hasn’t really changed very much in terms of evidence of the effects on MS symptoms, so that could be why,” Dr. Salter added.

Most patients appear to feel comfortable discussing their cannabis use with their physician, with 75% reporting doing so. However, the most common primary source of medical guidance for treating MS with cannabis was “nobody/self”; for 20%, the source for medical guidance was a dispensary professional.

As many as 62% of respondents reported obtaining their cannabis products from dispensaries, while other sources included family/friend (18%) or an acquaintance (13%). About 31% reported their most preferred type of cannabis to be equal parts THC and cannabidiol, while 30% preferred high THC/low cannabidiol (30%).
 

Mirrors clinical practice findings

Commenting on the study, Laura T. Safar, MD, vice chair of Psychiatry at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings generally fall in line with cannabis use among patients with MS in her practice.

“This is [consistent] with my general experience: A high percentage of my patients with MS are using cannabis with the goal of addressing their MS symptoms that way,” said Dr. Safar, who was not involved with the research.

One notable recent change in patients’ inquiries about cannabis is their apparent confidence in the information they’re getting, she noted. This is a sign of the ever-expanding sources of information – but from sources who may or may not have an understanding of effects in MS, she added.

“What seems new is a certain level of specificity in the information patients state – regardless of its accuracy. There is more technical information widely available about cannabis online and in the dispensaries,” said Dr. Safar.

“A lot of that information may not have been tested scientifically, but it is presented with an aura of truth,” she said.

While misconceptions about cannabis use in MS may not be new, “the conviction with which they are stated and believed seems stronger,” even though they have been validated by questionably expert sources, Dr. Safar noted.

She pointed out that psychiatric effects are among her patients’ notable concerns of cannabis use in MS.

“Cannabis use, especially daily use in moderate to large amounts, can have negative cognitive side effects,” she said. “In addition, it can have other psychiatric side effects: worsening of mood and anxiety, apathy, and anhedonia, a lack of pleasure or enjoyment, and a flattening of the emotional experience.”
 

Countering misinformation

Dr. Safar said she works to counter misinformation and provide more reliable, evidence-based recommendations.

“I educate my patients about what we know from scientific trials about the potential benefits, including possible help with pain, excluding central pain, and with spasticity,” she said. Dr. Safar added that she also discusses possible risks, such as worsening of cognition, mood, and anxiety.

On the basis of an individual’s presentation, and working in collaboration with their neurologist as appropriate, Dr. Safar said she discusses the following issues with the patient:

• Does cannabis make sense for the symptoms being presented?
• Has the patient received benefit so far?
• Are there side effects they may be experiencing?
• Would it be appropriate to lower the cannabis dose/frequency of its use?
• If a patient is using cannabis with an objective that is not backed up by the literature, such as depression, are they open to information about other treatment options?

The study was sponsored by GW Research. Dr. Salter has conducted research for GW Pharmaceuticals companies. Dr. Safar has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has endorsed a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s lower-dose mRNA vaccine for children ages 5 through 11 years-old – meaning the shots are now available for immediate use.

The Nov. 2 decision came mere hours after experts that advise the CDC on vaccinations strongly recommended the vaccine for this age group.

“Together, with science leading the charge, we have taken another important step forward in our nation’s fight against the virus that causes COVID-19. We know millions of parents are eager to get their children vaccinated and with this decision, we now have recommended that about 28 million children receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As a mom, I encourage parents with questions to talk to their pediatrician, school nurse, or local pharmacist to learn more about the vaccine and the importance of getting their children vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said in a prepared statement.

President Joe Biden applauded Dr. Walensky’s endorsement: “Today, we have reached a turning point in our battle against COVID-19: authorization of a safe, effective vaccine for children age 5 to 11. It will allow parents to end months of anxious worrying about their kids, and reduce the extent to which children spread the virus to others. It is a major step forward for our nation in our fight to defeat the virus,” he said in a statement.

The 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously earlier in the day to recommend the vaccine for kids.

“I feel like I have a responsibility to make this vaccine available to children and their parents,” said committee member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, a clinical professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. Bell noted that all evidence the committee had reviewed pointed to a vaccine that was safe and effective for younger children.

“If I had a grandchild, I would certainly get that grandchild vaccinated as soon as possible,” she said.

Their recommendations follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for this same age group last week.

“I’m voting for this because I think it could have a huge positive impact on [kids’] health and their social and emotional wellbeing,” said Grace Lee, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine, who chairs the CDC’s ACIP.

She noted that, though masks are available to reduce the risk for kids, they aren’t perfect and transmission still occurs.

“Vaccines are really the only consistent and reliable way to provide that protection,” Lee said.

The vaccine for children is two doses given 3 weeks apart. Each dose is 10 micrograms, which is one-third of the dose used in adults and teens.

To avoid confusion, the smaller dose for kids will come in bottles with orange labels and orange tops. The vaccine for adults is packaged in purple.

The CDC also addressed the question of kids who are close to age 12 when they get their first dose.

In general, pediatricians allow for a 4-day grace period around birthdays to determine which dose is needed. That will be the same with the COVID-19 vaccine.

For kids who are 11 when they start the series, they should get another 10-microgram dose after they turn 12 a few weeks later.

COVID-19 cases in this age group have climbed sharply over the summer and into the fall as schools have fully reopened, sometimes without the benefit of masks.

In the first week of October, roughly 10% of all COVID-19 cases recorded in the United States were among children ages 5 through 11. Since the start of pandemic, about 1.9 million children in this age group have been infected, though that’s almost certainly an undercount. More than 8,300 have been hospitalized, and 94 children have died.

Children of color have been disproportionately impacted. More than two-thirds of hospitalized children have been black or Hispanic.

