Neurology Reviews

President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.

Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.

How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?

Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”

Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
 

1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill

Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.

“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”

Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.

The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.

In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”

Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
 

2. Restoring Obamacare

Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.

Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.

The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.

But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.

Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.

In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.

Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.

To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
 

3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care

In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.

Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.

The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.

“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.

The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
 

4. Negotiating lower drug prices

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.

“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.

Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.

“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”

Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
 

5. Introducing a public option

President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.

Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.

“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.

Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”

“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.

Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
 

6. Reviving the CMS

Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.

Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.

On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.

The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.

Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.

Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
 

7. Potentially changing health care without Congress

Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.

Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).

A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.

If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.

In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.

So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
 

Conclusion

Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.

But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”

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

President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.

Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.

How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?

Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”

Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
 

1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill

Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.

“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”

Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.

The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.

In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”

Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
 

2. Restoring Obamacare

Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.

Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.

The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.

But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.

Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.

In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.

Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.

To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
 

3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care

In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.

Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.

The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.

“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.

The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
 

4. Negotiating lower drug prices

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.

“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.

Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.

“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”

Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
 

5. Introducing a public option

President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.

Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.

“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.

Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”

“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.

Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
 

6. Reviving the CMS

Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.

Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.

On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.

The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.

Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.

Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
 

7. Potentially changing health care without Congress

Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.

Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).

A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.

If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.

In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.

So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
 

Conclusion

Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.

But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”

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

President Joe Biden has come into office after an unexpected shift in Congress. On Jan. 5, Democrats scored an upset by winning two U.S. Senate seats in runoff elections in Georgia, giving them control of the Senate.

Now the Democrats have control of all three levers of power – the Senate, the House, and the presidency – for the first time since the early years of the Obama administration.

How will President Biden use this new concentration of power to shape health care policy?

Democrats’ small majorities in both houses of Congress suggest that moderation and bipartisanship will be necessary to get things done. Moreover, Mr. Biden himself is calling for bipartisanship. “On this January day,” he said in his inauguration speech, “my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.”

Key health care actions that Mr. Biden could pursue include the following.
 

1. Passing a new COVID-19 relief bill

Above all, Mr. Biden is focused on overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been registering record deaths recently, and getting newly released vaccines to Americans.

“Dealing with the coronavirus pandemic is one of the most important battles our administration will face, and I will be informed by science and by experts,” the president said.

“There is no question that the pandemic is the highest priority for the Biden administration,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “COVID will dominate the early weeks and months of this administration. His success rests, in particular, on improving the rollout of vaccines.”

Five days before his inauguration, the president-elect unveiled the American Rescue Plan, a massive, $1.9 trillion legislative package intended to hasten rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, improve COVID-19 testing, and provide financial help to businesses and individuals, among many other things.

The bill would add $1,400 to the recently passed $600 government relief payments for each American, amounting to a $2,000 check. It would also enact many non-COVID-19 measures, such as a $15-an-hour minimum wage and measures to bolster the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

If Democrats cannot reach a deal with the Republicans, they might turn the proposal into a reconciliation bill, which could then be passed with a simple majority. However, drafting a reconciliation bill is a long, complicated process that would require removing provisions that don’t meet the requirements of reconciliation, said Hazen Marshall, a Washington lobbyist and former staffer for Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Most importantly, Mr. Marshall said, reconciliation bills bring out diehard partisanship. “They involve a sledgehammer mentality,” he says. “You’re telling the other side that their views aren’t going to matter.” The final version of the ACA, for example, was passed as a reconciliation bill, with not one Republican vote.

In the Trump years, “the last four reconciliation bills did not get any votes from the minority,” added Rodney Whitlock, PhD, a political consultant at McDermott+Consulting, who worked 21 years for Republicans in the House. “When the majority chooses to use reconciliation, it is an admission that it has no interest in working with the minority.”

Hammering out a compromise will be tough, but Robert Pearl MD, former CEO of the Permanente Medical Group and a professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, said that if anyone can do it, it would be President Biden. Having served in the Senate for 36 years, “Biden knows Congress better than any president since Lyndon Johnson,” he said. “He can reach across the aisle and get legislation passed as much as anyone could these days.”
 

2. Restoring Obamacare

Mr. Biden has vowed to undo a gradual dismantling of the ACA that went on during the Trump administration through executive orders, rule-making, and new laws. “Reinvigorating the ACA was a central part of Biden’s platform as a candidate,” Mr. Levitt said.

Each Trump action against the ACA must be undone in the same way. Presidential orders must be met with presidential orders, regulations with regulations, and legislation with legislation.

The ACA is also being challenged in the Supreme Court. Republicans under Trump passed a law that reduced the penalty for not buying health insurance under the ACA to zero. Then a group of 20 states, led by Texas, filed a lawsuit asserting that this change makes the ACA unconstitutional.

The lawsuit was heard by the Supreme Court in November. From remarks made by the justices then, it appears that the court might well uphold the law when a verdict comes down in June.

But just in case, Mr. Biden wants Congress to enact a small penalty for not buying health insurance, which would remove the basis of the lawsuit.

Mr. Biden’s choice for secretary of Health and Human Services shows his level of commitment to protecting the ACA. His HHS nominee is California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who led a group of 17 states defending the ACA in the current lawsuit.

In addition to undoing Trump’s changes, Mr. Biden plans to expand the ACA beyond the original legislation. The new COVID-19 bill contains provisions that would expand subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges and would lower the maximum percentage of income that anyone has to pay for health insurance to 8.5%.

Dealing with Medicaid is also related to the ACA. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs, with substantial funding from the federal government.

To date, 12 states still do not participate in the Medicaid expansion. To lure them into the expansion, the Democrat-controlled House last session passed a bill that would offer to pay the entire bill for the first 3 years of Medicaid expansion if they chose to enact an expansion.
 

3. Undoing other Trump actions in health care

In addition to changes in the ACA, Trump also enacted a number of other changes in health care that President Biden could undo. For example, Mr. Biden says he will reenter the World Health Organization (WHO) so that the United States could better coordinate a COVID-19 response with other nations. Trump exited the WHO with the stroke of a pen, and Mr. Biden can do the same in reverse.

Under Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used waivers to weaken the ACA and allow states to alter their Medicaid programs. One waiver allows Georgia to leave the ACA exchanges and put brokers in charge of buying coverage. Other waivers allow states to transform federal Medicaid payments into block grants, which several states are planning to do.

The Trump CMS has allowed several states to use Medicaid waivers to add work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The courts have blocked the work rules so far, and the Biden CMS may decide to reverse these waivers or modify them.

“Undoing waivers is normally a fairly simple thing,” Mr. Levitt said. In January, however, the Trump CMS asked some waiver states to sign new contracts in which the CMS pledges not to end a waiver without 9 months’ notice. It’s unclear how many states signed such contracts and what obligation the Biden CMS has to enforce them.

The Trump CMS also stopped reimbursing insurers for waiving deductibles and copayments for low-income customers, as directed by the ACA. Without federal reimbursement, some insurers raised premiums by as much as 20% to cover the costs. It is unclear how the Biden CMS would tackle this change.
 

4. Negotiating lower drug prices

Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, a major plank in Mr. Biden’s campaign, would seem like a slam dunk for the Democrats. This approach is backed by 89% of Americans, including 84% of Republicans, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in December.

“With that level of support, it’s hard to go wrong politically on this issue,” Mr. Levitt said.

Many Republicans, however, do not favor negotiating drug prices, and the two parties continue to be far apart on how to control drug prices. Trump signed an action that allows Americans to buy cheaper drugs abroad, an approach that Mr. Biden also supports, but it is now tied up in the courts.

“A drug pricing bill has always been difficult to pass,” Dr. Whitlock said. “The issue is popular with the public, but change does not come easily. The drug lobby is one the strongest in Washington, and now it may be even stronger, since it was the drug companies that gave us the COVID vaccines.”

Dr. Whitlock said Republicans will want Democrats to compromise on drug pricing, but he doubts they will do so. The House passed a bill to negotiate drug prices last year, which never was voted on in the Senate. “It is difficult to imagine that the Democrats will be able to move rightward from that House bill,” Dr. Whitlock said. “Democrats are likely to stand pat on drug pricing.”
 

5. Introducing a public option

President Biden’s campaign proposal for a public option – health insurance offered by the federal government – and to lower the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 years to 60 years, resulted from a compromise between two factions of the Democratic party on how to expand coverage.

Although Mr. Biden and other moderates wanted to focus on fixing the ACA, Democrats led by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont called for a single-payer system, dubbed “Medicare for all.” A public option was seen as the middle ground between the two camps.

“A public option would be a very controversial,” Dr. Whitlock said. Critics say it would pay at Medicare rates, which would reduce doctors’ reimbursements, and save very little money compared with a single-payer system.

Dr. Pearl sees similar problems with lowering the Medicare age. “This would be an expensive change that the federal government could not afford, particularly with all the spending on the pandemic,” he said. “And it would be tough on doctors and hospitals, because Medicare pays less than the private insurance payment they are now getting.”

“The public option is likely to get serious discussion within the Democratic caucus and get onto the Senate floor,” Mr. Levitt said. “The party won’t ignore it.” He notes that in the new Senate, Sen. Sanders chairs the budget committee, and from that position he is likely to push for expanding access to care.

Mr. Levitt says the Biden CMS might allow states to experiment with a statewide public option or even a single-payer model, but he concedes that states, with their budgets ravaged by COVID-19, do not currently have the money to launch such programs.
 

6. Reviving the CMS

Under President Obama, the CMS was the engine that implemented the ACA and shepherded wider use of value-based reimbursements, which reward providers for quality and outcomes rather than volume.

Under the Trump administration, CMS leadership continued to uphold value-based reimbursement, Dr. Pearl observed. “CMS leadership championed value-based payments, but they encountered a lot of pushback from doctors and hospitals and had to scale back their goals,” he said.

On the other hand, the Trump CMS took a 180-degree turn on the ACA and worked to take it apart. This took a toll on staff morale, according to Donald M. Berwick, MD, who ran the CMS under President Obama. “Many people in CMS did not feel supported during the Trump administration, and some of them left,” Dr. Berwick said.

The CMS needs experienced staff on board to write comprehensible rules and regulations that can overcome court challenges.

Having a fully functioning CMS also requires consistent leadership, which was a problem for Obama. When Mr. Obama nominated Dr. Berwick, 60 Senate votes were needed to confirm him, and Republicans would not vote for him. Mr. Obama eventually brought Dr. Berwick in as a recess appointment, but it meant he could serve for only 17 months.

Since then, Senate confirmation rules have changed so that only a simple majority is needed to confirm appointments. This is important for Biden’s nominees, Dr. Berwick said. “For a president, having your team in place means you are able to execute the policies you want,” he said. “You need to have consistent leadership.”
 

7. Potentially changing health care without Congress

Even with their newly won control of the Senate, the Democrats’ thin majorities in both houses of Congress may not be enough to pass much legislation if Republicans are solidly opposed.

Democrats in the House also have a narrow path this session in which to pass legislation. The Democratic leadership has an 11-vote majority, but it must contend with 15 moderate representatives in purple districts (where Democrats and Republicans have about equal support).

A bigger problem looms before the Democrats. In 2022, the party may well lose its majorities in both houses. Mr. Whitlock notes that the party of an incoming president normally loses seats in the first midterm election. “The last incoming president to keep both houses of Congress in his first midterm was Jimmy Carter,” he said.

If this happens, President Biden would have to govern without the support of Congress, which is what Barack Obama had to do through most of his presidency. As Mr. Obama’s vice president, Mr. Biden is well aware how that goes. Governing without Congress means relying on presidential orders and decrees.

In health care, Mr. Biden has a powerful policy-making tool, the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI). The CMMI was empowered by the ACA to initiate pilot programs for new payment models.

So far, the CMMI’s work has been mainly limited to accountable care organizations, bundled payments, and patient-centered medical homes, but it could also be used to enact new federal policies that would normally require Congressional action, Mr. Levitt said.
 

Conclusion

Expectations have been very high for what President Joe Biden can do in health care. He needs to unite a very divided political system to defeat a deadly pandemic, restore Obamacare, and sign landmark legislation, such as a drug-pricing bill.

But shepherding bills through Congress will be a challenge. “You need to have accountability, unity, and civility, which is a Herculean task,” Mr. Whitlock said. “You have to keep policies off the table that could blow up the bipartisanship.”

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians (PCPs) generate only a small part of the $75 billion to $100 billion wasted every year on low-value care, according to a brief report published online Jan. 18 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, one expert said there are better ways to curb low-value care than focusing on which specialties are guilty of the practice.

Analyzing a 20% random sample of Medicare Part B claims, Aaron Baum, PhD, with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues found that the services primary care physicians performed or ordered made up on average 8.3% of the low-value care their patients received (interquartile range, 3.9%-15.1%; 95th percentile, 35.6%) and their referrals made up 15.4% (IQR, 6.3%-26.4%; 95th percentile, 44.6%).

By specialty, cardiology had the worst record with 27% of all spending on low-value services ($1.8 billion) attributed to that specialty. Yet, of the 25 highest-spending specialties in the report, 12 of them were associated with 1% or less than 1% each of all low-value spending, indicating the waste was widely distributed.

Dr. Baum said in an interview that though there are some PCPs guilty of high spending on low-value services, overall, most primary care physicians’ low-value services add up to only 0.3% of Part B spending. He noted that Part B spending is about one-third of all Medicare spending.

Primary care is often thought to be at the core of care management and spending and PCPs are often seen as the gatekeepers, but this analysis suggests that efforts to make big differences in curtailing low-value spending might be more effective elsewhere.

“There’s only so much spending you can reduce by changing primary care physicians’ services that they directly perform,” Dr. Baum said.
 

Low-value care is costly, can be harmful

Mark Fendrick, MD, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Value-Based Insurance Design in Ann Arbor, said in an interview that the report adds confirmation to previous research that has consistently shown low-value care is “extremely common, very costly, and provided by primary care providers and specialists alike.” He noted that it can also be harmful.

“The math is simple,” he said. “If we want to improve coverage and lower patient costs for essential services like visits, diagnostic tests, and drugs, we have to reduce spending on those services that do not make Americans any healthier.”