Weighing benefits and risks

In clinical trials that included more than 4,600 children, the most common adverse events were pain and swelling at the injection site. They could also have side effects like fevers, fatigue, headache, chills, and sometimes swollen lymph nodes.

These kinds of side effects appear to be less common in children ages 5 to 11 than they have been in teens and adults, and they were temporary.

No cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were seen in the studies, but myocarditis is a very rare side effect, and the studies were too small to pick up these cases.

Still, doctors say they’re watching for it. In general, the greatest risk for myocarditis after vaccination has been seen in younger males between the ages of 12 and 30.

Even without COVID-19 or vaccines in the mix, doctors expect to see as many as two cases of myocarditis for every million people over the course of a week. The risk for myocarditis jumps up to about 11 cases for every million doses of mRNA vaccine given to men ages 25 to 30. It’s between 37 and 69 cases per million doses in boys between the ages of 12 and 24.

Still, experts say the possibility of this rare risk shouldn’t deter parents from vaccinating younger children.

Here’s why: The risk for myocarditis is higher after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination. Younger children have a lower risk for myocarditis than teens and young adults, suggesting that this side effect may be less frequent in this age group, although that remains to be seen.

Additionally, the smaller dose authorized for children is expected to minimize the risk for myocarditis even further.

The CDC says parents should call their doctor if a child develops pain in their chest, has trouble breathing, or feels like they have a beating or fluttering heart after vaccination.

What about benefits?

Models looking at the impact of vaccines in this age group predict that, nationally, cases would drop by about 8% if children are vaccinated.

The models also suggested that vaccination of kids this age would slow — but not stop — the emergence of new variants.

For every million doses, the CDC’s modeling predicts that more than 56,000 COVID-19 infections would be prevented in this age group, along with dozens of hospitalizations, and post-COVID conditions like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

CDC experts estimate that just 10 kids would need to be vaccinated over 6 months to prevent a single case of COVID-19.

The CDC pointed out that vaccinating kids may help slow transmission of the virus and would give parents and other caregivers greater confidence in participating in school and extracurricular activities.

CDC experts said they would use a variety of systems, including hospital networks, the open Vaccines and Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database, the cell-phone based V-SAFE app, and insurance claims databases to keep an eye out for any rare adverse events related to the vaccines in children.

This article, a version of which first appeared on Medscape.com, was updated on Nov. 3, 2021.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has endorsed a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s lower-dose mRNA vaccine for children ages 5 through 11 years-old – meaning the shots are now available for immediate use.

The Nov. 2 decision came mere hours after experts that advise the CDC on vaccinations strongly recommended the vaccine for this age group.

“Together, with science leading the charge, we have taken another important step forward in our nation’s fight against the virus that causes COVID-19. We know millions of parents are eager to get their children vaccinated and with this decision, we now have recommended that about 28 million children receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As a mom, I encourage parents with questions to talk to their pediatrician, school nurse, or local pharmacist to learn more about the vaccine and the importance of getting their children vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said in a prepared statement.

President Joe Biden applauded Dr. Walensky’s endorsement: “Today, we have reached a turning point in our battle against COVID-19: authorization of a safe, effective vaccine for children age 5 to 11. It will allow parents to end months of anxious worrying about their kids, and reduce the extent to which children spread the virus to others. It is a major step forward for our nation in our fight to defeat the virus,” he said in a statement.

The 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously earlier in the day to recommend the vaccine for kids.

“I feel like I have a responsibility to make this vaccine available to children and their parents,” said committee member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, a clinical professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. Bell noted that all evidence the committee had reviewed pointed to a vaccine that was safe and effective for younger children.

“If I had a grandchild, I would certainly get that grandchild vaccinated as soon as possible,” she said.

Their recommendations follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for this same age group last week.

“I’m voting for this because I think it could have a huge positive impact on [kids’] health and their social and emotional wellbeing,” said Grace Lee, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine, who chairs the CDC’s ACIP.

She noted that, though masks are available to reduce the risk for kids, they aren’t perfect and transmission still occurs.

“Vaccines are really the only consistent and reliable way to provide that protection,” Lee said.

The vaccine for children is two doses given 3 weeks apart. Each dose is 10 micrograms, which is one-third of the dose used in adults and teens.

To avoid confusion, the smaller dose for kids will come in bottles with orange labels and orange tops. The vaccine for adults is packaged in purple.

The CDC also addressed the question of kids who are close to age 12 when they get their first dose.

In general, pediatricians allow for a 4-day grace period around birthdays to determine which dose is needed. That will be the same with the COVID-19 vaccine.

For kids who are 11 when they start the series, they should get another 10-microgram dose after they turn 12 a few weeks later.

COVID-19 cases in this age group have climbed sharply over the summer and into the fall as schools have fully reopened, sometimes without the benefit of masks.

In the first week of October, roughly 10% of all COVID-19 cases recorded in the United States were among children ages 5 through 11. Since the start of pandemic, about 1.9 million children in this age group have been infected, though that’s almost certainly an undercount. More than 8,300 have been hospitalized, and 94 children have died.

Children of color have been disproportionately impacted. More than two-thirds of hospitalized children have been black or Hispanic.

Weighing benefits and risks

In clinical trials that included more than 4,600 children, the most common adverse events were pain and swelling at the injection site. They could also have side effects like fevers, fatigue, headache, chills, and sometimes swollen lymph nodes.

These kinds of side effects appear to be less common in children ages 5 to 11 than they have been in teens and adults, and they were temporary.

No cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were seen in the studies, but myocarditis is a very rare side effect, and the studies were too small to pick up these cases.

Still, doctors say they’re watching for it. In general, the greatest risk for myocarditis after vaccination has been seen in younger males between the ages of 12 and 30.

Even without COVID-19 or vaccines in the mix, doctors expect to see as many as two cases of myocarditis for every million people over the course of a week. The risk for myocarditis jumps up to about 11 cases for every million doses of mRNA vaccine given to men ages 25 to 30. It’s between 37 and 69 cases per million doses in boys between the ages of 12 and 24.

Still, experts say the possibility of this rare risk shouldn’t deter parents from vaccinating younger children.

Here’s why: The risk for myocarditis is higher after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination. Younger children have a lower risk for myocarditis than teens and young adults, suggesting that this side effect may be less frequent in this age group, although that remains to be seen.

Additionally, the smaller dose authorized for children is expected to minimize the risk for myocarditis even further.

The CDC says parents should call their doctor if a child develops pain in their chest, has trouble breathing, or feels like they have a beating or fluttering heart after vaccination.

What about benefits?

Models looking at the impact of vaccines in this age group predict that, nationally, cases would drop by about 8% if children are vaccinated.

The models also suggested that vaccination of kids this age would slow — but not stop — the emergence of new variants.

For every million doses, the CDC’s modeling predicts that more than 56,000 COVID-19 infections would be prevented in this age group, along with dozens of hospitalizations, and post-COVID conditions like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

CDC experts estimate that just 10 kids would need to be vaccinated over 6 months to prevent a single case of COVID-19.

The CDC pointed out that vaccinating kids may help slow transmission of the virus and would give parents and other caregivers greater confidence in participating in school and extracurricular activities.

CDC experts said they would use a variety of systems, including hospital networks, the open Vaccines and Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database, the cell-phone based V-SAFE app, and insurance claims databases to keep an eye out for any rare adverse events related to the vaccines in children.

This article, a version of which first appeared on Medscape.com, was updated on Nov. 3, 2021.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, has endorsed a two-dose regimen of Pfizer’s lower-dose mRNA vaccine for children ages 5 through 11 years-old – meaning the shots are now available for immediate use.

The Nov. 2 decision came mere hours after experts that advise the CDC on vaccinations strongly recommended the vaccine for this age group.

“Together, with science leading the charge, we have taken another important step forward in our nation’s fight against the virus that causes COVID-19. We know millions of parents are eager to get their children vaccinated and with this decision, we now have recommended that about 28 million children receive a COVID-19 vaccine. As a mom, I encourage parents with questions to talk to their pediatrician, school nurse, or local pharmacist to learn more about the vaccine and the importance of getting their children vaccinated,” Dr. Walensky said in a prepared statement.

President Joe Biden applauded Dr. Walensky’s endorsement: “Today, we have reached a turning point in our battle against COVID-19: authorization of a safe, effective vaccine for children age 5 to 11. It will allow parents to end months of anxious worrying about their kids, and reduce the extent to which children spread the virus to others. It is a major step forward for our nation in our fight to defeat the virus,” he said in a statement.

The 14 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted unanimously earlier in the day to recommend the vaccine for kids.

“I feel like I have a responsibility to make this vaccine available to children and their parents,” said committee member Beth Bell, MD, MPH, a clinical professor at the University of Washington in Seattle. Bell noted that all evidence the committee had reviewed pointed to a vaccine that was safe and effective for younger children.

“If I had a grandchild, I would certainly get that grandchild vaccinated as soon as possible,” she said.

Their recommendations follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s emergency authorization of Pfizer-BioNTech’s vaccine for this same age group last week.

“I’m voting for this because I think it could have a huge positive impact on [kids’] health and their social and emotional wellbeing,” said Grace Lee, MD, a professor of pediatrics at Stanford University School of Medicine, who chairs the CDC’s ACIP.

She noted that, though masks are available to reduce the risk for kids, they aren’t perfect and transmission still occurs.

“Vaccines are really the only consistent and reliable way to provide that protection,” Lee said.

The vaccine for children is two doses given 3 weeks apart. Each dose is 10 micrograms, which is one-third of the dose used in adults and teens.

To avoid confusion, the smaller dose for kids will come in bottles with orange labels and orange tops. The vaccine for adults is packaged in purple.

The CDC also addressed the question of kids who are close to age 12 when they get their first dose.

In general, pediatricians allow for a 4-day grace period around birthdays to determine which dose is needed. That will be the same with the COVID-19 vaccine.

For kids who are 11 when they start the series, they should get another 10-microgram dose after they turn 12 a few weeks later.

COVID-19 cases in this age group have climbed sharply over the summer and into the fall as schools have fully reopened, sometimes without the benefit of masks.

In the first week of October, roughly 10% of all COVID-19 cases recorded in the United States were among children ages 5 through 11. Since the start of pandemic, about 1.9 million children in this age group have been infected, though that’s almost certainly an undercount. More than 8,300 have been hospitalized, and 94 children have died.

Children of color have been disproportionately impacted. More than two-thirds of hospitalized children have been black or Hispanic.

Weighing benefits and risks

In clinical trials that included more than 4,600 children, the most common adverse events were pain and swelling at the injection site. They could also have side effects like fevers, fatigue, headache, chills, and sometimes swollen lymph nodes.

These kinds of side effects appear to be less common in children ages 5 to 11 than they have been in teens and adults, and they were temporary.

No cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were seen in the studies, but myocarditis is a very rare side effect, and the studies were too small to pick up these cases.

Still, doctors say they’re watching for it. In general, the greatest risk for myocarditis after vaccination has been seen in younger males between the ages of 12 and 30.