The study ranked 31 clinical services judged to be low value by physician societies, Medicare and clinical guidelines, and their use among beneficiaries enrolled between 2007 and 2014. Here’s how the top six low-value services compare.

Dr. Fendrick said a weakness of the paper is the years of the data (2007-2014). Some of the criteria around low-value care have changed since then. The age that a prostate-specific antigen test becomes low-value is now 70 years, for instance, instead of 75. He added that some of the figures attributed to non-PCP providers appear out of date.

Dr. Fendrick said, “I understand that there are Medicare patients who end up at a gastroenterologist or surgeon’s office to get colorectal cancer screening, but it would be very hard for me to believe that half of stress tests and over half of colon cancer screening over [age] 85 [years] and half of PSA for people over 75 did not have some type of referring clinicians involved. I certainly don’t think that would be the case in 2020-2021.”

Dr. Baum said those years were the latest years available for the data points needed for this analysis, but he and his colleagues were working to update the data for future publication.

Dr. Fendrick said not much has changed in recent years in terms of waste on low-value care, even with campaigns such as Choosing Wisely dedicated to identifying low-value services or procedures in each specialty.

“I believe there’s not a particular group of clinicians one way or the other who are actually doing any better now than they were 7 years ago,” he said. He would rather focus less on which specialties are associated with the most low-value care and more on the underlying policies that encourage low-value care.

“If you’re going to get paid for doing a stress test and get paid nothing or significantly less if you don’t, the incentives are in the wrong direction,” he said.

Dr. Fendrick said the pandemic era provides an opportunity to eliminate low-value care because use of those services has dropped drastically as resources have been diverted to COVID-19 patients and many services have been delayed or canceled.

He said he has been pushing an approach that providers should be paid more after the pandemic “to do the things we want them to do.”

As an example, he said, instead of paying $886 million on colonoscopies for people over the age of 85, “why don’t we put a policy in place that would make it better for patients by lowering cost sharing and better for providers by paying them more to do the service on the people who need it as opposed to the people who don’t?”

The research was funded by the American Board of Family Medicine Foundation. Dr. Baum and a coauthor reported receiving personal fees from American Board of Family Medicine Foundation during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Collective Health, HealthRight 360, PLOS Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, outside the submitted work. Dr. Fendrick disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

President Joe Biden kicked off his new administration Jan. 20 with an immediate focus on attempts to stop the spread of COVID-19, including closer coordination with other nations.

Mr. Biden signed 17 executive orders, memoranda, and directives addressing not only the pandemic but also economic concerns, climate change, and racial inequity.

At the top of the list of actions was what his transition team called a “100 Days Masking Challenge.” Mr. Biden issued an executive order requiring masks and physical distancing in all federal buildings, on all federal lands, and by federal employees and contractors.

The president also halted the Trump administration’s process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Instead, Mr. Biden named Anthony Fauci, MD, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as the head of a delegation to participate in the WHO executive board meeting that is being held this week.

Mr. Biden also signed an executive order creating the position of COVID-19 response coordinator, which will report directly to the president and be responsible for coordinating all elements of the COVID-19 response across government, including the production and distribution of vaccines and medical supplies.

The newly inaugurated president also intends to restore the National Security Council’s Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which will aid in the response to the pandemic, his transition team said.

The American Medical Association was among the first to commend the first-day actions.

“Defeating COVID-19 requires bold, coordinated federal leadership and strong adherence to the public health steps we know stop the spread of this virus – wearing masks, practicing physical distancing, and washing hands,” said AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD in a news release. “We are pleased by the Biden administration’s steps today, including universal mask wearing within federal jurisdictions, providing federal leadership for COVID-19 response, and reengaging with the World Health Organization. Taking these actions on day 1 of the administration sends the right message – that our nation is laser focused on stopping the ravages of COVID-19.”

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

While some guidelines support serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as treatments for back pain, a new systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research found no firm evidence of a benefit. Adverse effects, however, are common.

“Our review shows that, although these medicines are effective, the effect is small and unlikely to be considered clinically important by most patients,” wrote the authors of the review, which appeared Jan. 20 in the BMJ. “Our review also showed that about two-thirds of patients using SNRIs experience adverse events.”

However, the report hinted that certain classes of antidepressants may provide significant relief in knee OA and sciatica.

According to a 2018 review, 10 of 15 clinical guidelines from around the world – including those of the American College of Physicians – recommended antidepressants as treatments for low back pain, and 2 advised against them. “Evidence supporting the use of antidepressants is, however, uncertain,” wrote the authors of the new review, led by Giovanni E. Ferreira, PhD, of the University of Sydney. “Systematic reviews of antidepressants for back pain and osteoarthritis have either not included several published trials, considered only one type of antidepressant (e.g., duloxetine), or failed to assess the certainty of evidence.”

For the new review, the authors analyzed 33 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 5,318 subjects. Both published data and unpublished data from clinical trial registries were included.
 

Back pain trials

A total of 19 trials examined back pain, mostly lower back pain (16 trials), and none lasted more than 1 year. Fifteen examined SNRIs while others looked at other kinds of antidepressants.

The researchers found that “the effect of SNRIs was small [on back pain] and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance. ... Evidence ranging from low to very low certainty showed no benefit of a range of antidepressant classes, including SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], tetracyclic antidepressants, SARIs [serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors], and NDRIs [norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors] for pain and disability across follow-ups of 2 weeks or less, 3-13 weeks, and 3-12 months.”
 

Sciatica trials

Six trials examined antidepressants as treatments for sciatica. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that SNRIs reduced pain at up to 2 weeks (1 trial, n = 50) but not at 3-13 weeks (3 trials, n = 96). The results of trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the opposite: low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggested the drugs didn’t reduce pain at up to 2 weeks (2 trials, n = 94) but did at 3-13 weeks (2 trials, n = 114) and 3-12 months (1 trial, n = 60).

“All sciatica trials were small, had imprecise estimates, and were at high risk of bias, which reduced the certainty of evidence to low and very low,” the authors cautioned. “This level of uncertainty indicates that the true estimate of effect of TCAs and SNRIs for sciatica is likely to be substantially different from what we estimated in our review.”
 

Knee OA trials

Eight trials examined SNRIs in knee OA. Moderate-certainty evidence linked the drugs to less pain at up to 2 weeks (four trials, n = 1,328) and low-certainty evidence linked them to less pain at 3-13 weeks (eight trials, n = 1,941). Low-certainty evidence also linked the drugs to less disability at 2 weeks or less (one trial, n = 353) and 3-13 weeks (seven trials, n = 1,810).

In knee OA, “the effect of SNRIs was small and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance,” the researchers wrote. “However, the lower limit of the confidence interval did contain clinically important effects for pain, but not for disability.”
 

Antidepressant side effects in trials

A total of 21 trials (n = 4,107) looked at side effects when antidepressants were studied as treatments for back pain and OA. Low-certainty evidence in 13 SNRI trials (n = 3,447) suggested a higher risk of any adverse events in antidepressant versus placebo (62.5% vs. 49.7%; relative risk, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.30), but there was no significantly higher risk of serious adverse events in 10 SNRI trials with 3,309 subjects (1.6% vs. 1.3%; RR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.61-2.07).

As for adverse effects of non-SNRIs, “the number of studies evaluating the safety of other antidepressant classes was small, trials were underpowered to detect harm, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low,” the researchers wrote.

Going forward, the authors said that “large, definitive randomized trials that are free of industry ties are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties about the efficacy of antidepressants for sciatica and osteoarthritis highlighted by this review.”
 

‘Largely ineffective’ drug treatments

In an accompanying commentary, Martin Underwood, of the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, and Colin Tysall, of the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, also in Coventry, noted that “drug treatments are largely ineffective for back pain and osteoarthritis and have the potential for serious harm. We need to work harder to help people with these disorders to live better with their pain without recourse to the prescription pad.”

However, they noted that SNRIs may still be helpful for patients with back pain or OA. “Absolute effect sizes for physical treatments for low-back pain are of similar magnitudes to those reported here and translate into numbers needed to treat of between five and nine. If the same were true for SNRIs, some people might choose to a try that option for a 1 in 10 chance of a worthwhile reduction in pain after 3 months. They can easily stop if treatment is ineffective or does not suit them.”

The research received no specific funding. The review authors disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline (postgraduate scholarship), Pfizer (investigational product for two trials), and Flexeze (provision of heat wraps for a trial). Mr. Underwood reported being a director and shareholder of Clinvivo. Mr. Tysall reported no disclosures.

While some guidelines support serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as treatments for back pain, a new systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research found no firm evidence of a benefit. Adverse effects, however, are common.

“Our review shows that, although these medicines are effective, the effect is small and unlikely to be considered clinically important by most patients,” wrote the authors of the review, which appeared Jan. 20 in the BMJ. “Our review also showed that about two-thirds of patients using SNRIs experience adverse events.”

However, the report hinted that certain classes of antidepressants may provide significant relief in knee OA and sciatica.

According to a 2018 review, 10 of 15 clinical guidelines from around the world – including those of the American College of Physicians – recommended antidepressants as treatments for low back pain, and 2 advised against them. “Evidence supporting the use of antidepressants is, however, uncertain,” wrote the authors of the new review, led by Giovanni E. Ferreira, PhD, of the University of Sydney. “Systematic reviews of antidepressants for back pain and osteoarthritis have either not included several published trials, considered only one type of antidepressant (e.g., duloxetine), or failed to assess the certainty of evidence.”

For the new review, the authors analyzed 33 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 5,318 subjects. Both published data and unpublished data from clinical trial registries were included.
 

Back pain trials

A total of 19 trials examined back pain, mostly lower back pain (16 trials), and none lasted more than 1 year. Fifteen examined SNRIs while others looked at other kinds of antidepressants.

The researchers found that “the effect of SNRIs was small [on back pain] and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance. ... Evidence ranging from low to very low certainty showed no benefit of a range of antidepressant classes, including SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], tetracyclic antidepressants, SARIs [serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors], and NDRIs [norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors] for pain and disability across follow-ups of 2 weeks or less, 3-13 weeks, and 3-12 months.”
 

Sciatica trials

Six trials examined antidepressants as treatments for sciatica. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that SNRIs reduced pain at up to 2 weeks (1 trial, n = 50) but not at 3-13 weeks (3 trials, n = 96). The results of trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the opposite: low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggested the drugs didn’t reduce pain at up to 2 weeks (2 trials, n = 94) but did at 3-13 weeks (2 trials, n = 114) and 3-12 months (1 trial, n = 60).

“All sciatica trials were small, had imprecise estimates, and were at high risk of bias, which reduced the certainty of evidence to low and very low,” the authors cautioned. “This level of uncertainty indicates that the true estimate of effect of TCAs and SNRIs for sciatica is likely to be substantially different from what we estimated in our review.”
 

Knee OA trials

Eight trials examined SNRIs in knee OA. Moderate-certainty evidence linked the drugs to less pain at up to 2 weeks (four trials, n = 1,328) and low-certainty evidence linked them to less pain at 3-13 weeks (eight trials, n = 1,941). Low-certainty evidence also linked the drugs to less disability at 2 weeks or less (one trial, n = 353) and 3-13 weeks (seven trials, n = 1,810).

In knee OA, “the effect of SNRIs was small and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance,” the researchers wrote. “However, the lower limit of the confidence interval did contain clinically important effects for pain, but not for disability.”
 

Antidepressant side effects in trials

A total of 21 trials (n = 4,107) looked at side effects when antidepressants were studied as treatments for back pain and OA. Low-certainty evidence in 13 SNRI trials (n = 3,447) suggested a higher risk of any adverse events in antidepressant versus placebo (62.5% vs. 49.7%; relative risk, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.30), but there was no significantly higher risk of serious adverse events in 10 SNRI trials with 3,309 subjects (1.6% vs. 1.3%; RR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.61-2.07).

As for adverse effects of non-SNRIs, “the number of studies evaluating the safety of other antidepressant classes was small, trials were underpowered to detect harm, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low,” the researchers wrote.

Going forward, the authors said that “large, definitive randomized trials that are free of industry ties are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties about the efficacy of antidepressants for sciatica and osteoarthritis highlighted by this review.”
 

‘Largely ineffective’ drug treatments

In an accompanying commentary, Martin Underwood, of the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, and Colin Tysall, of the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, also in Coventry, noted that “drug treatments are largely ineffective for back pain and osteoarthritis and have the potential for serious harm. We need to work harder to help people with these disorders to live better with their pain without recourse to the prescription pad.”

However, they noted that SNRIs may still be helpful for patients with back pain or OA. “Absolute effect sizes for physical treatments for low-back pain are of similar magnitudes to those reported here and translate into numbers needed to treat of between five and nine. If the same were true for SNRIs, some people might choose to a try that option for a 1 in 10 chance of a worthwhile reduction in pain after 3 months. They can easily stop if treatment is ineffective or does not suit them.”

The research received no specific funding. The review authors disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline (postgraduate scholarship), Pfizer (investigational product for two trials), and Flexeze (provision of heat wraps for a trial). Mr. Underwood reported being a director and shareholder of Clinvivo. Mr. Tysall reported no disclosures.

While some guidelines support serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as treatments for back pain, a new systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research found no firm evidence of a benefit. Adverse effects, however, are common.

“Our review shows that, although these medicines are effective, the effect is small and unlikely to be considered clinically important by most patients,” wrote the authors of the review, which appeared Jan. 20 in the BMJ. “Our review also showed that about two-thirds of patients using SNRIs experience adverse events.”

However, the report hinted that certain classes of antidepressants may provide significant relief in knee OA and sciatica.

According to a 2018 review, 10 of 15 clinical guidelines from around the world – including those of the American College of Physicians – recommended antidepressants as treatments for low back pain, and 2 advised against them. “Evidence supporting the use of antidepressants is, however, uncertain,” wrote the authors of the new review, led by Giovanni E. Ferreira, PhD, of the University of Sydney. “Systematic reviews of antidepressants for back pain and osteoarthritis have either not included several published trials, considered only one type of antidepressant (e.g., duloxetine), or failed to assess the certainty of evidence.”

For the new review, the authors analyzed 33 randomized, controlled trials with a total of 5,318 subjects. Both published data and unpublished data from clinical trial registries were included.
 