Even without COVID-19 or vaccines in the mix, doctors expect to see as many as two cases of myocarditis for every million people over the course of a week. The risk for myocarditis jumps up to about 11 cases for every million doses of mRNA vaccine given to men ages 25 to 30. It’s between 37 and 69 cases per million doses in boys between the ages of 12 and 24.

Still, experts say the possibility of this rare risk shouldn’t deter parents from vaccinating younger children.

Here’s why: The risk for myocarditis is higher after COVID-19 infection than after vaccination. Younger children have a lower risk for myocarditis than teens and young adults, suggesting that this side effect may be less frequent in this age group, although that remains to be seen.

Additionally, the smaller dose authorized for children is expected to minimize the risk for myocarditis even further.

The CDC says parents should call their doctor if a child develops pain in their chest, has trouble breathing, or feels like they have a beating or fluttering heart after vaccination.

What about benefits?

Models looking at the impact of vaccines in this age group predict that, nationally, cases would drop by about 8% if children are vaccinated.

The models also suggested that vaccination of kids this age would slow — but not stop — the emergence of new variants.

For every million doses, the CDC’s modeling predicts that more than 56,000 COVID-19 infections would be prevented in this age group, along with dozens of hospitalizations, and post-COVID conditions like multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children.

CDC experts estimate that just 10 kids would need to be vaccinated over 6 months to prevent a single case of COVID-19.

The CDC pointed out that vaccinating kids may help slow transmission of the virus and would give parents and other caregivers greater confidence in participating in school and extracurricular activities.

CDC experts said they would use a variety of systems, including hospital networks, the open Vaccines and Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database, the cell-phone based V-SAFE app, and insurance claims databases to keep an eye out for any rare adverse events related to the vaccines in children.

This article, a version of which first appeared on Medscape.com, was updated on Nov. 3, 2021.

An updated consensus guideline on routine clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis (MS) has been released collaboratively by three international expert groups.

The guideline represents a collaboration between the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, the European-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis, and North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis.

Among its recommendations for improving diagnosis and management of MS is the establishment of much-needed ways to boost protocol adherence. “The key part of these recommendations that we want to emphasize is how important it is for them to be used,” said David Li, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and cochair of the MRI guideline committee.

Dr. Li noted that there was a widespread lack of adherence among MRI centers to compliance with the 2018 CMSC guidelines in imaging for MS. This potentially compromised clinicians’ ability to identify lesions that allow for earlier and confident diagnoses and to monitor for disease changes that may necessitate the initiation or change of therapy, he said.

“The key to being able to know that brain changes have occurred in patients over time is to have scans that have been performed using standardized protocols – to be certain that the change is truly the result of a change in disease activity and progression and not erroneously due to differences resulting from different MRI scanning procedures,” he said to attendees at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The guideline was also published this summer as a position paper in Lancet Neurology.

Key recommendations

The new guideline covers a broad range of imaging topics, with key areas of focus including the use of three-dimensional imaging, when and when not to use gadolinium contrast, and spinal cord imaging.

For example, a 3 Tesla magnet strength is preferred when imaging the brain with MRI because of its increased sensitivity for detecting lesions – but a minimum magnet strength of at least 1.5 T can also be used. For the spinal cord, there is no advantage of 3 T over 1.5 T, the guideline notes.

Other recommendations include:

• Core sequences for the brain should include sagittal and axial T2-weighted 3D fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), along with axial T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted sequences.
• 3D acquisition, which is now available on most scanners, is preferable to 2D acquisitions.
• Use of the subcallosal plane for consistent and reproducible alignment of axial scans is again emphasized, as it allows for easier and more confident comparison of follow-up studies to detect changes over time.
• At least two of three sagittal sequences are recommended for spinal cord MRI.
• The judicious use of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) is reemphasized because of its invaluable role in specific circumstances.
• However, for routine follow-up monitoring for subclinical disease activity, high-quality nonenhanced scans will allow for identification of new or enlarging T2 lesions without the need for GBCA.
• A new baseline brain MRI scan without gadolinium is recommended at least 3 months after treatment initiation, with annual follow-up scans without gadolinium.

For the diagnosis of MS, imaging of the entire spinal cord, as opposed to only the cervical segments, is recommended for the detection of lesions in the lower thoracic spinal segments and conus. However, 1.5-T scans are acceptable in that imaging, as 3-T scans provide no advantage. For routine follow-up monitoring, spinal cord MRI is optional.

“The current guidelines do not recommend routine follow-up spinal cord MRI, as it remains technically challenging and would disproportionately increase the scanning time, however experienced centers have the option to do so as a small number of asymptomatic spinal cord lesions do develop on follow-up,” the authors noted.

“However, follow up spinal cord MRI is recommended in special circumstances, including unexpected disease worsening and the possibility of a diagnosis other than multiple sclerosis,” they added.

Although the central vein sign has gained significant interest as a potential biomarker of inflammatory demyelination to help distinguish between MS and non-MS lesions, the 2021 protocol does not currently recommend imaging for the feature. However, those recommendations may change in future guidelines, the authors noted.

Low protocol adherence

The ongoing lack of adherence to guidelines that has resulted in frustrating inconsistencies in imaging was documented in no less than four studies presented at the meeting. They showed compliance with standard protocols to be strikingly poor.

Among the studies was one presented by Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada, and from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Findings showed that only about half of scans acquired in a real-world dataset satisfied 2018 CMSC Standardized Brain MRI recommendations.

“Of note was that all the scans that were compliant were acquired in 3D while none of the 2D-acquired sequences were adherent,” Dr. Li commented.

Another study assessed use of standardized MRI protocols in a pragmatic, multisite MS clinical trial, the Traditional vs. Early Aggressive Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trial. Results showed that, upon enrollment, only 10% of scans followed CMSC guidelines for all three structural contrasts.