Back pain trials

A total of 19 trials examined back pain, mostly lower back pain (16 trials), and none lasted more than 1 year. Fifteen examined SNRIs while others looked at other kinds of antidepressants.

The researchers found that “the effect of SNRIs was small [on back pain] and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance. ... Evidence ranging from low to very low certainty showed no benefit of a range of antidepressant classes, including SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], tetracyclic antidepressants, SARIs [serotonin antagonist and reuptake inhibitors], and NDRIs [norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitors] for pain and disability across follow-ups of 2 weeks or less, 3-13 weeks, and 3-12 months.”
 

Sciatica trials

Six trials examined antidepressants as treatments for sciatica. Very-low-certainty evidence suggested that SNRIs reduced pain at up to 2 weeks (1 trial, n = 50) but not at 3-13 weeks (3 trials, n = 96). The results of trials of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) were the opposite: low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggested the drugs didn’t reduce pain at up to 2 weeks (2 trials, n = 94) but did at 3-13 weeks (2 trials, n = 114) and 3-12 months (1 trial, n = 60).

“All sciatica trials were small, had imprecise estimates, and were at high risk of bias, which reduced the certainty of evidence to low and very low,” the authors cautioned. “This level of uncertainty indicates that the true estimate of effect of TCAs and SNRIs for sciatica is likely to be substantially different from what we estimated in our review.”
 

Knee OA trials

Eight trials examined SNRIs in knee OA. Moderate-certainty evidence linked the drugs to less pain at up to 2 weeks (four trials, n = 1,328) and low-certainty evidence linked them to less pain at 3-13 weeks (eight trials, n = 1,941). Low-certainty evidence also linked the drugs to less disability at 2 weeks or less (one trial, n = 353) and 3-13 weeks (seven trials, n = 1,810).

In knee OA, “the effect of SNRIs was small and below this review’s predetermined threshold of clinical importance,” the researchers wrote. “However, the lower limit of the confidence interval did contain clinically important effects for pain, but not for disability.”
 

Antidepressant side effects in trials

A total of 21 trials (n = 4,107) looked at side effects when antidepressants were studied as treatments for back pain and OA. Low-certainty evidence in 13 SNRI trials (n = 3,447) suggested a higher risk of any adverse events in antidepressant versus placebo (62.5% vs. 49.7%; relative risk, 1.23, 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.30), but there was no significantly higher risk of serious adverse events in 10 SNRI trials with 3,309 subjects (1.6% vs. 1.3%; RR, 1.12, 95% CI, 0.61-2.07).

As for adverse effects of non-SNRIs, “the number of studies evaluating the safety of other antidepressant classes was small, trials were underpowered to detect harm, and the certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low,” the researchers wrote.

Going forward, the authors said that “large, definitive randomized trials that are free of industry ties are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties about the efficacy of antidepressants for sciatica and osteoarthritis highlighted by this review.”
 

‘Largely ineffective’ drug treatments

In an accompanying commentary, Martin Underwood, of the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, and Colin Tysall, of the University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, also in Coventry, noted that “drug treatments are largely ineffective for back pain and osteoarthritis and have the potential for serious harm. We need to work harder to help people with these disorders to live better with their pain without recourse to the prescription pad.”

However, they noted that SNRIs may still be helpful for patients with back pain or OA. “Absolute effect sizes for physical treatments for low-back pain are of similar magnitudes to those reported here and translate into numbers needed to treat of between five and nine. If the same were true for SNRIs, some people might choose to a try that option for a 1 in 10 chance of a worthwhile reduction in pain after 3 months. They can easily stop if treatment is ineffective or does not suit them.”

The research received no specific funding. The review authors disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline (postgraduate scholarship), Pfizer (investigational product for two trials), and Flexeze (provision of heat wraps for a trial). Mr. Underwood reported being a director and shareholder of Clinvivo. Mr. Tysall reported no disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

Until now, the neurological manifestations of COVID-19 have been believed to be a result of direct damage to nerve cells. However, a new study suggests that the virus might actually damage the brain’s small blood vessels rather than nerve cells themselves.

A postmortem analysis found abnormalities in the brains of a small sample of patients with COVID-19, suggesting inflammation and vascular damage to the brain stem and olfactory bulb. The findings add further weight to previous research into neurological complications from COVID-19, according to Anna Cervantes, MD. Dr. Cervantes is assistant professor of neurology at the Boston University and has been studying the neurological effects of COVID-19, though she was not involved in this study. “I can tell from my personal experience, and things we’ve published on and the literature that’s out there – there are patients that are having complications like stroke that aren’t even critically ill from COVID. We’re seeing that not in just the acute setting, but also in a delayed fashion. Even though most of the coagulopathy is largely venous and probably microvascular, this does affect the brain through a myriad of ways,” Dr. Cervantes said.

The research was published online Jan. 12 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Myoung‑Hwa Lee, PhD, was the lead author.

The study included high resolution magnetic resonance imaging and histopathological examination of 13 individuals with a median age of 50 years. Among 10 patients with brain alterations, the researchers conducted further studies in 5 individuals using multiplex fluorescence imaging and chromogenic immunostaining in all 10.

The team conducted conventional histopathology on the brains of 18 individuals. Fourteen had a history of chronic illness, including diabetes, and hypertension, and 11 had died unexpectedly or been found dead. Magnetic resonance microscopy revealed punctuate hypo-intensities in nine subjects, indicating microvascular injury and fibrinogen leakage. Histopathology using fluorescence imaging showed the same features. Collagen IV immunostaining showed thinning of the basal lamina of the endothelial cells in five patients. Ten patients had congested blood vessels and surrounding fibrinogen leakage, but comparatively intact vasculature. The researchers interpreted linear hypo-intensities as micro-hemorrhages.

The researchers found little perivascular inflammation, and no vascular occlusion. Thirteen subjects had perivascular-activated microglia, macrophage infiltrates, and hypertrophic astrocytes. Eight had CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the perivascular spaces and in lumens next to endothelial cells, which could help explain vascular injury.

The researchers found no evidence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself, despite efforts using polymerase chain reaction with multiple primer sets, RNA sequencing within the brain, or RNA in situ hybridization and immunostaining. Subjects may have cleared the virus by the time they died, or viral copy numbers could have been below the detection limit of the assays.

The researchers also obtained a convenience sample of subjects who had died from COVID-19. Magnetic resonance microscopy, histopathology, and immunohistochemical analysis of sections revealed microvascular injury in the brain and olfactory bulb, despite no evidence of viral infection. The authors stressed that they could not draw conclusions about the neurological features of COVID-19 because of a lack of clinical information.

Dr. Cervantes noted that limitation: “We’re seeing a lot of patients with encephalopathy or alterations in their mental status. A lot of things can cause that, and some are common in patients who are critically ill, like medications and metabolic derangement.”

Still, the findings could help to inform future medical management. “There’s going to be a large number of patients who don’t have really bad pulmonary disease but still may have encephalopathy. So if there is small vessel involvement because of inflammation that we might not necessarily catch in a lumbar puncture or routine imaging, there’s still somebody we can make better (using) steroids. Having more information on what’s happening on a pathophysiologic level and on pathology is really helpful.”

The study was supported by internal funds from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Dr. Cervantes has no relevant financial disclosures.

How much do I make compared with other doctors?

I see questions like that on surveys I get, asking me to fill something out on the Internet, then I’ll get back a list of how well other docs in my field/city/state/blood type are doing.

Nah. I’ll pass.

Realistically, why? So I can feel I’m superior or inferior to others? Isn’t keeping up with the Joneses the purpose of the doctors’ parking lot at the hospital? (Actually, the number of pricey cars there has dropped off over time).

I really don’t want to know how much others make. It’s probably more than what I make, but that’s the trade-off I accepted when I went with a small solo practice instead of a large group 20 years ago.

We become so obsessed with the question of “how much money should I be making?” and comparing it with the salaries of others that we lose track of the real question: “How much money do I need?”

That should be the real number to look at. How much money do I really need to pay for a comfortable home, support my family, pay for my kids’ education, fund my retirement?

Enough should be as good as a feast.

Yet, even when content we get caught in the trap of comparing ourselves with others. This is human nature. We’re programmed to be competitive to survive. Whether that means anything when we don’t have to be hunters and gatherers is irrelevant. It is who we are.

But we’re also intelligent enough to realize that. I for one, don’t want to know, or care, how much money the neurologist down the street is earning. All that matters to me is how much I am earning, and if it supports what I need it to.

To quote Sheryl Crow, “it’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

So I’ll skip the comparisons and focus on the only people that really matter to me.

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

How much do I make compared with other doctors?

I see questions like that on surveys I get, asking me to fill something out on the Internet, then I’ll get back a list of how well other docs in my field/city/state/blood type are doing.

Nah. I’ll pass.

Realistically, why? So I can feel I’m superior or inferior to others? Isn’t keeping up with the Joneses the purpose of the doctors’ parking lot at the hospital? (Actually, the number of pricey cars there has dropped off over time).

I really don’t want to know how much others make. It’s probably more than what I make, but that’s the trade-off I accepted when I went with a small solo practice instead of a large group 20 years ago.

We become so obsessed with the question of “how much money should I be making?” and comparing it with the salaries of others that we lose track of the real question: “How much money do I need?”

That should be the real number to look at. How much money do I really need to pay for a comfortable home, support my family, pay for my kids’ education, fund my retirement?

Enough should be as good as a feast.

Yet, even when content we get caught in the trap of comparing ourselves with others. This is human nature. We’re programmed to be competitive to survive. Whether that means anything when we don’t have to be hunters and gatherers is irrelevant. It is who we are.

But we’re also intelligent enough to realize that. I for one, don’t want to know, or care, how much money the neurologist down the street is earning. All that matters to me is how much I am earning, and if it supports what I need it to.

To quote Sheryl Crow, “it’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

So I’ll skip the comparisons and focus on the only people that really matter to me.

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

How much do I make compared with other doctors?

I see questions like that on surveys I get, asking me to fill something out on the Internet, then I’ll get back a list of how well other docs in my field/city/state/blood type are doing.

Nah. I’ll pass.

Realistically, why? So I can feel I’m superior or inferior to others? Isn’t keeping up with the Joneses the purpose of the doctors’ parking lot at the hospital? (Actually, the number of pricey cars there has dropped off over time).

I really don’t want to know how much others make. It’s probably more than what I make, but that’s the trade-off I accepted when I went with a small solo practice instead of a large group 20 years ago.

We become so obsessed with the question of “how much money should I be making?” and comparing it with the salaries of others that we lose track of the real question: “How much money do I need?”

That should be the real number to look at. How much money do I really need to pay for a comfortable home, support my family, pay for my kids’ education, fund my retirement?

Enough should be as good as a feast.

Yet, even when content we get caught in the trap of comparing ourselves with others. This is human nature. We’re programmed to be competitive to survive. Whether that means anything when we don’t have to be hunters and gatherers is irrelevant. It is who we are.

But we’re also intelligent enough to realize that. I for one, don’t want to know, or care, how much money the neurologist down the street is earning. All that matters to me is how much I am earning, and if it supports what I need it to.

To quote Sheryl Crow, “it’s not having what you want, it’s wanting what you’ve got.”

So I’ll skip the comparisons and focus on the only people that really matter to me.

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

When Margot Gage-Witvliet began feeling run down after her family returned from a trip to the Netherlands in late February 2020, she initially chalked up her symptoms to jet lag. Three days later, however, her situation went from concerning to alarming as she struggled to breathe. “It felt like there was an elephant sitting on my chest,” she said.

Her husband and daughters also became ill with COVID-19, but Ms. Gage-Witvliet was the only one in her family who didn’t get better. After an early improvement, a rare coronavirus-induced tonic-clonic seizure in early April sent her spiraling back down. Ms. Gage-Witvliet spent the next several weeks in bed with the curtains drawn, unable to tolerate light or sound.

Today, Ms. Gage-Witvliet’s life looks nothing like it did 6 months ago when she first got sick. As one of COVID-19’s so called long-haulers, she continues to struggle with crushing fatigue, brain fog, and headaches – symptoms that worsen when she pushes herself to do more. Across the country, as many as 1 in 10 COVID-19 patients are reporting illnesses that continue for weeks and months after their initial diagnosis. Nearly all report neurologic issues like Ms. Gage-Witvliet, as well as shortness of breath and psychiatric concerns.

For Avindra Nath, MD, a neurologist at the National Institutes of Health, the experience of these long-haul COVID-19 patients feels familiar and reminds him of myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome.

Dr. Nath has long been interested in the lingering neurologic issues connected to chronic fatigue. An estimated three-quarters of all patients with chronic fatigue syndrome report that their symptoms started after a viral infection, and they suffer unrelenting exhaustion, difficulties regulating pulse and blood pressure, aches and pains, and brain fog. When Dr. Nath first read about the novel coronavirus, he began to worry that the virus would trigger symptoms in a subset of those infected. Hearing about the experiences of long-haulers like Ms. Gage-Witvliet raised his suspicions even more.

Unlike COVID-19 long-haulers, however, many patients with chronic fatigue syndrome go at least a year with these symptoms before receiving a diagnosis, according to a British survey. That means researchers have had few opportunities to study the early stages of the syndrome. “When we see patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis, whatever infection they might have had occurred in the remote past, so there’s no way for us to know how they got infected with it, what the infection was, or what the effects of it were in that early phase. We’re seeing them 2 years afterward,” Dr. Nath said.

Dr. Nath quickly realized that studying patients like Ms. Gage-Witvliet would give physicians and scientists a unique opportunity to understand not only long-term outcomes of COVID-19 infections, but also other postviral syndromes, including chronic fatigue syndrome at their earliest stages. It’s why Dr. Nath has spent the past several months scrambling to launch two NIH studies to examine the phenomenon.

Although Dr. Nath said that the parallels between COVID-19 long-haulers and those with chronic fatigue syndrome are obvious, he cautions against assuming that they are the same phenomenon. Some long-haulers might simply be taking a much slower path to recovery, or they might have a condition that looks similar on the surface but differs from chronic fatigue syndrome on a molecular level. But even if Dr. Nath fails to see links to chronic fatigue syndrome, with more than 92.5 million documented cases of COVID-19 around the world, the work will be relevant to the substantial number of infected individuals who don’t recover quickly.

“With so many people having exposure to the same virus over a similar time period, we really have the opportunity to look at these manifestations and at the very least to understand postviral syndromes,” said Mady Hornig, MD, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York.

The origins of chronic fatigue syndrome date back to 1985, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention received a request from two physicians – Paul Cheney, MD, and Daniel Peterson, MD – to investigate a mysterious disease outbreak in Nevada. In November 1984, residents in and around the idyllic vacation spot of Incline Village, a small town tucked into the north shore of Lake Tahoe, had begun reporting flu-like symptoms that persisted for weeks, even months. The doctors had searched high and low for a cause, but they couldn’t figure out what was making their patients sick.

They reported a range of symptoms – including muscle aches and pains, low-grade fevers, sore throats, and headaches – but everyone said that crippling fatigue was the most debilitating issue. This wasn’t the kind of fatigue that could be cured by a nap or even a long holiday. No matter how much their patients slept – and some were almost completely bedbound – their fatigue didn’t abate. What’s more, the fatigue got worse whenever they tried to push themselves to do more. Puzzled, the CDC sent two epidemic intelligence service (EIS) officers to try to get to the bottom of what might be happening.


 

Muscle aches and pains with crippling fatigue

After their visit to Incline Village, however, the CDC was just as perplexed as Dr. Cheney and Dr. Peterson. Many of the people with the condition reported flu-like symptoms right around the time they first got sick, and the physicians’ leading hypothesis was that the outbreak and its lasting symptoms were caused by chronic Epstein-Barr virus infection. But neither the CDC nor anyone else could identify the infection or any other microbial cause. The two EIS officers duly wrote up a report for the CDC’s flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly ReportI, titled “Chronic Fatigue Possibly Related to Epstein-Barr Virus – Nevada”.

That investigators focused on the fatigue aspect made sense, says Leonard A. Jason, PhD, professor of psychology at DePaul University and director of the Center for Community Research, both in Chicago, because it was one of the few symptoms shared by all the individuals studied and it was also the most debilitating. But that focus – and the name “chronic fatigue syndrome” – led to broad public dismissal of the condition’s severity, as did an editorial note in MMWR urging physicians to look for “more definable, and possibly treatable, conditions.” Subsequent research failed to confirm a specific link to the Epstein-Barr virus, which only added to the condition’s phony reputation. Rather than being considered a potentially disabling illness, it was disregarded as a “yuppie flu” or a fancy name for malingering.

“It’s not a surprise that patients are being dismissed because there’s already this sort of grandfathered-in sense that fatigue is not real,” said Jennifer Frankovich, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto. “I’m sure that’s frustrating for them to be tired and then to have the clinician not believe them or dismiss them or think they’re making it up. It would be more helpful to the families to say: ‘You know what, we don’t know, we do not have the answer, and we believe you.’ ”
 

A syndrome’s shame

As time passed, patient advocacy groups began pushing back against the negative way the condition was being perceived. This criticism came as organizations like the CDC worked to develop a set of diagnostic criteria that researchers and clinicians dealing with chronic fatigue syndrome could use. With such a heterogeneous group of patients and symptoms, the task was no small challenge. The discussions, which took place over nearly 2 decades, played a key role in helping scientists home in on the single factor that was central to chronic fatigue: postexertional malaise.

“This is quite unique for chronic fatigue syndrome. With other diseases, yes, you may have fatigue as one of the components of the disease, but postexertional fatigue is very specific,” said Alain Moreau, PhD, a molecular biologist at the University of Montreal.

Of course, plenty of people have pushed themselves too hard physically and paid the price the next day. But those with chronic fatigue syndrome weren’t running marathons. To them, exertion could be anything from getting the mail to reading a book. Nor could the resulting exhaustion be resolved by an afternoon on the couch or a long vacation.

“If they do these activities, they can crash for weeks, even months,” Dr. Moreau said. It was deep, persistent, and – for 40% of those with chronic fatigue syndrome – disabling. In 2015, a study group from the Institute of Medicine proposed renaming chronic fatigue to “systemic exercise intolerance disease” because of the centrality of this symptom. Although that effort mostly stalled, their report did bring the condition out of its historic place as a scientific backwater. What resulted was an uptick in research on chronic fatigue syndrome, which helped define some of the physiological issues that either contribute to or result from the condition.

Researchers had long known about the link between infection and fatigue, said Dr. Frankovich. Work included mysterious outbreaks like the one in Lake Tahoe and well-documented issues like the wave of encephalitis lethargica (a condition that leaves patients in an almost vegetative state) that followed the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

“As a clinician, when you see someone who comes in with a chronic infection, they’re tired. I think that’s why, in the chronic-fatigue world, people are desperately looking for the infection so we can treat it, and maybe these poor suffering people will feel better,” Dr. Frankovich added. Then the pandemic struck, giving him yet another opportunity to study postviral syndromes.
 

Immunologic symptoms

Given the close link between a nonspecific viral illness and the onset of symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome, scientists like Dr. Hornig opted to focus on immunologic symptoms. In a 2015 analysis published in Science, Dr. Hornig and colleagues showed that immune problems can be found in the earliest stages of chronic fatigue syndrome, and that they change as the illness progresses. Patients who had been sick for less than 3 years showed significant increases in levels of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, and the factor most strongly correlated to this inability to regulate cytokine levels was the duration of symptoms, not their severity. A series of other studies also revealed problems with regulation of the immune system, although no one could show what might have set these problems in motion.

Other researchers found signs of mitochondrial dysfunction in those with chronic fatigue syndrome. Because mitochondria make energy for cells, it wasn’t an intellectual stretch to believe that glitches in this process could contribute to fatigue. As early as 1991, scientists had discovered signs of mitochondrial degeneration in muscle biopsies from people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Subsequent studies showed that those affected by chronic fatigue were missing segments of mitochondrial DNA and had significantly reduced levels of mitochondrial activity. Although exercise normally improves mitochondrial functioning, the opposite appears to happen in chronic fatigue.

To Dr. Nath, these dual hypotheses aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Some studies have hinted that infection with the common human herpesvirus–6 (HHV-6) can lead to an autoimmune condition in which the body makes antibodies against the mitochondria. Mitochondria also play a key role in the ability of the innate immune system to produce interferon and other proinflammatory cytokines. It might also be that the link between immune and mitochondrial problems is more convoluted than originally thought, or that the two systems are affected independent of one another, Dr. Nath said.

Finding answers, especially those that could lead to potential treatments, wouldn’t be easy, however. In 2016, the NIH launched an in-depth study of a small number of individuals with chronic fatigue, hoping to find clues about what the condition was and how it might be treated.

For scientists like Dr. Nath, the NIH study provided a way to get at the underlying biology of chronic fatigue syndrome. Then the pandemic struck, giving him yet another opportunity to study postviral syndromes.
 

Chronic post-SARS syndrome

In March 2020, retired physician Harvey Moldofsky, MD, began receiving inquiries about a 2011 study he and his colleague, John Patcai, MD, had published in BMC Neurology about something they dubbed “chronic post-SARS syndrome.” The small case-control study, which involved mainly health care workers in Toronto, received little attention when it was first published, but with COVID-19, it was suddenly relevant.

Early clusters of similar cases in Miami made local physicians desperate for Dr. Moldofsky’s expertise. Luckily, he was nearby; he had fled the frigid Canadian winter for the warmth of Sarasota, Fla.

“I had people from various countries around the world writing to me and asking what they should do. And of course I don’t have any answers,” he said. But the study contained one of the world’s only references to the syndrome.

In 2003, a woman arrived in Toronto from Hong Kong. She didn’t know it at the time, but her preairport stay at the Hotel Metropole had infected her with the first SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) coronavirus. Her subsequent hospitalization in Toronto sparked a city-wide outbreak of SARS in which 273 people became ill and 44 died. Many of those affected were health care workers, including nurses and respiratory therapists. Although most eventually returned to work, a subset couldn’t. They complained of energy-sapping fatigue, poor sleep, brain fog, and assorted body aches and pains that persisted for more than 18 months. The aches and pains brought them to the attention of Dr. Moldofsky, then director of the Centre for the Study of Pain at the University of Toronto.

His primary interest at the time was fibromyalgia, which caused symptoms similar to those reported by the original SARS long-haulers. Intrigued, Dr. Moldofsky agreed to take a look. Their chest x-rays were clear and the nurses showed no signs of lingering viral infection. Dr. Moldofsky could see that the nurses were ill and suffering, but no lab tests or anything else could identify what was causing their symptoms.

In 2011, Dr. Moldofsky and Dr. Patcai found a strong overlap between chronic SARS, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome when they compared 22 patients with long-term SARS issues with 21 who had fibromyalgia. “Their problems are exactly the same. They have strange symptoms and nobody can figure out what they’re about. And these symptoms are aches and pains, and they have trouble thinking and concentrating,” Dr. Moldofsky said. Reports of COVID-19 long-haulers didn’t surprise Dr. Moldofsky, and he immediately recognized that Nath’s intention to follow these patients could provide insights into both fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

That’s exactly what Dr. Nath is proposing with the two NIH studies. One will focus solely on the neurologic impacts of COVID-19, including stroke, loss of taste and smell, and brain fog. The other will bring patients who have had COVID-19 symptoms for at least 6 months to the NIH Clinical Center for an inpatient stay during which they will undergo detailed physiologic tests.

Scientists around the world are launching their own post–COVID-19 studies. Dr. Moreau’s group in Montreal has laid the groundwork for such an endeavor, and the CoroNerve group in the United Kingdom is monitoring neurologic complications from the coronavirus. Many of them have the same goals as the NIH studies: Leverage the large number of COVID-19 long-haulers to better understand the earliest stages of postviral syndrome.

“At this juncture, after all the reports that we’ve seen so far, I think it’s very unlikely that there will be no relationship whatsoever between COVID-19 and chronic fatigue syndrome,” Dr. Hornig said. “I think there certainly will be some, but again, what’s the scope, what’s the size? And then, of course, even more importantly, if it is happening, what is the mechanism and how is it happening?”

For people like Ms. Gage-Witvliet, the answers can’t come soon enough. For the first time in more than a decade, the full-time professor of epidemiology didn’t prepare to teach this year because she simply can’t. It’s too taxing for her brain to deal with impromptu student questions. Ms. Gage-Witvliet hopes that, by sharing her own experiences with post COVID-19, she can help others.

“In my work, I use data to give a voice to people who don’t have a voice,” she said. “Now, I am one of those people.”

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

When Margot Gage-Witvliet began feeling run down after her family returned from a trip to the Netherlands in late February 2020, she initially chalked up her symptoms to jet lag. Three days later, however, her situation went from concerning to alarming as she struggled to breathe. “It felt like there was an elephant sitting on my chest,” she said.

Her husband and daughters also became ill with COVID-19, but Ms. Gage-Witvliet was the only one in her family who didn’t get better. After an early improvement, a rare coronavirus-induced tonic-clonic seizure in early April sent her spiraling back down. Ms. Gage-Witvliet spent the next several weeks in bed with the curtains drawn, unable to tolerate light or sound.

Today, Ms. Gage-Witvliet’s life looks nothing like it did 6 months ago when she first got sick. As one of COVID-19’s so called long-haulers, she continues to struggle with crushing fatigue, brain fog, and headaches – symptoms that worsen when she pushes herself to do more. Across the country, as many as 1 in 10 COVID-19 patients are reporting illnesses that continue for weeks and months after their initial diagnosis. Nearly all report neurologic issues like Ms. Gage-Witvliet, as well as shortness of breath and psychiatric concerns.

For Avindra Nath, MD, a neurologist at the National Institutes of Health, the experience of these long-haul COVID-19 patients feels familiar and reminds him of myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome.

Dr. Nath has long been interested in the lingering neurologic issues connected to chronic fatigue. An estimated three-quarters of all patients with chronic fatigue syndrome report that their symptoms started after a viral infection, and they suffer unrelenting exhaustion, difficulties regulating pulse and blood pressure, aches and pains, and brain fog. When Dr. Nath first read about the novel coronavirus, he began to worry that the virus would trigger symptoms in a subset of those infected. Hearing about the experiences of long-haulers like Ms. Gage-Witvliet raised his suspicions even more.

Unlike COVID-19 long-haulers, however, many patients with chronic fatigue syndrome go at least a year with these symptoms before receiving a diagnosis, according to a British survey. That means researchers have had few opportunities to study the early stages of the syndrome. “When we see patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis, whatever infection they might have had occurred in the remote past, so there’s no way for us to know how they got infected with it, what the infection was, or what the effects of it were in that early phase. We’re seeing them 2 years afterward,” Dr. Nath said.

Dr. Nath quickly realized that studying patients like Ms. Gage-Witvliet would give physicians and scientists a unique opportunity to understand not only long-term outcomes of COVID-19 infections, but also other postviral syndromes, including chronic fatigue syndrome at their earliest stages. It’s why Dr. Nath has spent the past several months scrambling to launch two NIH studies to examine the phenomenon.

Although Dr. Nath said that the parallels between COVID-19 long-haulers and those with chronic fatigue syndrome are obvious, he cautions against assuming that they are the same phenomenon. Some long-haulers might simply be taking a much slower path to recovery, or they might have a condition that looks similar on the surface but differs from chronic fatigue syndrome on a molecular level. But even if Dr. Nath fails to see links to chronic fatigue syndrome, with more than 92.5 million documented cases of COVID-19 around the world, the work will be relevant to the substantial number of infected individuals who don’t recover quickly.

“With so many people having exposure to the same virus over a similar time period, we really have the opportunity to look at these manifestations and at the very least to understand postviral syndromes,” said Mady Hornig, MD, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York.

The origins of chronic fatigue syndrome date back to 1985, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention received a request from two physicians – Paul Cheney, MD, and Daniel Peterson, MD – to investigate a mysterious disease outbreak in Nevada. In November 1984, residents in and around the idyllic vacation spot of Incline Village, a small town tucked into the north shore of Lake Tahoe, had begun reporting flu-like symptoms that persisted for weeks, even months. The doctors had searched high and low for a cause, but they couldn’t figure out what was making their patients sick.