In that study, when the images provided by Johns Hopkins University Medical School were excluded, that figure dropped to 2.75% of remaining scans that met the criteria.

“Despite the importance of standardization of high-quality MRIs for the monitoring of people with MS, adoption of recommended imaging remains low,” the investigators wrote.

Resistance to change?

Commenting on the research and new guideline, Blake E. Dewey, PhD student, department of electrical and computer engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, speculated that the noncompliance is often simply a matter of resistance to change.

“There are a number of reasons that are given for the retention of older, noncompliant MRI scans at different institutions, such as timing and patient throughput; but in my mind the issue is institutional inertia,” he said.

“It is difficult in many instances to get the clinician [radiologist] and institutional buy-in to make these kinds of changes across the board,” Mr. Dewey noted.

“The most common protocol that we see acquired is a set of 2D, low-resolution images with gaps between slices. These are simply not sufficient given modern MRI technology and the needs of MS clinicians,” he added.

Importantly, Mr. Dewey noted that, through direct communication with imaging staff and practitioners in the trial, compliance increased substantially – nearly 20-fold, “indicating a real possibility for outreach, including to commonly used outpatient radiology facilities.”

The updated MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS MRI protocol is beneficial in providing “simple, reasonable guidelines that can be easily acquired at almost any imaging location in the U.S., and much of the rest of the world,” he said.

“As imaging researchers, we often reach for more that is needed clinically to properly diagnose and monitor a patient’s disease,” Mr. Dewey added. “This updated protocol has ‘trimmed the fat’ and left some discretion to institutions, which should help with compliance.”

Mr. Dewey said he also encourages imaging professionals to consider performing the sequences described as “optional” as well.

“Some of these are useful in measuring potential biomarkers currently under extensive validation, such as brain volumetrics and the central vein sign, that may help patient populations that are currently underserved by more traditional imaging, such as progressive patients and patients that could be potentially misdiagnosed,” he said.

Spreading the word

In the meantime, as part of its own outreach efforts, the CMSC is providing laminated cards that detail in simplified tables the 2021 updated MRI protocol. This makes it easy for centers to access the information and patients to help improve awareness of the protocol.

“We are urging clinicians to provide the cards to their MS patients and have them present the cards to their imaging center,” Dr. Li said. “This effort could make such an important difference in helping to encourage more to follow the protocol.”

Clinicians and patients alike can download the MRI protocol card from the CMSC website.

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

An updated consensus guideline on routine clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis (MS) has been released collaboratively by three international expert groups.

The guideline represents a collaboration between the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, the European-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis, and North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis.

Among its recommendations for improving diagnosis and management of MS is the establishment of much-needed ways to boost protocol adherence. “The key part of these recommendations that we want to emphasize is how important it is for them to be used,” said David Li, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and cochair of the MRI guideline committee.

Dr. Li noted that there was a widespread lack of adherence among MRI centers to compliance with the 2018 CMSC guidelines in imaging for MS. This potentially compromised clinicians’ ability to identify lesions that allow for earlier and confident diagnoses and to monitor for disease changes that may necessitate the initiation or change of therapy, he said.

“The key to being able to know that brain changes have occurred in patients over time is to have scans that have been performed using standardized protocols – to be certain that the change is truly the result of a change in disease activity and progression and not erroneously due to differences resulting from different MRI scanning procedures,” he said to attendees at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The guideline was also published this summer as a position paper in Lancet Neurology.

Key recommendations

The new guideline covers a broad range of imaging topics, with key areas of focus including the use of three-dimensional imaging, when and when not to use gadolinium contrast, and spinal cord imaging.

For example, a 3 Tesla magnet strength is preferred when imaging the brain with MRI because of its increased sensitivity for detecting lesions – but a minimum magnet strength of at least 1.5 T can also be used. For the spinal cord, there is no advantage of 3 T over 1.5 T, the guideline notes.

Other recommendations include:

• Core sequences for the brain should include sagittal and axial T2-weighted 3D fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), along with axial T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted sequences.
• 3D acquisition, which is now available on most scanners, is preferable to 2D acquisitions.
• Use of the subcallosal plane for consistent and reproducible alignment of axial scans is again emphasized, as it allows for easier and more confident comparison of follow-up studies to detect changes over time.
• At least two of three sagittal sequences are recommended for spinal cord MRI.
• The judicious use of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) is reemphasized because of its invaluable role in specific circumstances.
• However, for routine follow-up monitoring for subclinical disease activity, high-quality nonenhanced scans will allow for identification of new or enlarging T2 lesions without the need for GBCA.
• A new baseline brain MRI scan without gadolinium is recommended at least 3 months after treatment initiation, with annual follow-up scans without gadolinium.

For the diagnosis of MS, imaging of the entire spinal cord, as opposed to only the cervical segments, is recommended for the detection of lesions in the lower thoracic spinal segments and conus. However, 1.5-T scans are acceptable in that imaging, as 3-T scans provide no advantage. For routine follow-up monitoring, spinal cord MRI is optional.

“The current guidelines do not recommend routine follow-up spinal cord MRI, as it remains technically challenging and would disproportionately increase the scanning time, however experienced centers have the option to do so as a small number of asymptomatic spinal cord lesions do develop on follow-up,” the authors noted.

“However, follow up spinal cord MRI is recommended in special circumstances, including unexpected disease worsening and the possibility of a diagnosis other than multiple sclerosis,” they added.

Although the central vein sign has gained significant interest as a potential biomarker of inflammatory demyelination to help distinguish between MS and non-MS lesions, the 2021 protocol does not currently recommend imaging for the feature. However, those recommendations may change in future guidelines, the authors noted.