They reported a range of symptoms – including muscle aches and pains, low-grade fevers, sore throats, and headaches – but everyone said that crippling fatigue was the most debilitating issue. This wasn’t the kind of fatigue that could be cured by a nap or even a long holiday. No matter how much their patients slept – and some were almost completely bedbound – their fatigue didn’t abate. What’s more, the fatigue got worse whenever they tried to push themselves to do more. Puzzled, the CDC sent two epidemic intelligence service (EIS) officers to try to get to the bottom of what might be happening.


 

Muscle aches and pains with crippling fatigue

After their visit to Incline Village, however, the CDC was just as perplexed as Dr. Cheney and Dr. Peterson. Many of the people with the condition reported flu-like symptoms right around the time they first got sick, and the physicians’ leading hypothesis was that the outbreak and its lasting symptoms were caused by chronic Epstein-Barr virus infection. But neither the CDC nor anyone else could identify the infection or any other microbial cause. The two EIS officers duly wrote up a report for the CDC’s flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly ReportI, titled “Chronic Fatigue Possibly Related to Epstein-Barr Virus – Nevada”.

That investigators focused on the fatigue aspect made sense, says Leonard A. Jason, PhD, professor of psychology at DePaul University and director of the Center for Community Research, both in Chicago, because it was one of the few symptoms shared by all the individuals studied and it was also the most debilitating. But that focus – and the name “chronic fatigue syndrome” – led to broad public dismissal of the condition’s severity, as did an editorial note in MMWR urging physicians to look for “more definable, and possibly treatable, conditions.” Subsequent research failed to confirm a specific link to the Epstein-Barr virus, which only added to the condition’s phony reputation. Rather than being considered a potentially disabling illness, it was disregarded as a “yuppie flu” or a fancy name for malingering.

“It’s not a surprise that patients are being dismissed because there’s already this sort of grandfathered-in sense that fatigue is not real,” said Jennifer Frankovich, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto. “I’m sure that’s frustrating for them to be tired and then to have the clinician not believe them or dismiss them or think they’re making it up. It would be more helpful to the families to say: ‘You know what, we don’t know, we do not have the answer, and we believe you.’ ”
 

A syndrome’s shame

As time passed, patient advocacy groups began pushing back against the negative way the condition was being perceived. This criticism came as organizations like the CDC worked to develop a set of diagnostic criteria that researchers and clinicians dealing with chronic fatigue syndrome could use. With such a heterogeneous group of patients and symptoms, the task was no small challenge. The discussions, which took place over nearly 2 decades, played a key role in helping scientists home in on the single factor that was central to chronic fatigue: postexertional malaise.

“This is quite unique for chronic fatigue syndrome. With other diseases, yes, you may have fatigue as one of the components of the disease, but postexertional fatigue is very specific,” said Alain Moreau, PhD, a molecular biologist at the University of Montreal.

Of course, plenty of people have pushed themselves too hard physically and paid the price the next day. But those with chronic fatigue syndrome weren’t running marathons. To them, exertion could be anything from getting the mail to reading a book. Nor could the resulting exhaustion be resolved by an afternoon on the couch or a long vacation.

“If they do these activities, they can crash for weeks, even months,” Dr. Moreau said. It was deep, persistent, and – for 40% of those with chronic fatigue syndrome – disabling. In 2015, a study group from the Institute of Medicine proposed renaming chronic fatigue to “systemic exercise intolerance disease” because of the centrality of this symptom. Although that effort mostly stalled, their report did bring the condition out of its historic place as a scientific backwater. What resulted was an uptick in research on chronic fatigue syndrome, which helped define some of the physiological issues that either contribute to or result from the condition.

Researchers had long known about the link between infection and fatigue, said Dr. Frankovich. Work included mysterious outbreaks like the one in Lake Tahoe and well-documented issues like the wave of encephalitis lethargica (a condition that leaves patients in an almost vegetative state) that followed the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

“As a clinician, when you see someone who comes in with a chronic infection, they’re tired. I think that’s why, in the chronic-fatigue world, people are desperately looking for the infection so we can treat it, and maybe these poor suffering people will feel better,” Dr. Frankovich added. Then the pandemic struck, giving him yet another opportunity to study postviral syndromes.
 

Immunologic symptoms

Given the close link between a nonspecific viral illness and the onset of symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome, scientists like Dr. Hornig opted to focus on immunologic symptoms. In a 2015 analysis published in Science, Dr. Hornig and colleagues showed that immune problems can be found in the earliest stages of chronic fatigue syndrome, and that they change as the illness progresses. Patients who had been sick for less than 3 years showed significant increases in levels of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, and the factor most strongly correlated to this inability to regulate cytokine levels was the duration of symptoms, not their severity. A series of other studies also revealed problems with regulation of the immune system, although no one could show what might have set these problems in motion.

Other researchers found signs of mitochondrial dysfunction in those with chronic fatigue syndrome. Because mitochondria make energy for cells, it wasn’t an intellectual stretch to believe that glitches in this process could contribute to fatigue. As early as 1991, scientists had discovered signs of mitochondrial degeneration in muscle biopsies from people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Subsequent studies showed that those affected by chronic fatigue were missing segments of mitochondrial DNA and had significantly reduced levels of mitochondrial activity. Although exercise normally improves mitochondrial functioning, the opposite appears to happen in chronic fatigue.

To Dr. Nath, these dual hypotheses aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Some studies have hinted that infection with the common human herpesvirus–6 (HHV-6) can lead to an autoimmune condition in which the body makes antibodies against the mitochondria. Mitochondria also play a key role in the ability of the innate immune system to produce interferon and other proinflammatory cytokines. It might also be that the link between immune and mitochondrial problems is more convoluted than originally thought, or that the two systems are affected independent of one another, Dr. Nath said.

Finding answers, especially those that could lead to potential treatments, wouldn’t be easy, however. In 2016, the NIH launched an in-depth study of a small number of individuals with chronic fatigue, hoping to find clues about what the condition was and how it might be treated.

For scientists like Dr. Nath, the NIH study provided a way to get at the underlying biology of chronic fatigue syndrome. Then the pandemic struck, giving him yet another opportunity to study postviral syndromes.
 

Chronic post-SARS syndrome

In March 2020, retired physician Harvey Moldofsky, MD, began receiving inquiries about a 2011 study he and his colleague, John Patcai, MD, had published in BMC Neurology about something they dubbed “chronic post-SARS syndrome.” The small case-control study, which involved mainly health care workers in Toronto, received little attention when it was first published, but with COVID-19, it was suddenly relevant.

Early clusters of similar cases in Miami made local physicians desperate for Dr. Moldofsky’s expertise. Luckily, he was nearby; he had fled the frigid Canadian winter for the warmth of Sarasota, Fla.

“I had people from various countries around the world writing to me and asking what they should do. And of course I don’t have any answers,” he said. But the study contained one of the world’s only references to the syndrome.

In 2003, a woman arrived in Toronto from Hong Kong. She didn’t know it at the time, but her preairport stay at the Hotel Metropole had infected her with the first SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) coronavirus. Her subsequent hospitalization in Toronto sparked a city-wide outbreak of SARS in which 273 people became ill and 44 died. Many of those affected were health care workers, including nurses and respiratory therapists. Although most eventually returned to work, a subset couldn’t. They complained of energy-sapping fatigue, poor sleep, brain fog, and assorted body aches and pains that persisted for more than 18 months. The aches and pains brought them to the attention of Dr. Moldofsky, then director of the Centre for the Study of Pain at the University of Toronto.

His primary interest at the time was fibromyalgia, which caused symptoms similar to those reported by the original SARS long-haulers. Intrigued, Dr. Moldofsky agreed to take a look. Their chest x-rays were clear and the nurses showed no signs of lingering viral infection. Dr. Moldofsky could see that the nurses were ill and suffering, but no lab tests or anything else could identify what was causing their symptoms.

In 2011, Dr. Moldofsky and Dr. Patcai found a strong overlap between chronic SARS, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome when they compared 22 patients with long-term SARS issues with 21 who had fibromyalgia. “Their problems are exactly the same. They have strange symptoms and nobody can figure out what they’re about. And these symptoms are aches and pains, and they have trouble thinking and concentrating,” Dr. Moldofsky said. Reports of COVID-19 long-haulers didn’t surprise Dr. Moldofsky, and he immediately recognized that Nath’s intention to follow these patients could provide insights into both fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

That’s exactly what Dr. Nath is proposing with the two NIH studies. One will focus solely on the neurologic impacts of COVID-19, including stroke, loss of taste and smell, and brain fog. The other will bring patients who have had COVID-19 symptoms for at least 6 months to the NIH Clinical Center for an inpatient stay during which they will undergo detailed physiologic tests.

Scientists around the world are launching their own post–COVID-19 studies. Dr. Moreau’s group in Montreal has laid the groundwork for such an endeavor, and the CoroNerve group in the United Kingdom is monitoring neurologic complications from the coronavirus. Many of them have the same goals as the NIH studies: Leverage the large number of COVID-19 long-haulers to better understand the earliest stages of postviral syndrome.

“At this juncture, after all the reports that we’ve seen so far, I think it’s very unlikely that there will be no relationship whatsoever between COVID-19 and chronic fatigue syndrome,” Dr. Hornig said. “I think there certainly will be some, but again, what’s the scope, what’s the size? And then, of course, even more importantly, if it is happening, what is the mechanism and how is it happening?”

For people like Ms. Gage-Witvliet, the answers can’t come soon enough. For the first time in more than a decade, the full-time professor of epidemiology didn’t prepare to teach this year because she simply can’t. It’s too taxing for her brain to deal with impromptu student questions. Ms. Gage-Witvliet hopes that, by sharing her own experiences with post COVID-19, she can help others.

“In my work, I use data to give a voice to people who don’t have a voice,” she said. “Now, I am one of those people.”

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

When Margot Gage-Witvliet began feeling run down after her family returned from a trip to the Netherlands in late February 2020, she initially chalked up her symptoms to jet lag. Three days later, however, her situation went from concerning to alarming as she struggled to breathe. “It felt like there was an elephant sitting on my chest,” she said.

Her husband and daughters also became ill with COVID-19, but Ms. Gage-Witvliet was the only one in her family who didn’t get better. After an early improvement, a rare coronavirus-induced tonic-clonic seizure in early April sent her spiraling back down. Ms. Gage-Witvliet spent the next several weeks in bed with the curtains drawn, unable to tolerate light or sound.

Today, Ms. Gage-Witvliet’s life looks nothing like it did 6 months ago when she first got sick. As one of COVID-19’s so called long-haulers, she continues to struggle with crushing fatigue, brain fog, and headaches – symptoms that worsen when she pushes herself to do more. Across the country, as many as 1 in 10 COVID-19 patients are reporting illnesses that continue for weeks and months after their initial diagnosis. Nearly all report neurologic issues like Ms. Gage-Witvliet, as well as shortness of breath and psychiatric concerns.

For Avindra Nath, MD, a neurologist at the National Institutes of Health, the experience of these long-haul COVID-19 patients feels familiar and reminds him of myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome.

Dr. Nath has long been interested in the lingering neurologic issues connected to chronic fatigue. An estimated three-quarters of all patients with chronic fatigue syndrome report that their symptoms started after a viral infection, and they suffer unrelenting exhaustion, difficulties regulating pulse and blood pressure, aches and pains, and brain fog. When Dr. Nath first read about the novel coronavirus, he began to worry that the virus would trigger symptoms in a subset of those infected. Hearing about the experiences of long-haulers like Ms. Gage-Witvliet raised his suspicions even more.

Unlike COVID-19 long-haulers, however, many patients with chronic fatigue syndrome go at least a year with these symptoms before receiving a diagnosis, according to a British survey. That means researchers have had few opportunities to study the early stages of the syndrome. “When we see patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis, whatever infection they might have had occurred in the remote past, so there’s no way for us to know how they got infected with it, what the infection was, or what the effects of it were in that early phase. We’re seeing them 2 years afterward,” Dr. Nath said.

Dr. Nath quickly realized that studying patients like Ms. Gage-Witvliet would give physicians and scientists a unique opportunity to understand not only long-term outcomes of COVID-19 infections, but also other postviral syndromes, including chronic fatigue syndrome at their earliest stages. It’s why Dr. Nath has spent the past several months scrambling to launch two NIH studies to examine the phenomenon.

Although Dr. Nath said that the parallels between COVID-19 long-haulers and those with chronic fatigue syndrome are obvious, he cautions against assuming that they are the same phenomenon. Some long-haulers might simply be taking a much slower path to recovery, or they might have a condition that looks similar on the surface but differs from chronic fatigue syndrome on a molecular level. But even if Dr. Nath fails to see links to chronic fatigue syndrome, with more than 92.5 million documented cases of COVID-19 around the world, the work will be relevant to the substantial number of infected individuals who don’t recover quickly.

“With so many people having exposure to the same virus over a similar time period, we really have the opportunity to look at these manifestations and at the very least to understand postviral syndromes,” said Mady Hornig, MD, a psychiatrist at Columbia University, New York.

The origins of chronic fatigue syndrome date back to 1985, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention received a request from two physicians – Paul Cheney, MD, and Daniel Peterson, MD – to investigate a mysterious disease outbreak in Nevada. In November 1984, residents in and around the idyllic vacation spot of Incline Village, a small town tucked into the north shore of Lake Tahoe, had begun reporting flu-like symptoms that persisted for weeks, even months. The doctors had searched high and low for a cause, but they couldn’t figure out what was making their patients sick.

They reported a range of symptoms – including muscle aches and pains, low-grade fevers, sore throats, and headaches – but everyone said that crippling fatigue was the most debilitating issue. This wasn’t the kind of fatigue that could be cured by a nap or even a long holiday. No matter how much their patients slept – and some were almost completely bedbound – their fatigue didn’t abate. What’s more, the fatigue got worse whenever they tried to push themselves to do more. Puzzled, the CDC sent two epidemic intelligence service (EIS) officers to try to get to the bottom of what might be happening.