Low protocol adherence

The ongoing lack of adherence to guidelines that has resulted in frustrating inconsistencies in imaging was documented in no less than four studies presented at the meeting. They showed compliance with standard protocols to be strikingly poor.

Among the studies was one presented by Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada, and from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Findings showed that only about half of scans acquired in a real-world dataset satisfied 2018 CMSC Standardized Brain MRI recommendations.

“Of note was that all the scans that were compliant were acquired in 3D while none of the 2D-acquired sequences were adherent,” Dr. Li commented.

Another study assessed use of standardized MRI protocols in a pragmatic, multisite MS clinical trial, the Traditional vs. Early Aggressive Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trial. Results showed that, upon enrollment, only 10% of scans followed CMSC guidelines for all three structural contrasts.

In that study, when the images provided by Johns Hopkins University Medical School were excluded, that figure dropped to 2.75% of remaining scans that met the criteria.

“Despite the importance of standardization of high-quality MRIs for the monitoring of people with MS, adoption of recommended imaging remains low,” the investigators wrote.

Resistance to change?

Commenting on the research and new guideline, Blake E. Dewey, PhD student, department of electrical and computer engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, speculated that the noncompliance is often simply a matter of resistance to change.

“There are a number of reasons that are given for the retention of older, noncompliant MRI scans at different institutions, such as timing and patient throughput; but in my mind the issue is institutional inertia,” he said.

“It is difficult in many instances to get the clinician [radiologist] and institutional buy-in to make these kinds of changes across the board,” Mr. Dewey noted.

“The most common protocol that we see acquired is a set of 2D, low-resolution images with gaps between slices. These are simply not sufficient given modern MRI technology and the needs of MS clinicians,” he added.

Importantly, Mr. Dewey noted that, through direct communication with imaging staff and practitioners in the trial, compliance increased substantially – nearly 20-fold, “indicating a real possibility for outreach, including to commonly used outpatient radiology facilities.”

The updated MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS MRI protocol is beneficial in providing “simple, reasonable guidelines that can be easily acquired at almost any imaging location in the U.S., and much of the rest of the world,” he said.

“As imaging researchers, we often reach for more that is needed clinically to properly diagnose and monitor a patient’s disease,” Mr. Dewey added. “This updated protocol has ‘trimmed the fat’ and left some discretion to institutions, which should help with compliance.”

Mr. Dewey said he also encourages imaging professionals to consider performing the sequences described as “optional” as well.

“Some of these are useful in measuring potential biomarkers currently under extensive validation, such as brain volumetrics and the central vein sign, that may help patient populations that are currently underserved by more traditional imaging, such as progressive patients and patients that could be potentially misdiagnosed,” he said.

Spreading the word

In the meantime, as part of its own outreach efforts, the CMSC is providing laminated cards that detail in simplified tables the 2021 updated MRI protocol. This makes it easy for centers to access the information and patients to help improve awareness of the protocol.

“We are urging clinicians to provide the cards to their MS patients and have them present the cards to their imaging center,” Dr. Li said. “This effort could make such an important difference in helping to encourage more to follow the protocol.”

Clinicians and patients alike can download the MRI protocol card from the CMSC website.

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

An updated consensus guideline on routine clinical use of magnetic resonance imaging in multiple sclerosis (MS) has been released collaboratively by three international expert groups.

The guideline represents a collaboration between the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, the European-based Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis, and North American Imaging in Multiple Sclerosis.

Among its recommendations for improving diagnosis and management of MS is the establishment of much-needed ways to boost protocol adherence. “The key part of these recommendations that we want to emphasize is how important it is for them to be used,” said David Li, MD, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and cochair of the MRI guideline committee.

Dr. Li noted that there was a widespread lack of adherence among MRI centers to compliance with the 2018 CMSC guidelines in imaging for MS. This potentially compromised clinicians’ ability to identify lesions that allow for earlier and confident diagnoses and to monitor for disease changes that may necessitate the initiation or change of therapy, he said.

“The key to being able to know that brain changes have occurred in patients over time is to have scans that have been performed using standardized protocols – to be certain that the change is truly the result of a change in disease activity and progression and not erroneously due to differences resulting from different MRI scanning procedures,” he said to attendees at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

The guideline was also published this summer as a position paper in Lancet Neurology.

Key recommendations

The new guideline covers a broad range of imaging topics, with key areas of focus including the use of three-dimensional imaging, when and when not to use gadolinium contrast, and spinal cord imaging.

For example, a 3 Tesla magnet strength is preferred when imaging the brain with MRI because of its increased sensitivity for detecting lesions – but a minimum magnet strength of at least 1.5 T can also be used. For the spinal cord, there is no advantage of 3 T over 1.5 T, the guideline notes.

Other recommendations include:

• Core sequences for the brain should include sagittal and axial T2-weighted 3D fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), along with axial T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted sequences.
• 3D acquisition, which is now available on most scanners, is preferable to 2D acquisitions.
• Use of the subcallosal plane for consistent and reproducible alignment of axial scans is again emphasized, as it allows for easier and more confident comparison of follow-up studies to detect changes over time.
• At least two of three sagittal sequences are recommended for spinal cord MRI.
• The judicious use of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCA) is reemphasized because of its invaluable role in specific circumstances.
• However, for routine follow-up monitoring for subclinical disease activity, high-quality nonenhanced scans will allow for identification of new or enlarging T2 lesions without the need for GBCA.
• A new baseline brain MRI scan without gadolinium is recommended at least 3 months after treatment initiation, with annual follow-up scans without gadolinium.