 

Muscle aches and pains with crippling fatigue

After their visit to Incline Village, however, the CDC was just as perplexed as Dr. Cheney and Dr. Peterson. Many of the people with the condition reported flu-like symptoms right around the time they first got sick, and the physicians’ leading hypothesis was that the outbreak and its lasting symptoms were caused by chronic Epstein-Barr virus infection. But neither the CDC nor anyone else could identify the infection or any other microbial cause. The two EIS officers duly wrote up a report for the CDC’s flagship publication, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly ReportI, titled “Chronic Fatigue Possibly Related to Epstein-Barr Virus – Nevada”.

That investigators focused on the fatigue aspect made sense, says Leonard A. Jason, PhD, professor of psychology at DePaul University and director of the Center for Community Research, both in Chicago, because it was one of the few symptoms shared by all the individuals studied and it was also the most debilitating. But that focus – and the name “chronic fatigue syndrome” – led to broad public dismissal of the condition’s severity, as did an editorial note in MMWR urging physicians to look for “more definable, and possibly treatable, conditions.” Subsequent research failed to confirm a specific link to the Epstein-Barr virus, which only added to the condition’s phony reputation. Rather than being considered a potentially disabling illness, it was disregarded as a “yuppie flu” or a fancy name for malingering.

“It’s not a surprise that patients are being dismissed because there’s already this sort of grandfathered-in sense that fatigue is not real,” said Jennifer Frankovich, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Stanford (Calif.) University’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto. “I’m sure that’s frustrating for them to be tired and then to have the clinician not believe them or dismiss them or think they’re making it up. It would be more helpful to the families to say: ‘You know what, we don’t know, we do not have the answer, and we believe you.’ ”
 

A syndrome’s shame

As time passed, patient advocacy groups began pushing back against the negative way the condition was being perceived. This criticism came as organizations like the CDC worked to develop a set of diagnostic criteria that researchers and clinicians dealing with chronic fatigue syndrome could use. With such a heterogeneous group of patients and symptoms, the task was no small challenge. The discussions, which took place over nearly 2 decades, played a key role in helping scientists home in on the single factor that was central to chronic fatigue: postexertional malaise.

“This is quite unique for chronic fatigue syndrome. With other diseases, yes, you may have fatigue as one of the components of the disease, but postexertional fatigue is very specific,” said Alain Moreau, PhD, a molecular biologist at the University of Montreal.

Of course, plenty of people have pushed themselves too hard physically and paid the price the next day. But those with chronic fatigue syndrome weren’t running marathons. To them, exertion could be anything from getting the mail to reading a book. Nor could the resulting exhaustion be resolved by an afternoon on the couch or a long vacation.

“If they do these activities, they can crash for weeks, even months,” Dr. Moreau said. It was deep, persistent, and – for 40% of those with chronic fatigue syndrome – disabling. In 2015, a study group from the Institute of Medicine proposed renaming chronic fatigue to “systemic exercise intolerance disease” because of the centrality of this symptom. Although that effort mostly stalled, their report did bring the condition out of its historic place as a scientific backwater. What resulted was an uptick in research on chronic fatigue syndrome, which helped define some of the physiological issues that either contribute to or result from the condition.

Researchers had long known about the link between infection and fatigue, said Dr. Frankovich. Work included mysterious outbreaks like the one in Lake Tahoe and well-documented issues like the wave of encephalitis lethargica (a condition that leaves patients in an almost vegetative state) that followed the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic.

“As a clinician, when you see someone who comes in with a chronic infection, they’re tired. I think that’s why, in the chronic-fatigue world, people are desperately looking for the infection so we can treat it, and maybe these poor suffering people will feel better,” Dr. Frankovich added. Then the pandemic struck, giving him yet another opportunity to study postviral syndromes.
 

Immunologic symptoms

Given the close link between a nonspecific viral illness and the onset of symptoms in chronic fatigue syndrome, scientists like Dr. Hornig opted to focus on immunologic symptoms. In a 2015 analysis published in Science, Dr. Hornig and colleagues showed that immune problems can be found in the earliest stages of chronic fatigue syndrome, and that they change as the illness progresses. Patients who had been sick for less than 3 years showed significant increases in levels of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, and the factor most strongly correlated to this inability to regulate cytokine levels was the duration of symptoms, not their severity. A series of other studies also revealed problems with regulation of the immune system, although no one could show what might have set these problems in motion.

Other researchers found signs of mitochondrial dysfunction in those with chronic fatigue syndrome. Because mitochondria make energy for cells, it wasn’t an intellectual stretch to believe that glitches in this process could contribute to fatigue. As early as 1991, scientists had discovered signs of mitochondrial degeneration in muscle biopsies from people with chronic fatigue syndrome. Subsequent studies showed that those affected by chronic fatigue were missing segments of mitochondrial DNA and had significantly reduced levels of mitochondrial activity. Although exercise normally improves mitochondrial functioning, the opposite appears to happen in chronic fatigue.

To Dr. Nath, these dual hypotheses aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. Some studies have hinted that infection with the common human herpesvirus–6 (HHV-6) can lead to an autoimmune condition in which the body makes antibodies against the mitochondria. Mitochondria also play a key role in the ability of the innate immune system to produce interferon and other proinflammatory cytokines. It might also be that the link between immune and mitochondrial problems is more convoluted than originally thought, or that the two systems are affected independent of one another, Dr. Nath said.

Finding answers, especially those that could lead to potential treatments, wouldn’t be easy, however. In 2016, the NIH launched an in-depth study of a small number of individuals with chronic fatigue, hoping to find clues about what the condition was and how it might be treated.

For scientists like Dr. Nath, the NIH study provided a way to get at the underlying biology of chronic fatigue syndrome. Then the pandemic struck, giving him yet another opportunity to study postviral syndromes.
 

Chronic post-SARS syndrome

In March 2020, retired physician Harvey Moldofsky, MD, began receiving inquiries about a 2011 study he and his colleague, John Patcai, MD, had published in BMC Neurology about something they dubbed “chronic post-SARS syndrome.” The small case-control study, which involved mainly health care workers in Toronto, received little attention when it was first published, but with COVID-19, it was suddenly relevant.

Early clusters of similar cases in Miami made local physicians desperate for Dr. Moldofsky’s expertise. Luckily, he was nearby; he had fled the frigid Canadian winter for the warmth of Sarasota, Fla.

“I had people from various countries around the world writing to me and asking what they should do. And of course I don’t have any answers,” he said. But the study contained one of the world’s only references to the syndrome.

In 2003, a woman arrived in Toronto from Hong Kong. She didn’t know it at the time, but her preairport stay at the Hotel Metropole had infected her with the first SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) coronavirus. Her subsequent hospitalization in Toronto sparked a city-wide outbreak of SARS in which 273 people became ill and 44 died. Many of those affected were health care workers, including nurses and respiratory therapists. Although most eventually returned to work, a subset couldn’t. They complained of energy-sapping fatigue, poor sleep, brain fog, and assorted body aches and pains that persisted for more than 18 months. The aches and pains brought them to the attention of Dr. Moldofsky, then director of the Centre for the Study of Pain at the University of Toronto.

His primary interest at the time was fibromyalgia, which caused symptoms similar to those reported by the original SARS long-haulers. Intrigued, Dr. Moldofsky agreed to take a look. Their chest x-rays were clear and the nurses showed no signs of lingering viral infection. Dr. Moldofsky could see that the nurses were ill and suffering, but no lab tests or anything else could identify what was causing their symptoms.

In 2011, Dr. Moldofsky and Dr. Patcai found a strong overlap between chronic SARS, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome when they compared 22 patients with long-term SARS issues with 21 who had fibromyalgia. “Their problems are exactly the same. They have strange symptoms and nobody can figure out what they’re about. And these symptoms are aches and pains, and they have trouble thinking and concentrating,” Dr. Moldofsky said. Reports of COVID-19 long-haulers didn’t surprise Dr. Moldofsky, and he immediately recognized that Nath’s intention to follow these patients could provide insights into both fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.

That’s exactly what Dr. Nath is proposing with the two NIH studies. One will focus solely on the neurologic impacts of COVID-19, including stroke, loss of taste and smell, and brain fog. The other will bring patients who have had COVID-19 symptoms for at least 6 months to the NIH Clinical Center for an inpatient stay during which they will undergo detailed physiologic tests.

Scientists around the world are launching their own post–COVID-19 studies. Dr. Moreau’s group in Montreal has laid the groundwork for such an endeavor, and the CoroNerve group in the United Kingdom is monitoring neurologic complications from the coronavirus. Many of them have the same goals as the NIH studies: Leverage the large number of COVID-19 long-haulers to better understand the earliest stages of postviral syndrome.

“At this juncture, after all the reports that we’ve seen so far, I think it’s very unlikely that there will be no relationship whatsoever between COVID-19 and chronic fatigue syndrome,” Dr. Hornig said. “I think there certainly will be some, but again, what’s the scope, what’s the size? And then, of course, even more importantly, if it is happening, what is the mechanism and how is it happening?”

For people like Ms. Gage-Witvliet, the answers can’t come soon enough. For the first time in more than a decade, the full-time professor of epidemiology didn’t prepare to teach this year because she simply can’t. It’s too taxing for her brain to deal with impromptu student questions. Ms. Gage-Witvliet hopes that, by sharing her own experiences with post COVID-19, she can help others.

“In my work, I use data to give a voice to people who don’t have a voice,” she said. “Now, I am one of those people.”

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

Among the multiple vaccine candidates around the globe, next up in the arsenal against COVID-19 is likely the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in development from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, infectious disease experts predict.

And it got closer with promising interim phase 1/2a trial results, published online Jan. 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

A single Ad26.COV2.S dose was associated with S-binding and neutralizing antibodies in more than 90% of the participants. The finding was observed in both adults aged 18-55 years and participants 65 and older, as well as for participants given low-dose or high-dose vaccinations.

The results also suggest a durable vaccine response. “The take-home message [includes] a high neutralizing antibody responder rate to a single dose of our Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine candidate. In addition, we see that these responses and antibody titers are stable for at least 71 days,” senior study author Hanneke Schuitemaker, PhD, global head of viral vaccine discovery and translational medicine at Johnson & Johnson in Leiden, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

If the single-dose Johnson & Johnson product gains Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA), it could significantly boost the number of overall immunizations available. Less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration vs. a need to freeze the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines – is another potential advantage. The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46 °F (2°-8 °C).

“Phase 1-2 trial data on the J&J vaccine: If it works as well as the mRNA options, it will have substantial advantages,” Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency room physician affiliated with Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, tweeted on Jan. 13.

Unlike the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson product is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding a full-length and stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein.
 

Phase 3 efficacy/safety results pending

Under normal circumstances, phase 3 trial results would not be anticipated within weeks of phase 1/2a trial findings. However, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the vaccine development process, so preclinical trials were conducted simultaneously and not sequentially. For this reason, phase 3 interim results for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are expected within weeks, and a company executive told Reuters that the rollout is on track for March.

“We hope to report data from our first phase 3 study, ENSEMBLE, in which we are testing the protective efficacy of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S, by the end of this month or early February,” Dr. Schuitemaker said. 

In the meantime, the phase 1/2a ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial interim results have drawn positive reactions.

“Data is highly encouraging and supports the single inoculation approach that makes this vaccine unique,” Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean for Emory University at Grady in Atlanta, wrote in a tweet on Jan. 13.

“Encouraging COVID vaccine data from J&J published [Jan. 13]. Solid antibody, CD4 T cell, and CD8 T cell responses – a nice trifecta of vaccine immune responses to see! And safe!” tweeted Shane Crotty, PhD, vaccine scientist and professor at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

 

First results in 800+ participants

At baseline for the phase 1/2a trial, 2% of the younger group and 1% of the 65+ group were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 S-specific antibodies.

A total of 402 people in the younger age cohort and 403 in the 65 and older group received a first dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Many participants also received a second dose 56 days later for a separate trial, ENSEMBLE2, designed to compare safety and efficacy between single- and double-dose regimens. Results of that trial are still pending.
 

Safety profile

A single dose was associated with a higher incidence of solicited systemic adverse events in the higher vaccine dose group. They also found that grade 3 adverse events decreased with increasing age.

Injection site pain on the day of immunization or the next day was the most common local reaction. The pain generally resolved within 24 hours. Fever was reported by 15% of the low-dose vaccine group and 39% of the high-dose cohort. Fatigue, headache, and myalgia were the most common grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic adverse events reported.

Five serious adverse events were reported, including four that investigators deemed unrelated to vaccination: hypotension, bilateral nephrolithiasis, legionella pneumonia, and one case of worsening of multiple sclerosis. The vaccine-related serious adverse event was a fever that resulted in hospitalization because of suspicion of COVID-19. The patient recovered within 12 hours.

“These data confirm our previous experience with vaccine candidates based on our Ad26 viral vector platform in the younger age group. The almost similar performance in older adults is promising,” Dr. Schuitemaker said.

A potential limitation of the phase 1/2a trial is “the lack of representation of minority groups,” the researchers noted. Johnson & Johnson is working on improving the diversity of study participants “with respect to groups that seem to be affected most by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine status

The AstraZeneca/Oxford AZD1222 vaccine in development received approval for use in the United Kingdom on Dec. 30. The approval came after Public Health England said the country was facing “unprecedented” levels of infections, the BBC reported. AstraZeneca applied for European Medical Agency approval earlier in the week of Jan. 10, which could lead to more widespread use across Europe.

The status of the vaccine remains uncertain in the United States. A phase 3 trial that started in August was paused for about 6 weeks in September and October after an adverse event in a British volunteer halted studies worldwide. On Oct. 23, the FDA permitted researchers to continue the trial with approximately 40,000 participants.

There was some suggestion in the clinical trials that a half dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine was more effective than a full dose, 90% vs. 62%, but some irregularities in the research require further investigation.

Although the AstraZeneca vaccine is delivered to cells by an adenovirus – as with the Johnson & Johnson product – it is designed to be delivered in two doses 28 days apart, like the administration schedule of the Moderna mRNA vaccine.
 

A need for speed, and more doses

Regardless of which vaccine product is next to gain an EUA in the United States, many experts agree the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts so far have been problematic, at a time when cases are climbing to record-breaking levels, and likely more related to logistics over administration of the vaccine than production of the doses.

“Lots of doses being manufactured. In December 20 million, January 40 million, February 80 million and J&J hopefully soon to add to the count. The shortage is the number arms not getting vaccinated. Freezers do not get COVID. They do not need all those vaccines,” Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, an infectious disease expert in Port Washington, N.Y., tweeted on Jan. 12.

“Unfortunately, the rollout has not gone smoothly, partly due to a lack of resources for this distribution phase we’re in,” Andrew T. Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said during a media briefing Jan. 14 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“We’re concerned about the mismatch between the number of people who are being told they are eligible and the amount of vaccine that is being distributed,” he said.

Complicating the rollout is a directive from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar that states should start vaccinating everyone 65 and older as well as those with underlying conditions.

Expanding distribution to the 15% of Americans in just this age group is a big challenge, Dr. Pavia said. “We have enough vaccine maybe to vaccinate 40 million by the end of this month. There is a huge disconnect, and that creates a lot of problems.”

“One of the biggest problems is we are trying to do this mass vaccination program in the middle of the biggest surge we’ve ever seen,” Julie Vaishampayan, MD, MPH, chair of the IDSA Public Health Committee, said during the briefing. Without sufficient time for public health officials to plan for vaccinating a larger population, “people will come and stand in extremely long lines.”

Trying to expand immunization access without a proportionate increase in available doses prompted Dr. Vaishampayan to share an analogy from a colleague: “We are trying to fill a lake with a garden hose. Rather than making the lake bigger, what we really need is more water.”

Dr. Pavia emphasized that infectious disease experts “know the measures that work.” Not using masks, physical distancing, and hand hygiene, he said, “is a bit like knowing that really good shark repellents will be available in summer, so I’m going to jump into the ocean covered in blood while the great whites are swimming around.”

An official at the World Health Organization agreed. “Vaccines are coming online and I do believe vaccines will make a huge difference. But they are not here yet in enough quantities and in enough people to make that difference,” Michael Ryan, MB, WHO executive director of health emergencies, said during an online media briefing Jan. 13, held in conjunction with Emory University.

Dr. Ryan predicted that “we’ve got weeks if not months ahead of us in which our weapon is our knowledge ... what we know about this virus, its transmission, and stopping that transmission.

“And as the vaccines roll in, we can hopefully end this horrific pandemic.”

Dr. Schuitemaker reports grants from BARDA during the conduct of the study; personal fees and other from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, a J&J company, outside the submitted work. Johnson & Johnson and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services funded the phase 1/2a study.

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

Among the multiple vaccine candidates around the globe, next up in the arsenal against COVID-19 is likely the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in development from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, infectious disease experts predict.

And it got closer with promising interim phase 1/2a trial results, published online Jan. 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

A single Ad26.COV2.S dose was associated with S-binding and neutralizing antibodies in more than 90% of the participants. The finding was observed in both adults aged 18-55 years and participants 65 and older, as well as for participants given low-dose or high-dose vaccinations.

The results also suggest a durable vaccine response. “The take-home message [includes] a high neutralizing antibody responder rate to a single dose of our Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine candidate. In addition, we see that these responses and antibody titers are stable for at least 71 days,” senior study author Hanneke Schuitemaker, PhD, global head of viral vaccine discovery and translational medicine at Johnson & Johnson in Leiden, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

If the single-dose Johnson & Johnson product gains Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA), it could significantly boost the number of overall immunizations available. Less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration vs. a need to freeze the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines – is another potential advantage. The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46 °F (2°-8 °C).

“Phase 1-2 trial data on the J&J vaccine: If it works as well as the mRNA options, it will have substantial advantages,” Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency room physician affiliated with Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, tweeted on Jan. 13.

Unlike the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson product is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding a full-length and stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein.
 

Phase 3 efficacy/safety results pending

Under normal circumstances, phase 3 trial results would not be anticipated within weeks of phase 1/2a trial findings. However, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the vaccine development process, so preclinical trials were conducted simultaneously and not sequentially. For this reason, phase 3 interim results for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are expected within weeks, and a company executive told Reuters that the rollout is on track for March.

“We hope to report data from our first phase 3 study, ENSEMBLE, in which we are testing the protective efficacy of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S, by the end of this month or early February,” Dr. Schuitemaker said. 

In the meantime, the phase 1/2a ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial interim results have drawn positive reactions.

“Data is highly encouraging and supports the single inoculation approach that makes this vaccine unique,” Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean for Emory University at Grady in Atlanta, wrote in a tweet on Jan. 13.

“Encouraging COVID vaccine data from J&J published [Jan. 13]. Solid antibody, CD4 T cell, and CD8 T cell responses – a nice trifecta of vaccine immune responses to see! And safe!” tweeted Shane Crotty, PhD, vaccine scientist and professor at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

 

First results in 800+ participants

At baseline for the phase 1/2a trial, 2% of the younger group and 1% of the 65+ group were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 S-specific antibodies.

A total of 402 people in the younger age cohort and 403 in the 65 and older group received a first dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Many participants also received a second dose 56 days later for a separate trial, ENSEMBLE2, designed to compare safety and efficacy between single- and double-dose regimens. Results of that trial are still pending.
 

Safety profile

A single dose was associated with a higher incidence of solicited systemic adverse events in the higher vaccine dose group. They also found that grade 3 adverse events decreased with increasing age.

Injection site pain on the day of immunization or the next day was the most common local reaction. The pain generally resolved within 24 hours. Fever was reported by 15% of the low-dose vaccine group and 39% of the high-dose cohort. Fatigue, headache, and myalgia were the most common grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic adverse events reported.

Five serious adverse events were reported, including four that investigators deemed unrelated to vaccination: hypotension, bilateral nephrolithiasis, legionella pneumonia, and one case of worsening of multiple sclerosis. The vaccine-related serious adverse event was a fever that resulted in hospitalization because of suspicion of COVID-19. The patient recovered within 12 hours.

“These data confirm our previous experience with vaccine candidates based on our Ad26 viral vector platform in the younger age group. The almost similar performance in older adults is promising,” Dr. Schuitemaker said.

A potential limitation of the phase 1/2a trial is “the lack of representation of minority groups,” the researchers noted. Johnson & Johnson is working on improving the diversity of study participants “with respect to groups that seem to be affected most by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine status

The AstraZeneca/Oxford AZD1222 vaccine in development received approval for use in the United Kingdom on Dec. 30. The approval came after Public Health England said the country was facing “unprecedented” levels of infections, the BBC reported. AstraZeneca applied for European Medical Agency approval earlier in the week of Jan. 10, which could lead to more widespread use across Europe.

The status of the vaccine remains uncertain in the United States. A phase 3 trial that started in August was paused for about 6 weeks in September and October after an adverse event in a British volunteer halted studies worldwide. On Oct. 23, the FDA permitted researchers to continue the trial with approximately 40,000 participants.

There was some suggestion in the clinical trials that a half dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine was more effective than a full dose, 90% vs. 62%, but some irregularities in the research require further investigation.

Although the AstraZeneca vaccine is delivered to cells by an adenovirus – as with the Johnson & Johnson product – it is designed to be delivered in two doses 28 days apart, like the administration schedule of the Moderna mRNA vaccine.
 

A need for speed, and more doses

Regardless of which vaccine product is next to gain an EUA in the United States, many experts agree the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts so far have been problematic, at a time when cases are climbing to record-breaking levels, and likely more related to logistics over administration of the vaccine than production of the doses.

“Lots of doses being manufactured. In December 20 million, January 40 million, February 80 million and J&J hopefully soon to add to the count. The shortage is the number arms not getting vaccinated. Freezers do not get COVID. They do not need all those vaccines,” Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, an infectious disease expert in Port Washington, N.Y., tweeted on Jan. 12.

“Unfortunately, the rollout has not gone smoothly, partly due to a lack of resources for this distribution phase we’re in,” Andrew T. Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said during a media briefing Jan. 14 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“We’re concerned about the mismatch between the number of people who are being told they are eligible and the amount of vaccine that is being distributed,” he said.

Complicating the rollout is a directive from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar that states should start vaccinating everyone 65 and older as well as those with underlying conditions.

Expanding distribution to the 15% of Americans in just this age group is a big challenge, Dr. Pavia said. “We have enough vaccine maybe to vaccinate 40 million by the end of this month. There is a huge disconnect, and that creates a lot of problems.”

“One of the biggest problems is we are trying to do this mass vaccination program in the middle of the biggest surge we’ve ever seen,” Julie Vaishampayan, MD, MPH, chair of the IDSA Public Health Committee, said during the briefing. Without sufficient time for public health officials to plan for vaccinating a larger population, “people will come and stand in extremely long lines.”

Trying to expand immunization access without a proportionate increase in available doses prompted Dr. Vaishampayan to share an analogy from a colleague: “We are trying to fill a lake with a garden hose. Rather than making the lake bigger, what we really need is more water.”

Dr. Pavia emphasized that infectious disease experts “know the measures that work.” Not using masks, physical distancing, and hand hygiene, he said, “is a bit like knowing that really good shark repellents will be available in summer, so I’m going to jump into the ocean covered in blood while the great whites are swimming around.”

An official at the World Health Organization agreed. “Vaccines are coming online and I do believe vaccines will make a huge difference. But they are not here yet in enough quantities and in enough people to make that difference,” Michael Ryan, MB, WHO executive director of health emergencies, said during an online media briefing Jan. 13, held in conjunction with Emory University.

Dr. Ryan predicted that “we’ve got weeks if not months ahead of us in which our weapon is our knowledge ... what we know about this virus, its transmission, and stopping that transmission.

“And as the vaccines roll in, we can hopefully end this horrific pandemic.”

Dr. Schuitemaker reports grants from BARDA during the conduct of the study; personal fees and other from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, a J&J company, outside the submitted work. Johnson & Johnson and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services funded the phase 1/2a study.

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

Among the multiple vaccine candidates around the globe, next up in the arsenal against COVID-19 is likely the single-dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine in development from Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, infectious disease experts predict.

And it got closer with promising interim phase 1/2a trial results, published online Jan. 13 in The New England Journal of Medicine.

A single Ad26.COV2.S dose was associated with S-binding and neutralizing antibodies in more than 90% of the participants. The finding was observed in both adults aged 18-55 years and participants 65 and older, as well as for participants given low-dose or high-dose vaccinations.

The results also suggest a durable vaccine response. “The take-home message [includes] a high neutralizing antibody responder rate to a single dose of our Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine candidate. In addition, we see that these responses and antibody titers are stable for at least 71 days,” senior study author Hanneke Schuitemaker, PhD, global head of viral vaccine discovery and translational medicine at Johnson & Johnson in Leiden, the Netherlands, said in an interview.

If the single-dose Johnson & Johnson product gains Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization (EUA), it could significantly boost the number of overall immunizations available. Less stringent storage requirements – only regular refrigeration vs. a need to freeze the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines – is another potential advantage. The Ad26.COV2.S vaccine can be refrigerated for up to 3 months at 36°-46 °F (2°-8 °C).

“Phase 1-2 trial data on the J&J vaccine: If it works as well as the mRNA options, it will have substantial advantages,” Jeremy Faust, MD, an emergency room physician affiliated with Brigham & Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, tweeted on Jan. 13.

Unlike the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna messenger RNA vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson product is a recombinant, replication-incompetent adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding a full-length and stabilized SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein.
 

Phase 3 efficacy/safety results pending

Under normal circumstances, phase 3 trial results would not be anticipated within weeks of phase 1/2a trial findings. However, the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the vaccine development process, so preclinical trials were conducted simultaneously and not sequentially. For this reason, phase 3 interim results for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine are expected within weeks, and a company executive told Reuters that the rollout is on track for March.

“We hope to report data from our first phase 3 study, ENSEMBLE, in which we are testing the protective efficacy of a single dose of Ad26.COV2.S, by the end of this month or early February,” Dr. Schuitemaker said. 

In the meantime, the phase 1/2a ongoing, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial interim results have drawn positive reactions.

“Data is highly encouraging and supports the single inoculation approach that makes this vaccine unique,” Carlos del Rio, executive associate dean for Emory University at Grady in Atlanta, wrote in a tweet on Jan. 13.

“Encouraging COVID vaccine data from J&J published [Jan. 13]. Solid antibody, CD4 T cell, and CD8 T cell responses – a nice trifecta of vaccine immune responses to see! And safe!” tweeted Shane Crotty, PhD, vaccine scientist and professor at the La Jolla (Calif.) Institute for Immunology.

 

First results in 800+ participants

At baseline for the phase 1/2a trial, 2% of the younger group and 1% of the 65+ group were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 S-specific antibodies.

A total of 402 people in the younger age cohort and 403 in the 65 and older group received a first dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Many participants also received a second dose 56 days later for a separate trial, ENSEMBLE2, designed to compare safety and efficacy between single- and double-dose regimens. Results of that trial are still pending.
 

Safety profile

A single dose was associated with a higher incidence of solicited systemic adverse events in the higher vaccine dose group. They also found that grade 3 adverse events decreased with increasing age.

Injection site pain on the day of immunization or the next day was the most common local reaction. The pain generally resolved within 24 hours. Fever was reported by 15% of the low-dose vaccine group and 39% of the high-dose cohort. Fatigue, headache, and myalgia were the most common grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic adverse events reported.

Five serious adverse events were reported, including four that investigators deemed unrelated to vaccination: hypotension, bilateral nephrolithiasis, legionella pneumonia, and one case of worsening of multiple sclerosis. The vaccine-related serious adverse event was a fever that resulted in hospitalization because of suspicion of COVID-19. The patient recovered within 12 hours.

“These data confirm our previous experience with vaccine candidates based on our Ad26 viral vector platform in the younger age group. The almost similar performance in older adults is promising,” Dr. Schuitemaker said.

A potential limitation of the phase 1/2a trial is “the lack of representation of minority groups,” the researchers noted. Johnson & Johnson is working on improving the diversity of study participants “with respect to groups that seem to be affected most by the COVID-19 pandemic.”
 

AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine status

The AstraZeneca/Oxford AZD1222 vaccine in development received approval for use in the United Kingdom on Dec. 30. The approval came after Public Health England said the country was facing “unprecedented” levels of infections, the BBC reported. AstraZeneca applied for European Medical Agency approval earlier in the week of Jan. 10, which could lead to more widespread use across Europe.