For the diagnosis of MS, imaging of the entire spinal cord, as opposed to only the cervical segments, is recommended for the detection of lesions in the lower thoracic spinal segments and conus. However, 1.5-T scans are acceptable in that imaging, as 3-T scans provide no advantage. For routine follow-up monitoring, spinal cord MRI is optional.

“The current guidelines do not recommend routine follow-up spinal cord MRI, as it remains technically challenging and would disproportionately increase the scanning time, however experienced centers have the option to do so as a small number of asymptomatic spinal cord lesions do develop on follow-up,” the authors noted.

“However, follow up spinal cord MRI is recommended in special circumstances, including unexpected disease worsening and the possibility of a diagnosis other than multiple sclerosis,” they added.

Although the central vein sign has gained significant interest as a potential biomarker of inflammatory demyelination to help distinguish between MS and non-MS lesions, the 2021 protocol does not currently recommend imaging for the feature. However, those recommendations may change in future guidelines, the authors noted.

Low protocol adherence

The ongoing lack of adherence to guidelines that has resulted in frustrating inconsistencies in imaging was documented in no less than four studies presented at the meeting. They showed compliance with standard protocols to be strikingly poor.

Among the studies was one presented by Anthony Traboulsee, MD, professor and research chair of the MS Society of Canada, and from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. Findings showed that only about half of scans acquired in a real-world dataset satisfied 2018 CMSC Standardized Brain MRI recommendations.

“Of note was that all the scans that were compliant were acquired in 3D while none of the 2D-acquired sequences were adherent,” Dr. Li commented.

Another study assessed use of standardized MRI protocols in a pragmatic, multisite MS clinical trial, the Traditional vs. Early Aggressive Therapy in Multiple Sclerosis (TREAT-MS) trial. Results showed that, upon enrollment, only 10% of scans followed CMSC guidelines for all three structural contrasts.

In that study, when the images provided by Johns Hopkins University Medical School were excluded, that figure dropped to 2.75% of remaining scans that met the criteria.

“Despite the importance of standardization of high-quality MRIs for the monitoring of people with MS, adoption of recommended imaging remains low,” the investigators wrote.

Resistance to change?

Commenting on the research and new guideline, Blake E. Dewey, PhD student, department of electrical and computer engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, speculated that the noncompliance is often simply a matter of resistance to change.

“There are a number of reasons that are given for the retention of older, noncompliant MRI scans at different institutions, such as timing and patient throughput; but in my mind the issue is institutional inertia,” he said.

“It is difficult in many instances to get the clinician [radiologist] and institutional buy-in to make these kinds of changes across the board,” Mr. Dewey noted.

“The most common protocol that we see acquired is a set of 2D, low-resolution images with gaps between slices. These are simply not sufficient given modern MRI technology and the needs of MS clinicians,” he added.

Importantly, Mr. Dewey noted that, through direct communication with imaging staff and practitioners in the trial, compliance increased substantially – nearly 20-fold, “indicating a real possibility for outreach, including to commonly used outpatient radiology facilities.”

The updated MAGNIMS-CMSC-NAIMS MRI protocol is beneficial in providing “simple, reasonable guidelines that can be easily acquired at almost any imaging location in the U.S., and much of the rest of the world,” he said.

“As imaging researchers, we often reach for more that is needed clinically to properly diagnose and monitor a patient’s disease,” Mr. Dewey added. “This updated protocol has ‘trimmed the fat’ and left some discretion to institutions, which should help with compliance.”

Mr. Dewey said he also encourages imaging professionals to consider performing the sequences described as “optional” as well.

“Some of these are useful in measuring potential biomarkers currently under extensive validation, such as brain volumetrics and the central vein sign, that may help patient populations that are currently underserved by more traditional imaging, such as progressive patients and patients that could be potentially misdiagnosed,” he said.

Spreading the word

In the meantime, as part of its own outreach efforts, the CMSC is providing laminated cards that detail in simplified tables the 2021 updated MRI protocol. This makes it easy for centers to access the information and patients to help improve awareness of the protocol.

“We are urging clinicians to provide the cards to their MS patients and have them present the cards to their imaging center,” Dr. Li said. “This effort could make such an important difference in helping to encourage more to follow the protocol.”

Clinicians and patients alike can download the MRI protocol card from the CMSC website.

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

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Unvaccinated people who had a recent infection were five times more likely to be reinfected with the coronavirus compared to those who were fully vaccinated and didn’t have a prior infection, according to a new study published recently in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The research team concluded that vaccination can provide a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least six months.

“We now have additional evidence that reaffirms the importance of COVID-19 vaccines, even if you have had prior infection,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said in a statement.

“This study adds more to the body of knowledge demonstrating the protection of vaccines against severe disease from COVID-19,” she said. “The best way to stop COVID-19, including the emergence of variants, is with widespread COVID-19 vaccination and with disease prevention actions such as mask wearing, washing hands often, physical distancing and staying home when sick.”

Researchers looked at data from the VISION Network, which included more than 201,000 hospitalizations for COVID-like illness at 187 hospitals across nine states between Jan. 1 to Sept. 2. Among those, more than 94,000 had rapid testing for the coronavirus, and 7,300 had a lab-confirmed test for COVID-19.

The research team found that unvaccinated people with a prior infection within 3 to 6 months were about 5-1/2 times more likely to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated within 3 to 6 months with the Pfizer or Moderna shots. They found similar results when looking at the months that the Delta variant was the dominant strain of the coronavirus.

Protection from the Moderna vaccine “appeared to be higher” than for the Pfizer vaccine, the study authors wrote. The boost in protection also “trended higher” among older adults, as compared to those under age 65.

Importantly, the research team noted, these estimates may change over time as immunity wanes. Future studies should consider infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity as time passes during the pandemic, they wrote.