The status of the vaccine remains uncertain in the United States. A phase 3 trial that started in August was paused for about 6 weeks in September and October after an adverse event in a British volunteer halted studies worldwide. On Oct. 23, the FDA permitted researchers to continue the trial with approximately 40,000 participants.

There was some suggestion in the clinical trials that a half dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine was more effective than a full dose, 90% vs. 62%, but some irregularities in the research require further investigation.

Although the AstraZeneca vaccine is delivered to cells by an adenovirus – as with the Johnson & Johnson product – it is designed to be delivered in two doses 28 days apart, like the administration schedule of the Moderna mRNA vaccine.
 

A need for speed, and more doses

Regardless of which vaccine product is next to gain an EUA in the United States, many experts agree the COVID-19 vaccine rollouts so far have been problematic, at a time when cases are climbing to record-breaking levels, and likely more related to logistics over administration of the vaccine than production of the doses.

“Lots of doses being manufactured. In December 20 million, January 40 million, February 80 million and J&J hopefully soon to add to the count. The shortage is the number arms not getting vaccinated. Freezers do not get COVID. They do not need all those vaccines,” Daniel Griffin, MD, PhD, an infectious disease expert in Port Washington, N.Y., tweeted on Jan. 12.

“Unfortunately, the rollout has not gone smoothly, partly due to a lack of resources for this distribution phase we’re in,” Andrew T. Pavia, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said during a media briefing Jan. 14 sponsored by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

“We’re concerned about the mismatch between the number of people who are being told they are eligible and the amount of vaccine that is being distributed,” he said.

Complicating the rollout is a directive from U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar that states should start vaccinating everyone 65 and older as well as those with underlying conditions.

Expanding distribution to the 15% of Americans in just this age group is a big challenge, Dr. Pavia said. “We have enough vaccine maybe to vaccinate 40 million by the end of this month. There is a huge disconnect, and that creates a lot of problems.”

“One of the biggest problems is we are trying to do this mass vaccination program in the middle of the biggest surge we’ve ever seen,” Julie Vaishampayan, MD, MPH, chair of the IDSA Public Health Committee, said during the briefing. Without sufficient time for public health officials to plan for vaccinating a larger population, “people will come and stand in extremely long lines.”

Trying to expand immunization access without a proportionate increase in available doses prompted Dr. Vaishampayan to share an analogy from a colleague: “We are trying to fill a lake with a garden hose. Rather than making the lake bigger, what we really need is more water.”

Dr. Pavia emphasized that infectious disease experts “know the measures that work.” Not using masks, physical distancing, and hand hygiene, he said, “is a bit like knowing that really good shark repellents will be available in summer, so I’m going to jump into the ocean covered in blood while the great whites are swimming around.”

An official at the World Health Organization agreed. “Vaccines are coming online and I do believe vaccines will make a huge difference. But they are not here yet in enough quantities and in enough people to make that difference,” Michael Ryan, MB, WHO executive director of health emergencies, said during an online media briefing Jan. 13, held in conjunction with Emory University.

Dr. Ryan predicted that “we’ve got weeks if not months ahead of us in which our weapon is our knowledge ... what we know about this virus, its transmission, and stopping that transmission.

“And as the vaccines roll in, we can hopefully end this horrific pandemic.”

Dr. Schuitemaker reports grants from BARDA during the conduct of the study; personal fees and other from Janssen Vaccines and Prevention, a J&J company, outside the submitted work. Johnson & Johnson and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services funded the phase 1/2a study.

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

Three-quarters of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were still experiencing at least one symptom of the infection 6 months after being discharged, according to a follow-up study involving 1,733 patients.

“Patients with COVID-19 had symptoms of fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression,” and those with “more severe illness during their hospital stay had increasingly impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations,” Chaolin Huang, MD, of Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, China, and associates wrote in the Lancet.

Fatigue or muscle weakness, reported by 63% of patients, was the most common symptom, followed by sleep difficulties, hair loss, and smell disorder. Altogether, 76% of those examined 6 months after discharge from Jin Yin-tan hospital – the first designated for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan – reported at least one symptom, they said.

Symptoms were more common in women than men: 81% vs. 73% had at least one symptom, and 66% vs. 59% had fatigue or muscle weakness. Women were also more likely than men to report anxiety or depression at follow-up: 28% vs. 18% (23% overall), the investigators said.

Patients with the most severe COVID-19 were 2.4 times as likely to report any symptom later, compared with those who had the least severe levels of infection. Among the 349 participants who completed a lung function test at follow-up, lung diffusion impairment was seen in 56% of those with the most severe illness and 22% of those with the lowest level, Dr. Huang and associates reported.

In a different subset of 94 patients from whom plasma samples were collected, the “seropositivity and median titres of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower than at the acute phase,” raising concern for reinfection, they said.

The results of the study, the investigators noted, “support that those with severe disease need post-discharge care. Longer follow-up studies in a larger population are necessary to understand the full spectrum of health consequences from COVID-19.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Three-quarters of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were still experiencing at least one symptom of the infection 6 months after being discharged, according to a follow-up study involving 1,733 patients.

“Patients with COVID-19 had symptoms of fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression,” and those with “more severe illness during their hospital stay had increasingly impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations,” Chaolin Huang, MD, of Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, China, and associates wrote in the Lancet.

Fatigue or muscle weakness, reported by 63% of patients, was the most common symptom, followed by sleep difficulties, hair loss, and smell disorder. Altogether, 76% of those examined 6 months after discharge from Jin Yin-tan hospital – the first designated for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan – reported at least one symptom, they said.

Symptoms were more common in women than men: 81% vs. 73% had at least one symptom, and 66% vs. 59% had fatigue or muscle weakness. Women were also more likely than men to report anxiety or depression at follow-up: 28% vs. 18% (23% overall), the investigators said.

Patients with the most severe COVID-19 were 2.4 times as likely to report any symptom later, compared with those who had the least severe levels of infection. Among the 349 participants who completed a lung function test at follow-up, lung diffusion impairment was seen in 56% of those with the most severe illness and 22% of those with the lowest level, Dr. Huang and associates reported.

In a different subset of 94 patients from whom plasma samples were collected, the “seropositivity and median titres of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower than at the acute phase,” raising concern for reinfection, they said.

The results of the study, the investigators noted, “support that those with severe disease need post-discharge care. Longer follow-up studies in a larger population are necessary to understand the full spectrum of health consequences from COVID-19.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

Three-quarters of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were still experiencing at least one symptom of the infection 6 months after being discharged, according to a follow-up study involving 1,733 patients.

“Patients with COVID-19 had symptoms of fatigue or muscle weakness, sleep difficulties, and anxiety or depression,” and those with “more severe illness during their hospital stay had increasingly impaired pulmonary diffusion capacities and abnormal chest imaging manifestations,” Chaolin Huang, MD, of Jin Yin-tan Hospital in Wuhan, China, and associates wrote in the Lancet.

Fatigue or muscle weakness, reported by 63% of patients, was the most common symptom, followed by sleep difficulties, hair loss, and smell disorder. Altogether, 76% of those examined 6 months after discharge from Jin Yin-tan hospital – the first designated for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan – reported at least one symptom, they said.

Symptoms were more common in women than men: 81% vs. 73% had at least one symptom, and 66% vs. 59% had fatigue or muscle weakness. Women were also more likely than men to report anxiety or depression at follow-up: 28% vs. 18% (23% overall), the investigators said.

Patients with the most severe COVID-19 were 2.4 times as likely to report any symptom later, compared with those who had the least severe levels of infection. Among the 349 participants who completed a lung function test at follow-up, lung diffusion impairment was seen in 56% of those with the most severe illness and 22% of those with the lowest level, Dr. Huang and associates reported.

In a different subset of 94 patients from whom plasma samples were collected, the “seropositivity and median titres of the neutralising antibodies were significantly lower than at the acute phase,” raising concern for reinfection, they said.

The results of the study, the investigators noted, “support that those with severe disease need post-discharge care. Longer follow-up studies in a larger population are necessary to understand the full spectrum of health consequences from COVID-19.”

rfranki@mdedge.com

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

While the direct toll of the COVID-19 pandemic is being tallied and shared on the nightly news, the indirect effects will undoubtedly take years to fully measure.

Floaria Bicher/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In two papers published online Jan. 11 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers have started the process of quantifying the impact of the pandemic on the care of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).

In the first study, Rishi Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil, and colleagues from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School in Boston examined population-level data to determine how deaths from cardiovascular causes changed in the United States in the early months of the pandemic relative to the same periods in 2019.

In a second paper, Andrew J. Einstein, MD, PhD, from Columbia University Irving Medical Center/New York–Presbyterian Hospital and colleagues looked at the pandemic’s international impact on the diagnosis of heart disease.

Using data from the National Center for Health Statistics, Dr. Wadhera and colleagues compared death rates from cardiovascular causes in the United States from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, (the first wave of the pandemic) and from Jan. 1, 2020, to March 17, 2020, (the period just before the pandemic started) and compared them to the same periods in 2019. ICD codes were used to identify underlying causes of death.

Relative to 2019, they found a significant increase in deaths from ischemic heart disease nationally (1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.18), as well as an increase in deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). There was no apparent increase in deaths from heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system.

When they looked just at New York City, the area hit hardest during the early part of the pandemic, the relative increases in deaths from ischemic heart disease were more pronounced.

Deaths from ischemic heart disease or hypertensive diseases jumped 139% and 164%, respectively, between March 18, 2020, and June 2, 2020.

More modest increases in deaths were seen in the remainder of New York state, New Jersey, Michigan and Illinois, while Massachusetts and Louisiana did not see a change in cardiovascular deaths.

Several studies from different parts of the world have indicated a 40%-50% drop in hospitalization for myocardial infarction in the initial months of the pandemic, said Dr. Wadhera in an interview.

“We wanted to understand where did all the heart attacks go? And we worried that patients with urgent heart conditions were not seeking the medical care they needed. I think our data suggest that this may have been the case,” reported Dr. Wadhera.  

“This very much reflects the reality of what we’re seeing on the ground,” he told this news organization. “After the initial surge ended, when hospital volumes began to return to normal, we saw patients come into the hospital who clearly had a heart attack during the surge months – and were now experiencing complications of that event – because they had initially not come into the hospital due to concerns about exposure to the virus.”

A limitation of their data, he stressed, is whether some deaths coded as CVD deaths were really deaths from undiagnosed COVID-19. “It’s possible that some portion of the increased deaths we observed really reflect the cardiovascular complications of undiagnosed COVID-19, because we know that testing was quite limited during the early first surge of cases.”

“I think that basically three factors – patients avoiding the health care system because of fear of getting COVID, health care systems being strained and overwhelmed leading to the deferral of cardiovascular care and semi-elective procedures, and the cardiovascular complications of COVID-19 itself – all probably collectively contributed to the rise in cardiovascular deaths that we observed,” said Dr. Wadhera.

In an accompanying editorial, Michael N. Young, MD, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, N.H., and colleagues write that these data, taken together with an earlier study showing an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests at the pandemic peak in New York City, “support the notion of excess fatalities due to unattended comorbid illnesses.” That said, attribution of death in the COVID era “remains problematic.”

In the second article, Andrew Einstein, MD, PhD, and the INCAPS COVID Investigators Group took a broader approach and looked at the impact of COVID-19 on cardiac diagnostic procedures in over 100 countries.

The INCAPS (International Atomic Energy Agency Noninvasive Cardiology Protocols Study) group has for the past decade conducted numerous studies addressing the use of best practices and worldwide practice variation in CVD diagnosis.

For this effort, they sent a survey link to INCAPS participants worldwide, ultimately including 909 survey responses from 108 countries in the final analysis.

Compared with March 2019, overall procedure volume decreased 42% in March 2020 and 64% in April 2020.

The greatest decreases were seen in stress testing (78%) and transesophageal echocardiography (76%), both procedures, noted Dr. Einstein, associated with a greater risk of aerosolization.

“Whether as we reset after COVID we return to the same place in terms of the use of cardiovascular diagnostic testing remains to be seen, but it certainly poses an opportunity to improve our utilization of various modes of testing,” said Dr. Einstein.

Using regression analysis, Dr. Einstein and colleagues were able to see that sites located in low-income and lower-middle-income countries saw an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and telehealth.

Fifty-two percent of survey respondents reported significant shortages of N95 masks early in the pandemic, with fewer issues in supplies of gloves, gowns, and face shields. Lower-income countries were more likely to face significant PPE shortages and less likely to be able to implement telehealth strategies to make up for reduced in-person care. PPE shortage itself, however, was not related to lower procedural volume on multivariable regression.

“It all really begs the question of whether there is more that the world can do to help out the developing world in terms of managing the pandemic in all its facets,” said Dr. Einstein in an interview, adding he was “shocked” to learn how difficult it was for some lower-income countries to get sufficient PPE.
 

Did shutdowns go too far?

Calling this a “remarkable study,” an editorial written by Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, PhD, John W. Eikelboom, MBBS, and Salim Yusuf, MBBS, DPhil, all from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., suggests that perhaps health systems in some places went too far in closing down during the first wave of the pandemic, naming specifically Canada, Eastern Europe, and Saudi Arabia as examples.

“Although these measures were taken to prepare for the worst, overwhelming numbers of patients with COVID-19 did not materialize during the first wave of the pandemic in these countries. It is possible that delaying so-called nonessential services may have been unnecessary and potentially harmful, because it likely led to delays in providing care for the treatment of serious non–COVID-19 illnesses.”

Since then, more experience and more data have largely allowed hospital systems to “tackle the ebb and flow” of COVID-19 cases in ways that limit shutdowns of important health services, they said.

Given the more pronounced effect in low- and middle-income countries, they stressed the need to focus resources on ways to promote prevention and treatment that do not rely on diagnostic procedures.

“This calls for more emphasis on developing efficient systems of telehealth, especially in poorer countries or in remote settings in all countries,” Dr. Leong and colleagues conclude.

Dr. Wadhera has reported research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, along with fellow senior author Robert W. Yeh, MD, MBA, who has also received personal fees and grants from several companies not related to the submitted work. Dr. Einstein, Dr. Leong, Dr. Eikelboom, and Dr. Yusuf have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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