Additional research is also needed for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, they wrote. Those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are currently recommended to receive a booster shot at least two months after the first shot.

Overall, “all eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected,” the research team concluded.

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

Unvaccinated people who had a recent infection were five times more likely to be reinfected with the coronavirus compared to those who were fully vaccinated and didn’t have a prior infection, according to a new study published recently in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The research team concluded that vaccination can provide a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least six months.

“We now have additional evidence that reaffirms the importance of COVID-19 vaccines, even if you have had prior infection,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said in a statement.

“This study adds more to the body of knowledge demonstrating the protection of vaccines against severe disease from COVID-19,” she said. “The best way to stop COVID-19, including the emergence of variants, is with widespread COVID-19 vaccination and with disease prevention actions such as mask wearing, washing hands often, physical distancing and staying home when sick.”

Researchers looked at data from the VISION Network, which included more than 201,000 hospitalizations for COVID-like illness at 187 hospitals across nine states between Jan. 1 to Sept. 2. Among those, more than 94,000 had rapid testing for the coronavirus, and 7,300 had a lab-confirmed test for COVID-19.

The research team found that unvaccinated people with a prior infection within 3 to 6 months were about 5-1/2 times more likely to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated within 3 to 6 months with the Pfizer or Moderna shots. They found similar results when looking at the months that the Delta variant was the dominant strain of the coronavirus.

Protection from the Moderna vaccine “appeared to be higher” than for the Pfizer vaccine, the study authors wrote. The boost in protection also “trended higher” among older adults, as compared to those under age 65.

Importantly, the research team noted, these estimates may change over time as immunity wanes. Future studies should consider infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity as time passes during the pandemic, they wrote.

Additional research is also needed for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, they wrote. Those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are currently recommended to receive a booster shot at least two months after the first shot.

Overall, “all eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected,” the research team concluded.

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

Unvaccinated people who had a recent infection were five times more likely to be reinfected with the coronavirus compared to those who were fully vaccinated and didn’t have a prior infection, according to a new study published recently in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The research team concluded that vaccination can provide a higher, stronger, and more consistent level of immunity against COVID-19 hospitalization than infection alone for at least six months.

“We now have additional evidence that reaffirms the importance of COVID-19 vaccines, even if you have had prior infection,” Rochelle Walensky, MD, director of the CDC, said in a statement.

“This study adds more to the body of knowledge demonstrating the protection of vaccines against severe disease from COVID-19,” she said. “The best way to stop COVID-19, including the emergence of variants, is with widespread COVID-19 vaccination and with disease prevention actions such as mask wearing, washing hands often, physical distancing and staying home when sick.”

Researchers looked at data from the VISION Network, which included more than 201,000 hospitalizations for COVID-like illness at 187 hospitals across nine states between Jan. 1 to Sept. 2. Among those, more than 94,000 had rapid testing for the coronavirus, and 7,300 had a lab-confirmed test for COVID-19.

The research team found that unvaccinated people with a prior infection within 3 to 6 months were about 5-1/2 times more likely to have laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated within 3 to 6 months with the Pfizer or Moderna shots. They found similar results when looking at the months that the Delta variant was the dominant strain of the coronavirus.

Protection from the Moderna vaccine “appeared to be higher” than for the Pfizer vaccine, the study authors wrote. The boost in protection also “trended higher” among older adults, as compared to those under age 65.

Importantly, the research team noted, these estimates may change over time as immunity wanes. Future studies should consider infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity as time passes during the pandemic, they wrote.

Additional research is also needed for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, they wrote. Those who have received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are currently recommended to receive a booster shot at least two months after the first shot.

Overall, “all eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected,” the research team concluded.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Oral drug administration was significantly associated with a shorter length of stay for patients treated for headache in the emergency department setting, based on data from approximately 7,000 patients.

Headache is the fourth-most common chief complaint in the ED, accounting for approximately 3% of all ED visits, said Philip Wang, a medical student at the Cleveland Clinic, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians.

A variety of pharmacotherapies are used to manage headache, which leads to a range of resource use, he said.

To understand the association between route of drug administration and length of ED stay, Mr. Wang and colleagues reviewed data from 7,233 visits by 6,715 patients at any of the 21 Cleveland Clinic Health System EDs in 2018 with headache as the primary discharge diagnosis. Patients admitted to the hospital were excluded; those treated with opioids, antiemetics, and/or NSAIDs were included. The average age of the study population was 31 years, 57% were White, and approximately half were Medicaid or Medicare patients.

Approximately 68% of patients received antiemetics, 66.8% received NSAIDs, and 9.8% received opioids. Approximately 42% of patients received parenteral-only treatment and 42% received oral-only treatment; 15% received mixed treatment. The average length of ED stay was 202 minutes.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for sex, age, income, race, insurance status, ED type, and arrival time, treatment with oral drugs only was associated with an 11% reduction of length of stay, compared with treatment with parenteral medication only (P < .001). However, the length of stay for patients treated with mixed route of administration was 10% longer, compared with parenteral only (P < .001).

In terms of drug class (a secondary outcome), patients treated with opioids had a 10% increase in length of stay (P < .01) and those treated with antiemetics had a 14% increase in length of stay; however, patients treated with NSAIDs had a 7% decrease in length of stay.

The study findings were limited in part by the challenge of isolating patients presenting with a primary headache diagnosis, Mr. Wang noted in the presentation.

The challenge of controlling for all the potential factors impacting length of stay, which is “provider, resource, and situation dependent,” is an additional limitation, he said.

However, the results show that route of administration has a significant impact on length of ED stay in patients presenting with headache, he concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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